June 7, 1922

PRO

John Morrison

Progressive

Mr. MORRISON:

Under what freight

classification are those goods shipped?

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:

Fifth class freight. Most of the goods in our line are carried as fifth class freight. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) told us the other day that the United States would soon be a free trade country. I have not under my hand his exact words, but he ventured to predict that, within a few years, the United States will have its face set definitely against the principle of a protective tariff. I remember reading a speech of Richard Cobden,

and he ventured at one time on the realm of prophesy, just as the new economist who sits in the front row did, and made a certain prophesy. In 1846 Great Britain changed her fiscal policy. Mr. Cobden speaking at Manchester in January 15th, 1846 said:

Europe altogether has been corrupted by the viaious example of England in her commercial legislation. I believe .hat if you abolish the Corn Law honestly and adopt free trade in its simplicity, there will not be a tariff in Europe that will not be changed in less than five years, to follow your example.

And later on in another address he said:

You might as wall tedil me that the sun will not rise to-morrow as tell me that foreign nations will not adoipt free trade in less than ten years from now.

While Mr. Cobden may be as great an economist as our hon. friend from Marquette, he was a mighty poor prophet. For the benefit of the members of the House, particularly some of those on the other side who are in control of the treasury benches, I want to read a word or two from the speech delivered by Mr. Fordney, whose name we hear mentioned a good deal in this House and outside of it. I think his remarks will apply to Canada quite as well as to the United States. In an address before the House some time ago, Mr. Fordney said:

Under free trade we must come to a common level somewhere, sometime, if we are to compete with alii the countries of the world. To-day German labour is paid from 60 to 65 cent per day in gold,-not for 8 hours' work, but for 10 or 12 hours per day. Japanese and Chinese labour is paid from 12 to 18 cents per day in gold for 12 hours-about a cent or a cent and a half per hour. Now, if we have to be placed on a par wiitih those countries, to meet the imports from those countries, do you believe that we can lift those foreign countries up from the standard of living which at present prevails in them? Not at all. We have got to come down to a common level somewhere, and we are not ready to do that, and we are not going to do that.

And yet in the face of all that, we have people in this House saying that the American people are going to do away with their tariff. Well, may be. I have a book in my hand which will be interesting to my friends on my left. It is the Farmers' platform, and I want to read an extract from it and make a few comments on it. Before reading this extract I desire to say that I heard some of the hon. members on my left trying to ease their consciences as much as they could for not voting for a protectionist tariff, and saying that their own policy was one that was going to spread

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin

over a number of years. I wish to remind those hon., members of something I saw in their platform a short time ago. It was to the effect that the principle of protection was morally wrong and economically unsound.

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

Some Hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

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:

Evidently, I am not very far astray in my quotation, when I find hon. members applauding the sentiment, and I ask, if the thing is morally wrong, can they compromise it? Do they want to make a compromise for five years? Well, if they do, let them make it. Now, I want to quote from this book, and I have no doubt at all that the sentiments it contains will be applauded also. It sets out the Farmers' platform. This book is a sort of treasure now, being one of the first editions published. Hon gentlemen were very specific in those days, but finding that being specific was not altogether satisfactory, they are now dealing in glittering generalities. This book is pretty well edited; it was drafted by the Canadian Council of Agriculture. It is also endorsed by the United Farmers of Alberta, the Saskatchewan Grain Growers Association, the Manitoba Grain Growers Association, and the United Farmers of Ontario. It is issued by the Canadian Council of Agriculture of Winnipeg, and printed by the Grain Growers' Guide. It is quite obvious, therefore, that a great deal of care was bestowed upon its publication. I shall now read the following extract from it:

As already explained, under a system of protection the consumer is compelled to pay a tax upon all imported goods that * come under the tariff schedule. Upon all goods of domestic origin produced under a protective system the consumer must likewise pay a tax,-although in this case the revenue finds its way into the hank account of private individuals alone. Now, it has been estimated that the domestic trade of Canada alone is at least four times as great as the country's foreign trade, and in the United States seven times as great. It follows that for every dollar collected by way of customs dues at least $4 are paid to private individuals. When one considers that the customs revenue for the year ending March 31st, 1916, was $133,000,000, and that four times that sum was paid in addition to the protected interests, it will be seen what a crushing weight is laid upon the country's consumers.

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

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:

The applause that greets the reading of this extract convinces me that there are some, at least, in the party to the left of us in this House that have not gone back on their previous party professions, but still believe in their policy.

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

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:

It is refreshing to know that there are some people who live up to what they formerly preached. Now, hon. members to my left are reasonable men and I want to discuss this matter with them. Before I proceed I want to refer to a slight error in this book. Whoever edited it gave the customs revenue of Canada for 1916-the figures are as at the 31st of March of that year-as $133,000,000. Now, I am used to figuring myself, and I carefully checked this up. I find that there is a mistake of only $30,000,000 in this statement. Thirty million dollars, that is all! With all the editing to which the book has been subjected, and the endorsa-tion it has received at the hands of the various bodies I have cited who are responsible for !it, there is1 a mistake of $30,000,000. Of course, that is not much, but it is multiplied by four, and I think that hon. gentlemen will admit that that makes no inconsiderable sum.

If the claim is correct that under a protective tariff, all the articles that pass through the customs pay duty, and as well on similar goods produced within the country, the purchasers pay four times as much as they should to some one else, then I want hon. gentlemen to give me their judgment on some of the articles I shall mention : The first article I find in the customs schedule under (a), is "animals", the duty collected being $110,000. Now I want to know from hon. gentlemen in this House whether the duty has been plundered on all the cattle raised in this country. If so, who got the money? You will see from the very first line in this list how foolish is the argument that is put forth. It is not only foolish but false as well. I took the year 1916 because it was the year in which the revenue is given by this book as $133,000,000, when it should be only $103,000,000. Now, item 3 in this list is $4,000,000 collected on coal. Do hon. gentlemen from the West mean to tell the people of Nova Scotia and of Alberta that because we collected a duty on coal coming into Canada, therefore, on every ton of coal consumed in Canada there was a duty collected? That is the argument that is used. Let me give another item. Let us take hay. How much do hon. members think was plundered on hay?-because "plunder" is the word that is used.

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

Robert Alexander Hoey

Progressive

Mr. HOEY:

How much hay came in that year?

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin

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:

The duty collected that year was $19,000. I am not being personal in these references, but the argument that is used in this book is that a duty is collected on goods produced in this country of a similar character to the dutiable goods imported. Let us take another item, potatoes. I might say here that I gave some of these figures once before, and the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) demolished my whole argument by saying that the member for Lincoln ought to know that there is no duty on potatoes. I had not a chance to reply at the time, but I want to say now that in 1916 we collected about $1,000,000 of a duty on potatoes. I am not sure of this figure, but I think it is approximately right. I figured out for the benefit of my friends that, taking their argument as a basis, we had grown on our farms and sold to the consumers of this country, according to the trade returns of that year, in the neighbourhood of 79,000,000 bushels of potatoes. Now, if your argument is worth anything at all it simply means that somebody collected $15,000,000 on potatoes. And I should like to know which of you got that money. The not inconsiderable sum of $676,000 was collected on vegetables. Now, according to the arguments contained in this book every one who bought potatoes and vegetables helped to pay that extra duty. Well, who got the money?

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. gentleman aware that potatoes might rot at one end of Canada because the railroad freight would be so high that it would not pay to ship them to the other end?

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 see what that has to do with who got the duty on the goods that were actually sold. I am taking the farmers' own argument. They do not make any objection such as you speak about when we have agricultural machinery or tools lying in store. I am only taking their own argument as it is; I do not believe it.

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:

But you admit it.

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 believe it, and I am showing how false it is. It seems to me that when hon. members are quoting figures they should be more particular, because I find-

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

John Morrison

Progressive

Mr. MORRISON:

The hon. gentleman

quoted freight rates to Liverpool, to Winnipeg and Saskatoon. Is it not a fact that on manufactured products for export better rates are allowed than on such products shipped to points within Canada?

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:

Mr. Speaker, when we are shipping our goods to Liverpool we pay the same rail rates to Montreal from an inland factory as we would on carload shipments to Montreal. Does that answer my hon. friend's question?

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

John Morrison

Progressive

Mr. MORRISON:

I was informed to-day that manufacturers are allowed better freight rates on export shipments than they are on local shipments. Is that right?

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:

That is possibly right in respect to the long haul over Canadian railways to Halifax and St. John where there are shorter hauls from a United States market. We, likely with all others when it is necessary, get a seaboard rate to our Atlantic ports as low as if we were shipping to Portland, Boston or Philadelphia. Does that answer my hon. friend?

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

John Morrison

Progressive

Mr. MORRISON:

That is satisfactory.

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 was saying when I was interrupted that hon. members should be more careful in their statements regarding duties. I am talking now in all kindness, I am not angry, and I want to say to you that in this book you give the customs returns as $133,000,000. I do not know why they were padded, but they were. It may be a clerical error, I am broad enough to assume that such may be the case, but when you multiply it by four it looks pretty bad. Then another point: Why do you always treat the import duties as if they were on manufactured goods? As a matter of fact, in that particular year which you take in your book, 1916, over $30,000,000 of duties did not apply to manufactures at all. You made a mistake to that extent.

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