June 1, 1922

LIB

William Gawtress Raymond

Liberal

Mr. RAYMOND:

Well, it makes some kind of rough rope too. I think it is also engaged in the manufacture of something like clothesline but binder twine is the article principally manufactured. It is a very successful factory; it makes twine of the finest quality, but it does not help to make more than, I think, about two-fifths of the needed supply. Hon. gentlemen opposite will correct me if I am wrong, but I think all the factories in Canada make about two-fifths of what we need; and you can see in a moment that if they have a shortage in the United States, through a good crop, and if we are likely to have a shortage from the same cause, the combine over there will not send their binder twine to us-they will use it in their own country. Now had we had the establishments which existed before, we would have had our own binder twine factories; they would have kept the price down, because, Sir, they would have been working against one another. I mention this industry of binder twine at the present time because, I say, the industries that supply the basic industries of the country are the most important that we have, consequently, they should be nursed

{Mr. Raymond.]

and kept in Canada to develop and supply what we are pleased to call the more basic industries.

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

Daniel Webster Warner

Progressive

Mr. WARNER:

May I ask a question?

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

William Gawtress Raymond

Liberal

Mr. RAYMOND:

Certainly.

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

Daniel Webster Warner

Progressive

Mr. WARNER:

Do you know of any of the United States companies that came over to Canada and manufactured on this side in order to dodge the tariff?

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

William Gawtress Raymond

Liberal

Mr. RAYMOND:

No, I do not. Do you? As I was about to say-I will make another attempt at it-the binder twine industry brings us close to the argument I will present in a little while on basic industries. Now, two and a half per cent off these ploughs, cultivators, and implements of that kind, may seem to be a very small amount, it does not seem to some to be an appreciable figure; but when you remember that, for instance, on a binder the duty on which was originally only twelve and a half per cent, that two and a half per cent off is 20 per cent of the protection it had, you will see that it forms a considerable amount. Remember too, that these implements made to supply the Canadian m'arket are made at the closest possible cost, but they were exported from Canada to certain countries in competition with the world. That trade has now been cut off; we have now nothing but the Canadian trade to depend upon. The condition of the money market in some countries, and the unsettled conditions in others, such as .Russia, have made exports almost impossible-I think absolutely impossible. Take another cause of difficulty. There was one factory in our city, twenty-five per cent of whose output, I believe, went to Australia. That country has seen fit to put a prohibitory duty on implements and the factory in question, which employed 1,500 hands in Brantford, is to-day absolutely closed. Moreover, that firm is considering the advisability, instead of reopening their Brantford plant, of removing to Australia and establishing a branch factory there. Now, these are things that are serious, I take it, not only to Brantford, not only to the constituency that I represent, tout very serious to Canada. If you 'are going to drive manufacturers out of Canada, or going to have them reduced to the lowest possible minimum, it would depreciate the value of farm lands and the value of farm produce in all these vicinities, and it would bring us down to where we should be only work-

The Budget-Mr. Raymond

ing to the one end, and that one end would be the development of agriculture. I doubt if this is advisable. I do not know if hon. members of the Progressive party really consider it advisable. From their arguments in this House, you would think sometimes they did but sometimes you would think they took a little broader view. Hon. members may think I

am talking for the interests of

Brantford and Brantford alone, but our business takes us over the whole of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The farmers are the customers for our manufactures. They esteem us as their friend, and we are all working for the one end, namely the success and prosperity of Canada.

On the other hand, some of the agriculturists who live upon the prairies seem to think that whatever they want to use should come in absolutely free of duty, because agriculture is represented as a basic industry. I would ask those hon. members to consider the situation a little more carefully. What would have become of this country if the early farmers had taken that ground ? What would become of any country devoted only to agriculture? We are told that there are four basic industries, agriculture, lumbering, mining and fishing, and that what applies to one applies to another. What country on the face of the earth to-day that is dependent upon one of these four basic industries has amounted to anything? We are told that they produce the wealth, and that the wealth must come from the ground. What country in the world that amounts to anything has prospered from those industries alone? I do not think it is possible. I have ransacked my brain, and I cannot find it. I do not believe there is a country on the face of the earth to-day that dependent on those industries or other industries of a like nature that has taken a forward place in the march of civilization. Why is it? It is because the whole statement is a fallacy. It is said that all the wealth comes from the ground. That was true, perhaps, in the days of Adam and Eve picking fruit in the Garden of Eden, and might have been true of other generations after. But, take the case of a ton of iron ore produced in a mine. When it is converted into steel, it becomes much more valuable, and when it is converted into other branches of technical industry it is much more valuable. When it is made into razor blades, watch springs or needles, it is further enhanced in value. What has made it valuable?

Human skill and jabour has increased the value of that article. It is a mistake to tell us that all the wealth comes from the ground. Of course, we are willing to acknowledge that some wealth comes from the ground. I have referred to iron and steel, but you can take anything you like and you will find the principle is the same, but when speaking to men of the intelligence of the hon. member opposite, it is not necessary to multiply examples.

In the countries in the world of wealth, progress and intellectual development, which have gone forward in the march of civilization, you will find that while such industries may exist, to a certain extent, they have been able to take the raw material from the ground, or from the mine, and to manufacture that raw material into something better, and by increasing its value have increased their wealth. There is a little country in Europe where there cannot be much agriculture: Switzerland has its share of agriculture, of course, but it is certain that if they had to live upon the agriculture and agricultural products, they would have to deport more than half of their population to-day. Then, why is it that Switzerland is such a wealthy country and that the people live there in such comfort? It is because they are applying human skill and labour to the raw material that is produced in other countries. The same thing is true of little Belgium, of Holland, and of our own Mother Country. It is not what Britain grows or produces out of her soil that makes her prosperous, but it is the skill and labour that she puts upon it. She turns these products into the cutlery that holds the market of the world; she gets raw cotton from Egypt and from the southern states, and, after applying skill and labour to it, sends it all over the world. Would you compare the condition of those people in Manchester and similar districts with the condition of the negroes of the southern states, who produce the raw material? It would be absurd. And yet the logical thing according to the arguments of those members, is that this country should become a producer of raw materials, that we should look upon our basic industries, agriculture, mining, lumbering and fishing as the only thing, that the industries and energies of this country should be exclusively devoted to them, and that nothing more should be produced than is produced from them. It would reduce us to the position of Gideon-ites, and we would soon be hewers of wood and drawers of water.

The Budget-Mr. Raymond

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

An hon. MEMBER:

Oh, oh.

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

William Gawtress Raymond

Liberal

Mr. RAYMOND:

I hope the hon. member for South Grey (Miss Macphail) does not have to hew very much wood. I thought I caught a gentle voice-

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

Andrew Ross McMaster

Liberal

Mr. McMASTER:

Is the hon. member not aware that Switzerland, Belgium, Holland and Great Britain are free trade countries, or very low tariff countries?

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

William Gawtress Raymond

Liberal

Mr. RAYMOND:

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

Andrew Ross McMaster

Liberal

Mr. McMASTER:

Are they not free trade countries, or countries in which a very low tariff is in force?

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

William Gawtress Raymond

Liberal

Mr. RAYMOND:

None of them has a low tariff. Holland has a high tariff, and Belgium and Switzerland-well, of course, it depends on what you call a high tariff and what you call a low tariff.

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

Daniel Webster Warner

Progressive

Mr. WARNER:

Can the hon. member tell us how the tariff will help the farmer to buy the implements that are piled up in his town of Brantford?

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

William Gawtress Raymond

Liberal

Mr. RAYMOND:

How will it help the manufacturer who has those implements piled up there to sell them by taking 2i per cent off the duty?

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

Daniel Webster Warner

Progressive

Mr. WARNER:

Is the hon. member asking me the question?

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

William Gawtress Raymond

Liberal

Mr. RAYMOND:

How will it help him to sell what he has made up now by taking 21 per cent off the duty, when the United States' manufacturers have their establishments crowded from the cellar to the roof with these implements and are only waiting for a chance to send them to Canada where they can sell them for anything? The hon. member cannot get away from the fact. The hon. member is more clever at argument than I am, but it is the facts we want.

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

Daniel Webster Warner

Progressive

Mr. WARNER:

I could not hear the hon. member, and I do not know whether he asked me the question or not. I do not think 21 per cent would make much difference one way or the other.

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

William Gawtress Raymond

Liberal

Mr. RAYMOND:

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

John Livingstone Brown

Progressive

Mr. BROWN:

Great Britain was trading with the world.

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

William Gawtress Raymond

Liberal

Mr. RAYMOND:

She was trading with the world. She got the raw material from various countries in which it was produced, countries like Russia, Sweden, Norway and the like, and she manufactured that and exported it, because there was a market for it in the world. That was what made the trade of that country. Had the British people restricted themselves to farming-and the Old Country people take the lead to-day in agriculture; I believe, at all events, we import all our best breeds of horses, cattle and swine from that little island yet-had they restricted themselves to the production of agricultural products, to the production of coal, of 'ore and so forth, where would they have been? Instead of that, they have a trade that employs skilled labour, a trade by which that skil'led labour is of value to the world at large. The policy which we want in Canada is one that will protect the skilled labourer, one that will protect labour, because it is labour that makes those products valuable. It is plain enough to me, and I think it ought to be plain enough to any man, that it is the labour that is put into an article that makes it valuable. Allusion was made to the first tariff that was put on in the United States in 1864 or 1865, during the

Civil War. That tariff was established on the basis that there should be a slight minimum tariff on all articles coming into the country; that as labour was applied to each article, the tariff should increase by gradual steps, so that the more highly skilled the labour used on the article, the greater would be the protection upon it. That is how the United States were able to develop the manufactures that they have developed. That is why the United States afterwards became, to a great extent, an exporting country. I do not claim for one moment that we should put up, as they did, a Chinese wall that would keep everything out of the country. In many instances, they made importation almost impossible. I do not believe in that; but I maintain that we should have a reasonable revenue tariff that will be levied upon all goods coming into this country. I will not say for revenue only, because then some hon. gentlemen will say that they want an excise tax. But I say a reasonable revenue tariff that should be equal and fair, as far as possible, to all the different lines of manufacture, and that would give incidental protection to those who are engaged in industry. I do not think capital needs protection so much as it needs the safety of law, so that property should be absolutely safe. That is an essential to the success of any country, and it may be taken for granted. Capital is an elusive thing; it can generally take care of itself. The tariff is not, to my idea, for the protection so much of Capital as of labour, of our mechanics and the men who do the work in the factories. As regards the sensitiveness of capital, we were all told early in life that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"; but I believe the financiers translate that differently, and they say: "The fear of loss is the beginning of wisdom." Therefore, capital, with that end in view, the fear of loss, is always able to look after itself. If it finds that the laws of this country are ag'ainst it, that it is not beneficial to invest it in the industries of this country, but that it is beneficial to invest it in the industries of the United States, you may be sure that it will go to the United States. I am speaking, not for capital, but for the labourers, the working men, the skilled mechanics, who go to make up and build up a great country. If you look at the matter calmly, you will agree with me that the whole of Canada is not only the three prairie provinces any more than it is only the constituency which I represent. If we could get together and see these things

The Budget-Mr. Raymond

properly with the right idea of building up a nation, if we could build up a nation according to our own ideals and aspirations, every member of this House would join cheerfully in the work. But the thing for us to do is to get together on this idea, and then we must carry on with an open miind. When I am told that I am a Liberal Protectionist or a Protectionist Liberal, if you translate "protection" as I translate it, I may take it as a compliment, or flattery, or anything you like, but it, perhaps, does not carry all the sting that the hon. gentleman who used the expression intended it to convey. I am one who would like to see this country developed upon those lines that I have mentioned. I should like to see progress made, and I do not think the theory of protection is altogether unknown to hon. members of the Progressive party. If, for instance, they suggested a tariff on oleomargarine I would have voted for it. But they were not satisfied with that. They wanted to make it absolutely prohibitive; it was their view to prohibit its manufacture or importation, and I could not go that far. I would have voted for reasonable protection, but that was going too far.

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

Thomas Alexander Crerar

Progressive

Mr. CRERAR:

If the hon. member

throws his mind back to the evening on which that vote was taken he will find that the Progressives, practically unanimously, opposed the resolution.

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

June 1, 1922