January 13, 1910

CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

.' That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.'

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Malcolm Smith Schell

Liberal

Mr. M. S. SCHELL (South Oxford).

In resuming the debate on the budget, I desire to join the felicitations of those who have already addressed the House on the character of the budget, and to extend to the hon. the Finance Minister my congratulations on the splendid statement which he has again presented to this House and to the country. The position which he occupies is certainly unique and unparalleled in the history of this country, and I think in the history of any country. Occupying, as he has, for the long period of thirteen years, uninterruptedly, the position of Finance Minister, he has been able to present to this House a succession of budgets that have at once given an indication of a growth, a prosperity and a development on national lines that has perhaps been unequalled in the history of any country. It is all the more gratifying to us to listen to such a statement in view of the recent world-wide depression that prevailed throughout the United States as well as European countries, and which was in a measure reflected in our own country, and which resulted in a certain recession of our trade, so that our revenue was somewhat less than it had been the year before. Last year the revenue was in the neighbourhood of $11,000,000 less than in the previous year. But we all rejoice that now there is every evidence of an increased revenue, and of a return of prosperity that will even surpass that of the record year of 1907-8. I have here a return for the month of December, from which I find that the optimistic forecast of which the Finance Minister. gave on the introduction of his budget, is more than likely to be fulfilled. For instance, we see that the total revenue for the month of December was $8,733,571, an increase of $1,550,216 or over 20 per cent compared with December of 1908. For the nine months, the revenue has been $73,390,008, an increase of $11,091,497. The increase in the customs revenue has been $9,361,421. If this increase for the month of December continues during the next three months of this fiscal year, there is no doubt that our revenue will exceed the $97,500,000 which the Minister of Finance estimated, and may possibly touch the $100,000,000 mark at the end of this current year. But there is also another pleasing fact about the returns. The expenditure, on the other hand, shows a decrease for the nine months of $3,034,492 on consolidated fund account, and of $2,290,206 on capital account. The total expenditure on consolidated fund account was $47,-

398,129, and on capital $24,026,137, of which about $17,000,000 was on the National Transcontinental railway. We rejoice in the return of prosperity that has come to us, and we believe that we are on the eve of a growth and a development that has not heretofore been reached in the Dominion of Canada.

Now, Sir, I do not propose to answer at any great length the speech that was delivered by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) prior to the adjournment of the debate. But there are one or two statements he made which I wish to correct, and to give some information that will show that he was labouring under a misapprehension in some of the figures that he gave to the House. I would not for a moment hint that he was endeavouring to create a wrong impression, or that he wished to prejudice the country against the methods of book-keeping that prevail the government offices; but certainly he used some very strong language for one who apparently was not able to harmonize the records as they appear in the Statistical Year-book and the Trade and Navigation returns. For instance he says that the Statistical Year-book gives, for the exports in 1896, $117,684,799, while in the Trade and Navigation returns they are given as $121,013,852.

There is that difference, I presume. I have not looked up the Year-book but have [DOT]simply taken the trade and navigation returns, from which it is easy to see how that difference occurs. For instance, the hon. gentleman has quoted the two years 1896 *and 1900 in making these comparisons of exports. For 1896 there was an estimated amount short reported, as it appears in the Trade and Navigation report, of $3,329,053, which, if added to the figure given in the Statistical Year-book would correspond exactly with the total amount that is given in the trade and navigation returns. It will be observed thaOhese two figures are given on the same page of our trade and navigation returns, no attempt is made to mislead or to falsify the accounts. The Statistical Year-book does not profess to give as complete a record as the returns published in the Trade and Navigation report. In the year 1900 there is an item ' estimated short reported $5,461,411.' That added to what appears in the Year-book would make exactly the amount which he has quoted as appearing in the trade and navigation returns. The circumstances in the other two years he has quoted are exactly the same, his figures are the same simply because there were no figures in that column ' estimated short reported.' Take the columns for imports. He says that the Statistical Year-book for 1896 gives $110,587,480, and that in the trade and navigation return the figure is $118,011,508. If he had given as

much attention to the task of ascertaining the exact facts as he appeared desirous of prejudicing the House, he would have had no difficulty in seeing that these reports are exactly correct. On pages 2 and 3 of the Trade and Navigation report he will find both the amounts to which he has referred. The figures in the Statistical Year-book are taken from the imports that come into the country for consumption only, and he quotes from the trade and navigation returns the total imports. Both are given in the Trade and Navigation report and both are correct, but, as I said, the Statistical Year-book does not profess to go into these figures as elaborately and as fully. If he wished to have the facts they are there before his eyes. I shall not refer further to the different figures which he quoted, but an hon. member is not justified in using such language as this:

But when we find a discrepancy of millions of dollars in corresponding statements given in these blue-books what must we expect to find in the other accounts? Is it a fact that we are standing on a volcano and that the statement given every year by the Finance Minister is a cooked statement?

Very 'strong language indeed, I think rather unbecoming language to be employed by a member without having made a very careful study of the accounts he proposes to criticise. I have been in the House five years and I do not think I have heard a single member question the correctness of the statements in the blue-books. The hon. member is apparently trying to create an impression in this country that there is *at least carelessness in the manner of computing the statistics published in our blue-books.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

John Allister Currie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. A. CURRIE.

What authority is there for these estimated shortages, except a fancied authority in the mind of some official?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Malcolm Smith Schell

Liberal

Mr. SCHELL.

I presume it was impossible to get the exact returns when the statements were published, but I would call attention to the fact that from 1868 to 1900 that column appears in the trade and navigation returns. Since 1900 it has been dispensed with.

The hon. member has taken exception to the methods that have been adopted in regard to the expenditure of the public funds of the country and he objects to the maintenance of the two funds, the consolidated fund account and the capital expenditure account. If he had his way he would unite these two accounts and have but one account in which all the moneys would be written up so that if there was any surplus whatever it would appear in excess over the total expenditure of the year. Personally, I prefer to take the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) as a better critic in the matter of book-keeping. The system that has been followed by the present govern-

ment is exactly the same as that followed! by the government prior to 1896 with one exception, and that is with regard to the bounties that have been paid by this government, which have been charged to capital expenditure. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has clearlv explained the reasons for that change, and I think the reasons he has advanced are very good reasons. An expenditure made for the building up one of the great basic industries of this country is practically on a par with an expenditure in the way of a railway subsidy in helping a great public work.

However, I do not wish to quarrel with my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie). He says that the former government had a surplus in only one year during the whole eighteen years they were in power, namely 1882, but he says the present government has had surpluses in four years. If the hon. member is willing to concede that this government has done four times as well in the matter of surpluses as the former government, I suppose we need not complain. Following the system that has been adopted by the present government, as well as the preceding government, I wish to consider briefly the matter of surpluses as they appear in the records. You will find that under the former government they had a number of surpluses. There were surpluses during the financial years 1886-7, 1888-9, 1889-90, 1890-91, 1891-92, 189293, or in six years in a period of twelve years, they had small surpluses amounting in all to over $9,000,000. But during that same period, from 1884 to 1896, they had deficits larger than their surpluses. These deficits were as follows:

1884- 5

$2,240,0001885- 6

5,834,5711887-8

810,0311893- 4

1,210,3321894- 5

4,153,8001895- G

330,500

Or a total of deficits during that period of over $14,000,000. With the exception of the year 1896-7, I am glad to say that the present government have always had a surplus. In the first year after the Liberals assumed the reins of power there was a deficit of $519,981.44, but the following year and from that to the present time they have had each year a substantial surplus amounting to as high as $16,000,000 in one year, and giving in all a total of surpluses amounting to $114,558,259, from which deducting the deficit of the first year youi have a total of surpluses during the Liberal regime amounting to $114,068,277.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON.

Would the hon. gentleman permit a question here?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON.

Would he be kind enough to tell us what has become of all these surpluses?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB
LIB

Malcolm Smith Schell

Liberal

Mr. SCHELL.

With very much pleasure. The surpluses that have accrued to the credit of the government have been expended on capital account, and I should suppose that my hon. friend who has been in the House for a great many years would know that.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Malcolm Smith Schell

Liberal

Mr. SCHELL.

They were surpluses over and above the ordinary or current expenditure. My hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) is too old a parliamentarian, I should judge, not to be better posted than he appears to be. He has been in the House long enough to be very well versed in the system of keeping the governmental accounts not only by this government but by the preceding Conservative government. However, he wants to know what has become of these surpluses and I have great pleasure in telling him that they have been expended on public works which stand as assets to the credit of the Dominion of Canada; not liquid assets in a sense, not interest bearing assets, but assets that indirectly contribute to the wealth and the growth and the prosperity of the country. For instance, I could give a statement of some of the expenditures that have been made from this source. Take the betterment of our canals. Does my hon. friend not consider that to be a wise expenditure on capital account; and on canals during the years of office of the present government there has been an expenditure of $28,385,227. Take again the Montreal harbour and the St. Lawrence ship channel. Who would say that is not a great national work in the interests of Canada and one which contributes immensely to the prosperity and the general welfare of our country? On improving the Montreal harbour and St. Lawrence ship channel there has been expended by this government $7,663,062. Then, in bonuses or subsidies to railways throughout the Dominion there have been expended $24,679,973; for harbours at Fort William, Port Arthur and Port Colborne there have been expended $2,276,303, and on the Quebec harbour $765,225. These are a few of the expenditures that have been made out of the surpluses to which I have already called the attention of the House. Now, I said that there had been surpluses to the amount of $114,000,000. Expenditures on capital account have been made to .the amount of $212,000,000 during the twelve and three quarter years of Liberal government. It is true that our debt has increased somewhat, and of necessity it would have to increase when we have surpluses of $114,000,000 and capital expenditure of $212,000,000, and so we have had to borrow some money to meet these extra expenditures on capital account. But,

if you deduct the expenditure on the National Transcontinental railway and the Quebec bridge amounting to $58,500,000, you will see that all the government has had to borrow during the whole, twelve and three-quarter years have been about $7,000.000. As I say, this has come from the wise management by this government of the finances of the country, so that they hail a sufficiency to meet the demands of government, apart from the National Transcontinental railway, with the exception of some $7,000,000. On the other hand, how does that compare with the record of the former government? During the whole eighteen years of their term the total expenditure of the Conservative government on capital account was $167,162,252. Did they have nearly enough money to meet that capital expenditure? No. We find that they had to borrow money, that the revenue was not sufficient to meet the current expenditure and leave any considerable amount to apply on capital account, and out of that $167,000,000 during their whole eighteen years of office they only had $49,000,000 to apply on capital account. In other words, they had to go to the English market and borrow to the extent of $118,000.000 as against the $7,000,000 that this government lias had to borrow during their twelve and three-quarter years. It will of course be said that the Conservative government built the Canadian Pacific railway. Well, eliminating the Transcontinental railway and eliminating the Canadian Pacific railway if you will, you will then see that the Conservative government had to borrow at least five times as much as the present government has had to borrow for the carrying on of the affairs of the country.

The hon. member for North Simcoe, as do many others on that side of the House, seems to think that because there is an adverse balance of trade against us it is an indication that the country is not prospering as it should. I am not very much surprised that our friends opposite sometimes think there is danger when they see an adverse balance of trade, because during their regime they had a very sad experience in that respect and perhaps it has made a very deep impression on their minds. In looking briefly into this question I find that from 1878 to 1896 the total imports were $2,044,807,768 and the total exports $1,682,592,467. There was an excess of imports over exports of $362,215,301, or an average of $20,123,000 per year for the whole 18 year period. If there had been compensating assets or sources of revenue or something to compensate for this adverse balance of trade it would not have seemed so bad, but we find that during their regime there was no material increase in population, there was no great inflow

of immigrants to the country, no great public works, apart from the C.P.R., were constructed, to stand as great assets to the country. So, I say that this adverse balance of trade was a menace, and I am not surprised that they are so much concerned when they see a small adverse balance of trade accruing under the present government. The hon. member says that there is an adverse balance of trade during the twelve years up to the present time of $202,604,892. I do not know whether his figures are correct, but I have. taken his own figures. With less than half the volume of trade, according to his figures, we have only about half the amount of an adverse balance. He says that when there is an adverse balance of trade, or even when trade is buoyant, times in the country are not so good. I take issue with him. In the first place, when trade is buoyant and is increasing rapidly, it is the best possible evidence of good times and prosperity as a whole in the country. I also take issue with him when he says that an adverse balance of trade is always a bad sign. Of course, there is a limit to which we can go with an adverse balance of trade without evil effects accruing to the finances of our country, but a small adverse balance of trade under certain conditions, is almost, I was going to say, a matter of necessity. I think I might use that expression in connection with the affairs of the country as we have seen them during the past twelve and three-quarter years. When the country is growing rapidly, when the population is increasing, when capital is coming to our shores for investment these things contribute to the increase of trade and especially do they contribute to the increase of imports. We will take, for instance, the money that has flowed into the Dominion of Canada for various purposes and see what we have as a compensating asset against this small amount of $202,000,000 which our friend says stands as an adverse balance of trade. For railway construction and for other public works it is estimated that at least $300,000,000 have come into the Dominion of Canada during the last twelve or fifteen years. The hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Fowke), from a source that I suppose is fairly reliable, stated that at least $220,000,000 have come from the United States for investment in industrial enterprises during the last twelve years. We have had about 500.000 immigrants during the last nine years from the United States and it is estimated that last year alone the 90,148 immigrants who came into Canada from the United States brought with them, on the average, $1,000 apiece. That would amount to $90,000,000. Those that came in during preceding years, numbering, as I have said, some 500,000, less those who came

in last year, have brought in at least from $100,000,000 -to $150,000,000. Some may say that this is an exaggerated estimate. It may be somewhat large but for those who have seen the class of immigrants who are coming in from the United States, farmers who have sold their farms at good prices and many of whom have brought in from $5,000 to $20,000, it is not unreasonable to suppose that this estimate is fairly correct. So that, from this source we have had brought into the Dominion money to the extent of iabout $250,000,000. I am leaving out entirely the money that has been brought by immigrants from Great Britain and other European countries. During the last twelve years immigration from Europe has totalled about 700,000 people. Possibly they have brought in $50,000,000, perhaps more; certainly they have brought in a considerable amount of money. Added to all that, political economists tell us that every able-bodied citizen who comes into the country becomes an asset worth, at least, $1,000. If we add that to the amount I have already named, you will see that we have a compensating asset to stand against any adverse balance of trade amounting to nearly $2,000,000,000. The figures are large but still they are figures that cannot b'e gainsaid. It is a fact that stands there and it, in a very large measure, answers the question: Why is it that our banks are receiving such an immense amount in deposits? Why is it that the general prosperity of the country is so evident? It is because of this large capital which has gone into circulation, and hence I say that this money which has come in and in some cases part of it going out for the purpose of buying imports, has materially contributed to what appears to be an adverse balance of trade. We know, however, that an adverse balance of trade is the usual experience of nearly all of the great countries of the world. Great Britain, Germany, France, Holland, Italy for the last thirty years have nearly always had an adverse balance of trade. The United States is frequently referred to as a country that has an excess of exports over imports, but if you go back and look at the history of the United States you will see that from 1855 to 1873 they had an excess of imports over exports amounting to $70,000,000 annually. So, I say there is no ground for alarm; in fact, there is no reason whatever for us feeling that there is any danger from the small balance of trade that has been referred to. I wish to call your attention to a statement that was made by the Vice President of the Montreal Bank in his annual report. He says:

The adverse balance of trade has thus again begun to grow, but while men and money pour into Canada from abroad the disparity need not cause uneasiness. Domes-Mr. SCHELL.

tic industries are, speaking generally, working well up to the limit of capacity. Labour is fully employed; the lumber trade has improved. The export of dairy produce has been larger than last year, with high prices ruling throughout the season, all farm products, indeed, are exceptionally dear.

That is the view that is entertained by this high authority that I have quoted.

Now, in the matter of loans, our friends opposite seem to think that the government are not effecting loans as cheaply as they were effected under their regime. Well, possibly some of the loans are not effected as cheaply. We know that money fluctuates in the money markets of the world like any other commodity. After the Boer war, money became much dearer, and in consequence of tile increase in the rates of interest, it was not practicable, in the last few years, to renew loans on as favourable terms as in previous periods. Therefore our government as we have heard from the hen. the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) on more than one occasion, found it more difficult to replace loans as cheaply as they could a few years ago, and our Finance Minister only made loans at short terms so that he might be able to take advantage of the market when, in the natural order of things, money became more plentiful. Let me read a statement which appeared in the Toronto ' Saturday Night,' written by its financial editor, and which I think bears directly on the subject :

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink

OUR DEBT.


It may be interesting to know that while the public debt of Canada is strictly increasing, the rate of interest is decreasing. At confederation, fdrty-two years ago, the dominion paid an average rate of 5 -55 per cent on $67,069,115 which London had advanced. The interest on this which had to be remitted, either in the sale of produce or in gold, amounted to $3,700,000 yearly. After the lapse of ten years, or in 1877, the debt of the country to London had increased to $122,477,629, but the average interest rate had been scaled down to 4 -74 per cent. In the next ten years the federal debt of Canada had reached $171,075,735, while the average rate of interest had fallen to 3 -.99 per cent. This entailed the sending abroad of $7,000,000 for the payment of interest on the debt. In the next decade, ending in 1897, Canada's obligations to London had increased to $218,225,503, necessitating an annual interest of $8,125,664, but the average rate of interest had fallen to 3 -72 per cent. According to the return for the past fiscal year, our debt to London had swollen to $262,000,000, on which the interest charge will be about $9,300,000, which is at the rate of 3J per cent. In the forty-two years, therefore, of the life of the Dominion of Canada, her obligations to London in borrowings had grown from $67,000,000 to $262,000,000, an increase of $195,000,000, and while the total annual cost to the government had expanded from $3,700,000 to $9,300,000 annually, the aver- age rate at which the borrowings had been made were reduced from 5-55 per cent, to 3-56 per cent. There, I think is a complete answer to the contention of our hon. friends opposite that the government is not effecting loans cn as good terms as they should be able to do. Let me quote also from the remarks of Mr. Byron Walker, president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, made on his return from England this last summer: There never was a time when the English investor was so ready to consider favourably Canadian investments. Mr. Walker said, * As a matter of fact there never was a time when Canadian credit was so good. It is so good that we Canadians must be careful. 1 think I can truthfully say that rve have never sold the English investor bad securities. We have given him good value for his money, and we must continue to do so/ The London 'Standard' remarks: Having regard to the present monetary conditions we think the Canadian government is to be congratulated, first upon the policy of raising money at the present moment in short term maturities rather than on stock, and second upon the terms on which the bills were sold. It was only a few days ago that our Finance Minister cabled to his financial agent in London that he wished to avail himself of i the privilege stipulated in a loan, made in 1885, of £4,000,000, for fifty years at four per cent. That privilege allowed the government to replace that loan at the end of twenty-five years on giving six months' notice* and on the 31st of December, the hon. the Finance Minister cabled to London that he proposed taking advantage of that option. No doubt he believes that the present is an opportune time for the government to replace its four per cent loan effected in 1885 by the former government, and I have no doubt he will be able to do so on more favourable terms. My hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) seemed very much concerned about the claims that are urged by our western friends, who claim to have a record wheat [DOT]crop of 100,000,000 bushels, and he went on to say: If they look into the trade returns, they will find that 44,000,000 bushels of wheat is the largest amount exported from this country in any one year. If my hon. friend had taken any pains, if he had looked up the trade and navigation returns he would have found that that is not a correct statement. For instance, we find that in 1898 the exports of wheat amounted to $44,000,000, which would represent a good deal more than 44,000,000 bushels, because wheat was not woTth $1 a bushel in that year. That was of the crop of 1907 and previous years, ,not the crop of 1908. I do not see where the hon. member found his figures, for, in these returns, right in the adjoining column he would find the returns for 1909 showing an export of $57,891,304 worth of wheat-and this would be of the wheat crop of 1908 and not of 1909, and, in addition, $7,991,517 worth of flour, making a total value of $65,882,821 worth of wheat and flour exported of the crop of 1908 and preceding years.


CON

John Allister Currie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. A. CURRIE.

For the information of the hon. member I may state that the quotation was for 1908 and was taken from the Statistical Year-book and not from the trade and navigation returns. The trade and navigation returns from which the hon. member is quoting are the unrevised returns for last year. I took the latest actual figures that I could get, which are to be found in the Canadian Statistical Year-book.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   OUR DEBT.
Permalink
LIB

Malcolm Smith Schell

Liberal

Mr. SCHELL.

I am quoting from the revised figures. These trade and navigation returns are revised and absolute. The hon. member (Mr. Currie) went back to 1908, as I have stated, instead of 1909. The hon. member referred to the crop of 1909, but based his figures on the crop of 1907. Besides, he gave the figures for wheat alone, he quoted bushels instead of dollars and he left out flour entirely. These errors made a difference of fifty per cent in the statement he presented to the House.

A good deal of attention has been given to the average rate of duty on imnorts into Canada. Almost the only criticism of the present tariff by our opponents is levelled at the rate of duty on dutiable imports. In all their statements they totally ignore the free imports. Now, that is wholly unfair. The present government, when it came into power, declared that certain commodities should be put upon the free list. Surely, that is to be regarded as a reduction-it is a reduction to the limit. We must consider the free imports, then, if we seek to arrive at a fair idea of the tariff imposed on goods imported into Canada. We find that the total free imports from 1884 to 1896 were $457,739,263. The total free imports from 1897 to 1909, a period of equal length, were $1,108,199,713, or $650,459,950 more of free imports during the latter period than during the former. If these goods, instead of being admitted free, had been charged the average rate of duty which is now charged on dutiable goods, the Canadian people would have had to pay higher customs duties to the amount of $107,586,075.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   OUR DEBT.
Permalink
CON

John Allister Currie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. A. CURRIE.

What has that to do with it?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   OUR DEBT.
Permalink
LIB

Malcolm Smith Schell

Liberal

Mr. SCHELL.

That shows that the government has been carrying on a policy that makes for free trade to the extent of allowing this amount of goods to come in free of tariff charge.. Or, if you wish to look at

it another way: The total free and dutiable goods imported since 1896 amounted to $2,822,097,615, had these imports been charged at the difference between the rate of duty that obtained in 1896 and the present rate, the Canadian people would have had to pay into the Dominion treasury $71,681,279 more than they actually did pay. Some may doubt these figures, but I challenge any one to disprove them. The average rate of duty is shown here in the blue-book, and I have never heard the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), who is the best authority on that side of the House, dispute the correctness of these figures. And I notice that in his reference to this matter he was very guarded and was careful always to state ' dutiable imports ', thus leaving out the free imports in his comparison between the charges that were made by the former government and those made by the present government. If you take the dutiable and free imports, which is the only fair basis, you find that the average rate of duty in 1896 was 19T29 per cent, while in 1909 the average rate was 16 -.586 per cent, or a difference of $2.54 on every $100 worth of goods imported into Canada. At this rate, as I have stated, the people of Canada would have paid over $7,000,000 more than they actually have paid on the imports since 1896.

Great stress has been laid on the fact that our revenue has increased very materially, and so it is said our rate of taxation per capita is correspondingly increased. That is not a fair statement by any means. The rate of revenue has increased, it is true-it has increased per capita of the people of the Dominion from about $7 to $11. But the rate of taxation has not increased per capita, if it is properly and fairly analysed and put in its proper light, lor instance, I want to mention as an illustration a simple fact which clearly explains this point. In the town of Tilson-burg, a small town of about 3,000 population in my constituency, an American firm has established a milk condensing factory, and they have brought into that town about $50,000 worth of machinery, upon which they have paid a duty, in round figures, of $9,500, and that has gone into the revenue of the country. You may say that the people of this country have been taxed to that extent, according to the argument that is made by our friends opposite. Now I take exception to that argument; it is not fair, it is not putting the matter in a fair light! If you apply that revenue to the people of that town of 3,000, there is an addition to the revenue of this country of over $3 for every man, woman and child in the town of Tilsonburg, on that one item alone. Consequently if the .revenue has increased from $8 per head to $11 per head, here is Mr. SCHELL. *

$3 of it accounted for in that one item. Is it fair to say to the people of Tilsonburg, you are taxed $11 per head now, whereas you were only taxed $8 in 1896? But that is not all. This, firm has also brought in capital to the extent of some $70,000, in addition to the $50,000 for machinery, which they have expended in that town for labour and material, and this also has gone to contribute, somewhat indirectly I admit, but has contributed somewhat to the revenue of the country. I mention this fact to make clear the point I am trying to put before the House. And this is an instance that might be multiplied a hundred-fold, perhaps a thousand-fold throughout the Dominion of Canada, if the subject were fully and thoroughly investigated. As I said a few minutes ago, it is believed that at least $220,000,000 of American capital has come into Canada for investment in our industrial enterprises. That capital has gone to pay revenue, directly and indirectly. Two to three hundred million dollars of capital have come in for the purpose of building our railways, and that has gone to a large extent into the Dominion treasury to pay for duties imposed on material used in the construction of these railways.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   OUR DEBT.
Permalink
CON

John Allister Currie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. A. CURRIE.

May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? I would like to know if there is a duty, or a protective tariff, on the product of the factory which he speaks of?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   OUR DEBT.
Permalink
LIB
CON

John Allister Currie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. A. CURRIE.

Then, according to the principles of the hon. gentleman, it would be advisable to take that duty off. Would he, as a free trader, be in favour of taking that duty off?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   OUR DEBT.
Permalink

January 13, 1910