June 7, 1922

CON

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

From the Trade

Reports of Canada, March, 1922.

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

John Frederick Johnston

Progressive

Mr. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain) :

The hon. member says the figures have been padded. By whom, may I ask?

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

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

I cannot tell, but the hon. member for Marquette, having given the figures, must be responsible for them. They are not correct. I can see no other person who is going to benefit from it except the hon. member for Marquette.

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

Milton Neil Campbell

Progressive

Mr. CAMPBELL:

I notice that the hon. member for Marquette said "Last year".

I presume he meant the year 1921. .

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

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

No, and to prove that the hon. member who has just spoken is

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin

entirely wrong, I have in my hand the skeleton statement which evidently was used by the hon. member for Marquette. The hon. member for Marquette has been a member of this House for many years, and has made a study of these books, as no doubt hon. members are aware, and I say that he has no business to quote from this skeleton statement when he knows that furs and fish are included there. They have no business to be taken in as the products of the farm.

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

Thomas William Bird

Progressive

Mr. BIRD:

May I ask the hon. member a question?

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

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

I do not mind answering questions, but you can very readily see, Mr. Speaker, that I shall not get very far if there continue to be as many notes of interrogation, but I will let this one go.

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

Thomas William Bird

Progressive

Mr. BIRD:

Do I understand the hon. member to say that the leader of the Progressive party stated that this amount of exports came from the farms?

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

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

I read his statement from Hansard.

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

Thomas William Bird

Progressive

Mr. BIRD:

Will you kindly read it again?

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

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

I am not going to do that because the hon. gentleman has the Hansard himself, and I have already read it to the House.

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

Milton Neil Campbell

Progressive

Mr. CAMPBELL:

I submit that the hon. member is not stating the figures correctly.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER; The hon. member who has the floor is entitled to continue his address, and is not required to answer any questions unless he so desires and intimates. I would ask hon. members not to interrupt without his permission.

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

Thomas William Bird

Progressive

Mr. BIRD:

Would the hon. member

permit me to make myself clear? I understand the hon. member to say that the leader of the Progressive party claimed a total of $453,000,000. Is he aware that that is not according to the figures as given in Hansard?

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

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

For the benefit of the hon. member I will read again the statement made by the hon. member for Marquette-Hansard, page 2558:

Of this total, vegetable products accounted for $318,000,000 and animal products $135,000,000 ; in other words, $453,000,000 of the $740,000,000 of exports last year had their origin in the farms of Canada

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

Milton Neil Campbell

Progressive

Mr. CAMPBELL:

Last year, 1921.

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

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

So that there may be no misunderstanding as to what year was intended, I have here the document from the Department of Customs which gives the total exports for 1922 at $740,000,000, just as the hon. member for Marquette stated, and it gives the domestic items, the agricultural and vegetable products, agricultural and vegetable products other than foods, and animal products. So there is no doubt as to what year he meant. I hope, Mr. Speaker, they will be quiet for a moment now.

But that is not all. Not only is $29,000,000 of fish and approximately $15,000,000 of furs padded into the products of the farms of Canada, but when the hon. member also includes in the products of the farm over $5,000,000 of manufactures of leather, and harness and boots and shoes, I think it is pretty nearly the limit. I find by the records that in the figure as given by the hon. member for Marquette there is included leather, $360,000; sole leather, $1,710,518; upper leather, $2,344,024; other leather, $350,410; belting, $1,348; boots and shoes, $272,346; gloves, $9,948; harness, $34,359; other manufactures of leather, $88,584, making a total of $5,171,785. After the way hon. members have talked about boots and shoes and things of that kind, I think it is rubbing it in to pad the exports of farm products with these leather goods.

But that is not all. Notwithstanding all they have said respecting canned goods in this country, they grab the canned goods as an export of the farm and add them to the list of farm exports, and that they have done both in respect to canned fruit and canned vegetables to the extent of something like $2,000,000.

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

Donald MacBeth Kennedy

Progressive

Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton) :

Does

the hon. member dispute the fact that canned fruits have their origin on the farms?

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

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

Would it not be foolish for anybody to dispute the fact that fruits and vegetables come from the farms of Canada; but when an article has had manufacturing work performed on it to the extent that canned goods and boots and shoes have, I think it becomes a manufactured article. If it does not, then the arguments that my hon. friends have been using for years in respect of canned goods and boots and shoes fall to the ground. I never knew that these were products of the farm. But there are many other examples.

The Budget

Mr. Chaplin

The other night, I think it was, the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) delivered a tremendous tirade upon automobiles and automobile tires, and yet I find that in the matter of rubber goods, rubber and its manufactures are padded into the lists of goods represented in the figures as given by that hon. member. I will give you the items: Rubber, rubber waste, rubber belting, rubber boots and shoes, manufactured rubber products and tires to the extent of over $4,000,000. But that is not enough, Mr. Speaker. There is another article that our friends from the left have been giving us a lot of talk about and that is sugar; and yet they have taken the whole of the sugar products of Canada and shoved them into farm products. Why? Because a small quantity originates on the farm. Such a thing is unreasonable because these products amount to $11,600,000. Why they have even grabbed the exports of tea and coffee.

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:

Tea comes from

the land.

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

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

Of course tea comes

from the land and so does coffee. My hon. friends have also grabbed tobacco, cigarettes and cigars because they naturally come from the farm. Such an article as macaroni, was also purloined, likewise corn starch, potato starch, oil cake, linseed oil and vegetable oils; all were put into farm product. Last, but by no means least, to the astonishment of myself, and no doubt to the astonishment of all the members within the sound of my voice, they grabbed all the whisky, gin and beer that there was and incorporated them in "farm products of Canada." Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit first of all that the items that I have read, which amount to the not inconsiderable sum of over $70,000,000, when taken off the figure as given by the hon. member for Marquette, will make a very decided difference in the aggregate of the export of farm products' and will cause a very great difference in the argument.

There is another feature I want to call attention to. I have made no mention of articles that might more properly be said to be articles which are no longer made on the farm but are made from materials produced from the farm. I refer especially to such things as butter, cheese, milk powder, condensed milk, milk products, and oils such as neatsfoot oil. My hon. friends have even got codliver oil, whale oil and seal oil added to their list. I want [Mr. Chaplin.!

to say this also that in respect to the articles that I have just read and that I will repeat-bran and shorts, oatmeal, wheat flour, cereal foods, biscuits, vegetable oils, cheese, butter, condensed milk, and other oils-although I readily admit that they are products from the farm their value is considerably enhanced when they leave the farm and go through manufacturing processes. Now I ask in all reason and common sense why the total amount should be put to the credit of farm products when at least 50 per cent must be credited to factories. The total amount of such articles as I am referring to would reach the not inconsiderable sum of another $100,000,000; and if it is reasonable to say that one-half of that amount ought to be credited to manufactures, as it should be, then those farm products that have been exported are further reduced by another $50,000,000. That again spoils the argument of my hon. friend from Marquette, and also spoils the argument of other hon. gentlemen who have dilated at such length on the tremendous amount of our farm exports.

The truth of the matter is just as the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Low) said the other day that 73 per cent -I claim 80 per cent-of the total products of the farms of Canada are consumed at home. Therefore I ask hon. members if it is the intention to do something to destroy the valuable home market that the farmers of this country enjoy? I will make this statement which I can amply prove, that more than 85 per cent of the farm products of the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec are consumed in this country; and yet what did the hon. member from Marquette say here the other night when the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) asked him a question about it? Oh, he said, that does not count. Does it not count, Mr. Speaker, that 75 or 80 per cent of the products of the farms of this country are consumed in Canada? If it does not I think the Canadian people would like to be informed. Now, I noticed the other night a statement made by the member from Macdonald (Mr. Lovie) as follows:

We find that implements are sold to the Canadian farmer by the Canadian manufacturer at a profit on the cost of production and then the customs duty added to that, while at the same time the Canadian manufacturer goes to other countries and sells tlhat same machine far

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin

cheaper than he sells it to his home consumer. In proof of this I will give you a concrete example.

I have gone through my hon. friend's speech in Hansard and failed to discover the concrete example to which he alluded. I want to submit a statement from the late Mr. Findley of the Massey Harris Company, in reference to a matter concerning their foreign trade, and, irrespective of what any man in the country v/ho does not know the circumstances would say, I am prepared to accept Mr. Findley's statement. He prepared this statement and sent it to the board who were examining him on the question of prices. It was delivered to the board in 1920 and reads:

My company have exported machines to practically every grain-growing country In the world for well over 30 years, and we have never during that time sold machines in foreign countries at as low prices as in Canada.

Then he gives full details as to the prices in England, France, Germany and every other country in which they are selling, and in every case it shows that the price in Canada is less than in any other country in the world, and, for my part, I am prepared to accept his word. The company of which I have the honour to be president does an export trade; we sell goods based on the cost at the factory, and it is just possible, when I relate the circumstances, that some goods may be sold at less, by the man who buys them in Liverpool, than they would be sold for in Saskatoon. That can be very well understood when I explain that I can ship three carloads of goods to Liverpool at the same price that I can send one carload to Saskatoon. I can send two carloads of goods of the same class to Liverpool at the same price that I can send one to Winnipeg, and if those goods, after they get away from me, are sold for less money, it would not be surprising, but we sell our goods at the factory at a certain price, irrespective of who buys them.

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

June 7, 1922