March 16, 1915

TRANSFER OF BRITISH SHIPS.


On the Orders of the Day being called:


CON

John Douglas Hazen (Minister of Marine and Fisheries; Minister of the Naval Service)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):

Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on the table of the House a copy of the Order in Council which was passed on the 9th day of March, 1915, restricting the transfer of British ships. I do this in accordance with a request of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, made yesterday.

By an Order in Council, dated 23rd January, 1915, the exportation from Canada of vessels, craft and boats of all kinds to non-British destinations is prohibited. This Order in Council, of course, applies only to British ships actually in Canadian ports.

The Order in Council, dated 9th March, 1915, is based on the Bill which is at present under consideration by the imperial authorities, and is intended to apply the restriction to all ships registered in Canada, without regard to where the ship itself may be at the time of the contemplated transfer.

In practice we require a satisfactory guarantee, and bond if necessary, from the intending purchaser that during the continuance of the war the ship will not be used directly or indirectly for the benefit of the enemies of Great Britain.

The Bill now before the imperial authorities does not apply to the Dominion of Canada, hence the necessity for the Order in Council under the provisions of the War Measures Act 67

Topic:   TRANSFER OF BRITISH SHIPS.
Permalink

BILLS WITHDRAWN.


Mr. LANCASTER presented the eighth report of the select standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines.


LIB

George Perry Graham

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM:

I observe that by the report, Bill No. 3, to amend the Railway Act, is withdrawn. Which Bill is that?

Topic:   BILLS WITHDRAWN.
Permalink
CON

Edward Arthur Lancaster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LANCASTER:

It is a Bill standing in the name of the hon. member for East Larnbton (Mr. J. E. Armstrong), which deals with two subjects, the question of discrimination under the Act, and the rates charged for the carriage of goods on inland waters.

Topic:   BILLS WITHDRAWN.
Permalink
LIB
CON

Edward Arthur Lancaster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LANCASTER:

It is a Bill to confirm an agreement between the Canadian Northern Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. The agreement, however, is not completed. The Bill was not discussed in the committee because the promoters said they were not able to proceed with it, and asked leave to withdraw it.

Topic:   BILLS WITHDRAWN.
Permalink

ST. LAWRENCE WATER LEVELS.


Hon. J. D. HAZEN presented the report of the commission appointed by Order in Council of the 17th of March, 1913, to investigate and report to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries upon the water levels of the St. Lawrence river at and below Montreal, together with a summary prepared by the chief hydrographer of the survey, showing the results of the investigation; and moved that the report and the summary be printed.


CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member proposes to make a motion for the suspension of the rules in connection with the printing of these documents. It seems to me that the rule, which requires that all matters presented to the House should go directly to the Printing Committee for their consideration, is being more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and if that committee is to be of any value, it seems desirable that it should be allowed to exercise its judgment on many matters before these matters are finally dealt with by a suspension of the rules.

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE WATER LEVELS.
Permalink
CON

John Douglas Hazen (Minister of Marine and Fisheries; Minister of the Naval Service)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HAZEN:

In view of what you say, I would withdraw my motion and allow the report to go through the ordinary course.

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE WATER LEVELS.
Permalink

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

LIB

David Arthur Lafortune

Liberal

Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege.

I see in the Montreal Gazette of this morning the following:

At an early hour this morning in the midst of a lengthy speech on the war budget, Mr. i). A. Lafortune, M.P., of Montreal, startled the House of Commons by propounding the following doctrine: " We in Canada should, instead of voting millions to aid England, take the necessary means to cause the disabilities under which French-Canadians suffer in the province of Ontario to disappear."

Mr. Lafortune repeated his statement twice, though questioned iby Mr. Rochon, M.P., as to what power the Federal Government had to interfere.

I declare, Mr. Speaker, that I never said such a thing. The gentleman representing the Montreal Gazette appears to have deliberately put into my mouth words that 1 never used; but I am sure he will do me the justice of correcting his statement. What I said was that the school question was a very important one, and I say now that it is a very important question, but I never meant to say that it was more important than the war; quite the contrary. I hope the gentleman who represents the Montreal Gazette will do me the justice of acknowledging in the next issue of his paper that he made a mistake.

Topic:   QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Permalink

THE BUDGET.

PROPOSED WAR TAXATION.


Consideration of the proposed motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) for the Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier thereto, resumed from March 15.


?

Right Hon. S@

case there is a tax upon the wealthier man of ten cents and in the other case a tax upon the poor man of five cents. Let us see how the tax will apply to a ticket for a passage on a steamboat. Up to $10 no tax whatever is paid. A man buying a berth costing from $10 up to $30 pays at the rate of one dollar; from $30 to $60 he pays at the rate of $3 and above $60 at the rate of $5. The man pays the higher rate who is able to pay for the better accommodation on the steamer; the wealthier man pays the higher tax just as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance intended that he should. Under these circumstances, the attempt of my right hon. friend to suggest that the poor man is discriminated against by these tariff proposals is not only unworthy of him and of the position he holds, but is absolutely unsupported by any foundation in fact.

My right hon. friend finds protection in the tariff changes. His attitude in regard to free trade and protection has sometimes inspired the country with astonishment. I remember very well in the session of 1902 that his then Minister of Trade and Commerce, Sir Richard Cartwright, stood up and openly castigated him in the House of Commons because he had fallen away from the doctrine of free trade which he had preached in Opposition; and any one who desires to verify my words need only refer to the speech of Sir Richard Cartwright in the Hansard of that year. My right hon. friend is virtuously indignant about the protected and privileged classes of this country. Does he deny that he maintained the protective principle from 1896 to 1911? Does he deny that in 1907 he and his ministers deliberately increased protection by the tariff then brought down? When I sat where my right hon. friend sits to-day 1 heard them put forward arguments founded on protection in support of the tariff proposals which they had brought down. My right hon. friend in opposition seems to be a most excellent free-trader, at least in theory; but when he comes into power, he seems to be a fairly good protectionist, at least in practice. I remember seeing an anecdote not long ago of an inexperienced drill-sergeant in Great Britain, who was endeavouring to instruct his men in certain physical exercises, and his intention was to admonish them first to hop

on one foot and then to hop on

the other, and to keep that up alternately; but, being somewhat inexperienced and getting a little confused in his language, he said: "When I give the word of com-

mand, you must hop first on the right foot and then on the left foot, and keep that up to all eternity." My right hon. friend seems to have a free trade foot and a protectionist foot. When in opposition, he hops on the free trade foot, and when he comes into power, he hops on the protectionist foot. I presume that, so long as my right hon. friend continues in public life, that movement which has been kept up so continuously in. the past may be expected to continue in the future.

What has been the theory of protection upon which the Liberal-Conservative party has proceeded in this country? It is that our raw material plus our labour is equal to the finished product, and that as we have both we ought to use them. We saw no reason why those available resources of Canada which, by the labour of our own people, could be converted into finished products suitable for the use of our people, should not be so converted by the labour of our own people in this country. We stand for that. I have stood for it in the West of Canada as well as in the East, and I have stood for it in power as well as in opposition. With that we have coupled the principle and the belief that we are bound to maintain our customs tariff in Canada on such a standard that labouring men in Canada shall have a fair and reasonable living wage, and that the day shall not dawn that will bring down their standard of living to the scale which prevails in certain other countries which I need not mention.- We want a strong and virile labouring population in Canada to whom a reasonable living wage shall be paid, and we believe it is a good policy for this country that our raw material in Canada, so kept within our own boundaries, shall be converted by the labour of our own people into those articles which are necessary and convenient for the consumption and use of our own people. We say further, so far as that is concerned, that there is no conflict of interest, as my right hon. friend would endeavour to make it appear, between the labouring interests in Canada and the agricultural interests in Canada, because every labouring man, finding employment at a reasonable living wage in industries built up by such a policy as that, establishes the best of all markets, the home market, for the agricultural producer. That is the policy which Canada adopted in 1879, which Canada has kept up ever since and which Canada will keep up in the future, notwithstanding any

assault that my right hon. friend may make upon it.

My right hon. friend, after delivering himself of certain broadsides against that policy of protection, which he maintained for fifteen years, proceeded to declare that we had made an attack upon the British preference. He alleged that British goods, escaping the dangers of the submarines, would find themselves impaled upon our tariff. If I could anticipate an answer, I would ask my right hon. friend again why he increased the British preferential rate in 1907; but my efforts to obtain any answer on that point have been absolutely in vain, so I will not [DOT] detain the House further with them. The hon. Minister of Finance, by the proposal which he has brought down, has given Great Britain a greater preference in our market than she has ever had before. Not only has he done that, but he has established an absolutely new British preference, which in its scope is nearly three times as great as that which my right hon. friend established in 1897. I will prove that to my right hon. friend in a few moments, so that not even he will gainsay it.

Topic:   THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   PROPOSED WAR TAXATION.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   PROPOSED WAR TAXATION.
Permalink

March 16, 1915