My right hon. friend is altogether mistaken. The Fordney measure, which affects the importation of agricultural products from Canada and other countries, is in effect, but the general tariff is not in effect. The tariff which is in effect is still the Underwood tariff passed in 1913, which contains a large list of free articles entering the United States. My hon. friends are extremely anxious to bring to Canada capital needed for Canada's development. They argue that it is necessary to secure money needed for the development of our resources. I think it was my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) who urged the argument that because of the principle of protection in Canada during the last thirty years, 350 manufacturing concerns in United States had opened branches in Canada and spent one hundred million dollars in this country. I am not sure that is greatly adding to the wealth of Canada. To-day, United States manufacturers are turning their eyes to Quebec. Why are they doing so? In the words of a manufacturer of some note in the United States, it is because of steadier labour conditions in Quebec that they are
turning their eyes to that province as a manufacturing centre. But what profit is it nationally to Canada to have one, two, three or five million dollars coming in from the United States for the establishment of a factory in Sherbrooke, Three Rivers or any other town in Quebec for the manufacture of goods, and then to have all the profits made on those goods go back to the shareholders in the United States? Is that a sound policy of development?
Subtopic: CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE