May 18, 1923

LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

I think I have in mind what my right hon. friend wants; but if he would give me a written memorandum of it, I will give him the information as far as possible.

(Mr. Macdonald.]

Topic:   CANADIAN NAVAL RESERVE
Permalink

THE BUDGET

CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE


The House resumed from Thursday, May 17, the debate on the motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee on Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Robert Forke.


CON

Robert Watson Grimmer

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. W. GRIMMER (Charlotte):

Mr. Speaker, in the budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) I note that the proposed change in the British preferential tariff will apply a further discount of 10 per cent in customs duties on goods coming directly to Canada by way of Canadian ports. The object no doubt is to encourage the use of Canadian ports and incidentally the use of the Canadian National Railways. I believe in the principle of giving every encouragement to imports coming directly to our ports. At the same time we should not lose sight of the fact that Canada is an exporting country, and that we should encourage, perhaps I might say, educate our people to the fact that to build up our country, our railways and our ports, it is absolutely necessary that our exports should be sent by Canadian roads through Canadian ports to the markets of the world.

I am sure we must all admit that one of the greatest problems that Canada is facing to-day is that of our railways and transportation. We are all familiar with the situation as it now stands. Our railways are not hauling the traffic that legitimately belongs to them, and the United States is receiving that traffic, which is assisting to build up the port of Portland and other foreign ports, this being detrimental to our own in Canada. The greatest difficulty in sohring the problem is the argument that as yet we have no port that is absolutely adapted as an all-the-year-round outlet to our railway system in our own country, in spite of the fact that large sums of money have been spent in the development of our ports throughout Canada. I believe it to be in the interests of the people of Canada to make these expenditures, and I would urge upon the government the necessity of the earliest possible development of all our ports. Even then, however, it is not possible to obtain results that will entirely remedy the present system of transportation. When the people of Canada fully realize that Canadian products shall be carried by Canadian rails through Can-

The Budget-Mr. Grimmer

adian ports to the markets of the

world, then and then only will Canada become the nation that she is destined to be, and our ports will naturally come into their own. We may very well take a lesson from the great republic to the south of us, whose people have built up a wonderful commercial country by the development of the ports along their coast line, taking care of their own 'business, reaching out as handlers of the export trade of Canada, thereby receiving every year millions of our good Canadian dollars that we should be spending in the development of the industrial life of this country, patronizing their own railroads, spending their own money in the industrial life of their country, giving employment to their people and making them happy and contented. Here in Canada with a larger extent of area, with the unbounded, undeveloped natural resources of a great country, linked together as we are from ocean to ocean by railways owned by our people, with branch lines running into every important centre, we should patronize our own railways by carrying our exports to our own ports, spending our own money in Canada in developing the industrial life of the country, giving employment to our own people and keeping our young men at home, because this is the best immigration policy that any government could adopt.

Realizing as we do that 70 to 80 per cent of the export trade of this country is going through American ports, why should we permit a condition like this to continue to exist, when we have an all-the-year-round outlet to our railway system in Canada situated at our door in Charlotte county in the greatest natural harbour on the Atlantic coast of North America? This harbour is pronounced by experts to be one of the great world ports created by the hand of nature with a 60-foot depth of water for four miles of harbour, 60 feet to 150 feet deep all the way from the Atlantic ocean into the port where the largest vessel that has ever been or ever will be built can come in under her own steam and dock without the assistance of tugs. There are no shoals or ledges to contend with. There is a splendid opportunity for anchorage for ships in Passama-quoddy bay in event of storm. There is ample accommodation for the fleets of Europe, and the harbour is free frdtn fog and ice and open all the year. No dredging is required; nature has done it all. We would advocate connecting by rail with the Transcontinental at Quebec, making St. Croix the nearest possible point on the Atlantic coast to Winnipeg.

A report was made by a special committee of the Senate of Canada, consisting of fourteen members, assembled at Ottawa, April 20, 1921, "to inquire into" conditions responsible for the routing of a large portion of "Canadian export trade via American instead of Canadian ports," this committee having power to call for persons and papers in connection with the subject to be investigated. The committee, after many sittings, made its final report June 9. 1922, and so satisfied must it have been with the evidence submitted that it concludes its exhaustive findings, in part, in the following words:

After careful consideration of all the evidence submitted, your committee is of opinion that there exists a most serious condition of affairs with regard to the diversion of the western grain trade to New York and other United States seaports for export.

There seems to be no doubt that two-thirds and problably four-fifths of that trade takes that route and that we are paying many millions annually to United States railways, lake carriers and elevators that would be earned by our own railways and trainmen if it were possible to export this grain at Canadian seaports. [DOT]

Since this evidence was taken government statistics show that the diversion still continues and that of the bountiful crop of 1921 no less than 99 million bushels of wheat went from Fort William to Buffalo.

Evidence was produced before this committee to show beyond any question that wheat could be hauled profitably from Winnipeg to Quebec over the National Transcontinental Railway for 18 cents per bushel. This fact being established it could be continued 260 miles further to St. Croix harbour for 22 cents, per bushel. The rate to New York is 32 cents per bushel. Thus a saving of 10 cents per bushel on even 200 million bushels would mean 20 million dollars saved to the farmers of the prairie provinces yearly.

What does this mean? It means that $20,000,000 distributed annually to the farmers of the prairie provinces would so improve conditions that it would not be necessary for them to ask the banks to advance loans to enable them to carry on their industry, and would place them in the very near future in that position in which they would be able to ask the banks whether they could not pay more than 3js per cent on the deposits of farmers. In the year 1837, Admiral Sir W. F. W. Owen in a report to the Imperial government on this harbour had this to say in part:

There is no point within my knowledge better adapted by nature than St. Andrews for being made a mercantile port with extensive advantages and facilties, the out ports,-so to call them,- or ports adjacent to this port, are in themselves very commodious ports and furnish shelter of easy access to any number of ships of any magnitude, even for

The Budget-Mr. Grimmer

all the navies of Europe and, in short, what Liverpool has been made as a mercantile port, at an increditable expense, this port of our colonies has every advantage to adapt it for and which might be made fully available at trifling cost.

Commander Campbell, of the Beaver line fleet, says:

There can be no doubt that St. Andrews, both from its geographical position and from the natural advantages of a fine, commodious, landlocked harbor, is certainly equal, if not superior, to any other port in the Dominion as the natural winter port. It is nearer England by over sixty miles than Portland, Maine, and as a harbor is infinitely its superior, being shut in from heavy seas from all quarters. It is also free from any serious difficulties in the way of ice and carries a depth of water in the outer harbor sufficient for the largest steamers afloat. It would, if properly conducted, be a cheaper port for discharging and loading vessels when accommodations are made and ought to compare favourably with any port in Canada. I have often wondered that, possessing so many natural and geographical advantages as it does, it has not long ago become the most important winter port of the Dominion.

Captain Henry Mowat, for many years port superintendent fort the Canadian Pacific Steamship line at Liverpool, England, in a report on this harbour in 1913, says:

The approach to the port of St. Croix via Head harbour is equal to the approach of any other port in the world, and in many instances excels the best for depth of water. There are no great ports which have such great depths of water from the sea clear into port as that of the St. Croix; it is such that the largest ships now in existence and with the greatest draft of water can enter the port at the lowest possible tides.

The channels from Head harbour into Passamaquoddy bay are that the largest vessel that ever will be built can be navigated with ease at top speed with perfect safety. They are free from shoals and rock and have ample width for turning a ship in the narrowest part. The tidal currents are nothing in comparison to the river Mersey, England, and other ports I have navigated, etc.

After careful investigation, I consider St. Croix river and Passamaquoddy bay, equal to any in the world for a great national port.

In the year 1913, the Hon. Robert Rogers, Minister of Public Works in the federal government of that time, and himself a western man, seeing the possibilities of the development of St. Croix harbour, engaged Mr. E. C. Swan, a harbour expert, and a gentleman of recognized ability in his profession, together with the engineers of the Department of Public Works, and also three master mariners, to visit the harbour, make investigations, take soundings, boring, and so forth, submit specifications for the equipment necessary for the development of the port, and to draw up a report for consideration by the Public Works department. All that information secured at that time is at present in the possession of the department and no doubt would be available to any hon. gentlemen who might care to learn the facts in connection with this matter. This investigation was made shortly

after the outbreak of the war when, as we are all aware, all public works were cancelled and every energy was put forth in the prosecution of the war. Mr. Swan in his report goes into the matter very thoroughly. He deals with conditions at the port, and so forth, but I shall read only his concluding remarks.

In considering the St. Croix river for shipping purposes and as a possible auxiliary to St. John, more* particularly for the extensive traffic during the winter months, it seems to have many attractions such as- it is some 50 miles nearer the mouth of the bay of Fundy than is St. John. The distance from Montreal to St. John by Canadian Pacific railway is 483 miles. The distance from Montreal to Oak bay St. Stephen, by the Canadian Pacific railway, is 438 miles or thereby, and if in the future a branch line is constructed from Mattawamkeag to Oak bay, this would shorten the total distance from Montreal to Oak bay to 410 miles. The river St. Croix and Passamaquoddy bay is comparatively well sheltered water, never closed by ice and protected from the swell of the bay of Fundy by numerous islands near the mouth, and as there is deep water right close in shore to the sides of the river and bay, practically no dredging whatever would be necessary' to form a shipping channel. Leading lights for the guidance of shipping at night would of course have to be provided; probably some joint agreement regarding cost of same could be made with the United States. ... I therefore recommend with great confidence that wharf areas, railway terminals, roads and freight handling facilities in general, should be designed on a comprehensive, practicable scale, and constructed by degrees at Oak bay as may be necessary'.

Mr. E. C. Goodspeed, an engineer of the federal department, with whom probably hon. gentlemen in the House are acquainted, in his report as to the cost of soundings, borings, the construction of quay walls, docks, and so forth, gives an exhaustive survey of the whole matter. I quote the following:

Throughout this whole distance of eight miles, port development along the shore is possible, using quay walls along the narrower sections and where the deep water approaches close to shore; while piers or jetties would be provided at Joe's Point and Oak Point and near the mouth of the Waweig raver. . . . Any sized yard room required could be developed at t'he head of Pagan's Cover for storage purposes, while further yards would be available at the docks. These docks would be 438 miles from Montreal by rail, via the Canadian Pacific railway, compared with 483 miles to St. John. Oak Point . would also be about 50 miles nearer to the mouth of the bay of Fundy than St. John is.

This means fifty miles shorter water route to Liverpool. Mr. Goodspeed is further reported as follows:

Mr. Goodspeed also gives estimates for development of Joe's Poin^ and at the mouth of the Waweig river, both of them being a part of the possible extension of the harbour for eight miles along the eastern bank of the river.

The three master mariners who accompanied these gentlemen on their survey and investigation submitted a report in respect to the

The Budget-Mr. Grimmer

approaches and entrance to the harbour. They had this to say:

Bold and steep, suitable for safe navigation of vessels of any size provided proper aids to navigation were established for navigation at night or in foggy weather. Channel between Indian island, Campobello and East-port (turning point St. Croix river) of ample width to handle with safety any size of vessel. Good anchorage on event of fog.

St. Croix river and Oak Point: Safe And well sheltered entrance and approach, suitable for safe navigation of any size of steamer.

M. N. Fillies, master mariner, Supt. Donaldson Line, Ltd.

D. L. Kenney, master mariner, Supt. Head Line steamers.

G. O. R. Elliot, master mariner, Asst Marine Supt. C.P.R. and C.S.S. Lines.

This, Mr. Speaker, should be sufficient evidence to establish the suitability of St. Croix harbour, when proper'y developed, as a great shipping port for our grain products. The part of St. Croix river which constitutes this harbour extends from the town of St. Andrews up to w'hat is known as the ledge. I may say in this connection that when lumbering was the chief industry on the St. Croix, as many as twenty-five of the largest vessels then in the ocean trade were frequently seen at one time in the harbour known as the ledge, situated between St. Croix harbour and the town of St. Stephen. These vessels were engaged in the transport of timber across the Atlantic, and it was owing to the heavier class of timber in this immediate vicinity having become exhausted that the traffic gradually disappeared. This harbour is within four miles of the town of St. Stephen.

It may be interesting to know that the town of St. Stephen is an important industrial centre, some of the largest industries of their kind in the Dominion of Canada being located there. I may mention two of the articles that are manufactured there, Ganong's chocolates and Surprise soap, both known in every household from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Among other industries that we have may be mentioned the following: The Dominion Fertilizer Company which has an output of 25,000 tons of fertilizer annually; the Mann Axe and Tool Company, with an output of 4,000 tons annually; Ganong Brothers, sweet manufacturers, output 5,000 tons annually; Haley & Sons, handling about 5,000.000 feet of lumber anually; Canadian Cotton factory, 1,000 tons anually. We have a pulp mill with an output of over 100 tons daily, and there is the Eastern Pulp Company, handling from 50 to 75 cords of pulpwood. Coal to the extent of 50,000 to 75.000 tons a year is imported. The St. Croix Soap Company does a very large business, and there is

also a shoe factory in St. Stephen whose operations are very extensive. We have also sardine factories, granite quarries and many other industries in the adjacent parishes. Recently an American company have purchased land and water powers in anticipation of erecting another large pulp and paper mill in the near future. Another of our chief industries is the fishing industry, the market value of its products last year being over SI ,420,000. We do not claim to be an agricultural county-that is, to the extent of making any considerable exports-but we have in the past exported 40,000 tons of potatoes annually. So that the moment accommodations are provided, a considerable amount of traffic would be available the whole year round for St. Croix harbour.

Where can we look for an outlet for our railway system, through whicn our grain products, running into hundreds of millions of bushels and increasing each year, may be continually shipped all the year round to the markets of the world? There is but one answer to that question, the port of Quebec in summer and St. Croix harbour in winter. The building of the National Transcontinental railway has made the port of Quebec the logical outlet in the St. Lawrence for the grain products of the northwest during theopen season of navigation. The cityof Winnipeg is situated at the veryeastern threshold of the vast grain trade, and at that point must be assembled some time during the year the great

bulk of all the grain raised in the districts to the west. Three great railway systems converge there from the west, and they again converge at Quebec bridge. The shortest route between these points is the National Transcontinental; on that road a distance of 1,350 miles brings Winnipeg nearer to an ocean port on the Atlantic seaboard than is possible by any other route. Mr. D. F. Maxwell, former railway engineer in the provincial government, a man of outstanding ability in his profession who has devoted many years of study to this great question, does much to solve the problem in an article he has written, and from which I will now quote:

From an engineering standpoint, the arbitrary points, both physical and commercial, which would influence the location of a railway between this harbor and the great bridge over the St. Lawrence at Quebec, come so near the air line that it is safe to conclude that a railway can be located that would not exceed the air line distance by more than fifteen per cent, thus making the total distance 260 miles on the whole and thu3 making the total distance from Winnipeg to St. Croix harbor 1,610 miles, or more than 100 miles shorter than from Winnipeg to Portland, Maine, via Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk railways, (shortest

The Budget-Mr. Grimmer

route) and more than 200 miles shorter than from Winnipeg to St. John, via the Canadian National Railway, (shortest route), and about 370 miles shorter than from Winnipeg to Halifax via Canadian National railway, (shortest route).

When this route is completed and properly put into commission, and when the necessary grain exchange, elevators and so on are established at Quebec, the great question of the transport of our grain will have been settled so far as the St. Lawrence route goes and our problems in that connection will at least have been partly solved.

The next question is, will St. Croix harbour serve as a winter port? The St. Croix harbour is in the St. Croix river, which forms the boundary line between New Brunswick and the state of Maine. The air line distance from Quebec bridge to St. Croix is 226 miles. St. Croix harbour is without doubt the greatest natural harbour on the Atlantic coast of North America. A distinctive feature is its geographical position, which will naturally have a favourable effect upon insurance rates as compared with the rates to United States ports. Then, St. Croix harbour is nearer the great coast cities of the United States, the West India Islands, Cuba, Mexico and South America than is any other port in Canada. It is nearer Europe than any port in either the United States or Canada that could be considered, except Halifax. A very important feature in connection with the harbour is the small cost of development. But the most unique feature is that the St. Croix river, being the boundary line, it may be both Canadian and American, a condition that could not be possible anywhere else.

Halifax, as you are well aware, has never shipped any quantity of grain on account of the long rail haul which made it impossible for it to compete profitably with American ports. St. John will always continue to ship annually, and Montreal will always continue to be as it is now the summer port, as it is the summer terminal of the lake water route as well as of the Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk railways. What we want, Mr. Speaker, is to haul over our own railways and to ship through our own ports practically seventy-five or eighty per cent of the grain that now finds its way out through Portland, Boston and Baltimore. If we were taking care of this traffic ourselves our railway deficits would soon begin to disappear. If this harbour were developed to even one-half its present capacity and railway connection were made with the Quebec bridge the transportation problem would be fully and completely solved. Again, it will be physically impossible to transport

in winter gnfin from Winnipeg to any other Atlantic port as cheaply and as expeditiously as it can be carried by this proposed route to St. Croix harbour for the reason that gradient and the ton-mile haulage must continue to be the governing factors in the cost of railway transportation.

The building of the National Transcontinental railway, and particularly the part between Winnipeg and Quebec, and the bridging of the great river at this point, changed the westward objective of all Maritime province railways and brought the prairie provinces nearer by some three hundred miles to the Maritime province ports than was the case before, as well as giving the port of Quebec its commanding position as the logical outlet in the St. Lawrence. This is a great national project. It was intended by nature as the greatest highway possible between the world's greatest granary and the nearest and cheapest possible points of shipment during the whole year for its products for the world's markets.

Then, of course, would come up the question, how can this proposed railway across Maine be built? That is a pertinent question to the inquiry. The answer should not be difficult If the parliament of Canada was justifier thirty-five years ago when its revenues wer< under 40 million dollars a year, in granting financial aid to the Canadian Pacific railway, across Maine to the extent of five million dollars for a maritime winter outlet for that railway, why should it not be justified in granting financial aid now to a similar undertaking when its revenues are more than ten times what they were then and grant aid commensurate with the cost of building a railway to-day and in consideration of the character of a road necessary to be built to-day, with a standard grade of 21-4 feet per mile, against a grade of 52.8 feet per mile at that time, and particularly in view of the fact that the government owns two transcontinental railways now resting their noses on Quebec bridge and looking for a maritime port of which the nearest and best possible one to be had is this splendid undeveloped St. Croix harbour, which can be reached by building about 200 to 210 miles of railway at the most.

This is made possible by utilizing that portion of the National Railways east of Quebec as far as St. Malachie and for which distance it is pointing directly for this harbour and where it then turns north around the state of Maine on its way to Moncton, New Brunswick.

How can this project be successfully carried out? The Canadian National Railway Board cannot build a railway across Maine.

The Budget-Mr. Grimmer

The answer to that is that if the Dominion government will grant a suitable subsidy each year for twenty years for the purpose of constructing a railway from Quebec bridge to St. Croix harbour by the shortest and most practicable route, a private corporation could, no doubt, be formed that would guarantee its construction and hand it over to the Canadian National Board, who no doubt could operate it.

When this is done, all that remains necessary to be done is to equip Quebec and St. Croix harbour with the necessary docks and elevators and which may be accomplished, covering the period of, say, ten years by spending a certain amount every year on each, by the end of which time we would be shipping all of our own grain over our own railways, through our own ports.

This is no visionary scheme, but a plain, business proposition, and one quite within our financial ability to carry out, and the carrying out of which will settle for a long period of years our most vexed problem.

This is not only a practical solution; it is the only solution.

Reliable data at hand show another physical feature that distinguishes this route. That there is only one summit between the St. Lawrence and this harbour to overcome and that only 1,200 feet above the sea level, compared to 1,854 feet on the Canadian Pacific between Montreal and St. John, and 1,800 feet on the Canadian National. Reliable surveys already made show that it may be overcome with a four-tenths per cent grade.

I wish to point out that the people of the Maritime provinces are solidly behind any project that would remedy the present condition of affairs under which our traffic is being diverted to the United States. This traffic which now goes to Portland and other United States ports should go through Canadian ports. We should keep our own railways busy carrying our own products. That would be in the interests of the whole of this country.

St. John, as you know, is the only winter port on the Atlantic at the present time for the shipment of grain. It is an important and valuable port but unfortunately the port is limited in the degree to which it can be extended. Both Halifax and St. John are doing a great public service. Both have magnificent harbours and should be developed to their utmost capacity, but even if they were developed to their utmost capacity it would not be possible for them to handle all the traffic that might be diverted from United States ports. Therefore, I think it is necessary to develop St. Croix harbour.

We in Charlotte county do not look upon this development as a great boom for the county or the province of New Brunswick. We feel that it is a work of a national character for the benefit of the whole Canadian people, because at the present time we could not take care of the traffic if it were diverted from the ports of the United States.

I should like to quote from an editorial published in the St. John Journal of January 23, 1923, which I hope will convince hon. gentlemen that the people of St. John are in sympathy with the development of any of our ports along the Atlantic coast:

There is no doubt that St. Croix is a great natural harbor and experts have testified that it and Sydney, Australia, are the two greatest harbors in the world. The development of St, Croix should not necessarily injure St. John. Canada is exporting this year in the vicinity of 350,000,000 bushels of grain and of that amount St. John gets about 20,000,000 bushels.

A mere bagatelle! Where does the rest go? Montreal gets a large proportion of it in the summer months but about 200,000,000 bushels of this grain go through American ports and are transported over American railroads. Mr. Maxwell estimates that if this vast amount could be routed over Canadian roads by the short rail-haul he suggests, through the building of 200 miles of railway to connect with the Transcontinental at Quebec bridge, that the saving to Canadian farmers alone would be 120,000,000 yearly and the revenue to our national lines would be almost sufficient to pay off their deficits.

Statements such as these if backed by facts-and the people of St. Stephen are anxious for investigation -transform the development of St. Croix harbor into a great national project. There are about twelve miles of harbor, sufficient according to expert testimony to shelter the navies of the world, and this great port has a natural breakwater in the island of Grand Manan. It is stated that there is a sixty-foot depth throughout this expanse of water and that practically no dredging would be needed.

The suggested construction of 200 miles of railroad in order to connect this port with the Transcontinental at Quebec would probably be frowned upon at the present time, when Canada is already over-burdened with railroads. But when it is considered that the construction of 200 miles of railway will make this port the nearest point on the Atlantic seaboard to Winnipeg, cutting below the present rail-haul to Portland by over 100 miles, and when it is realized that the port is open all the year and that it could be developed to look after the whole winter grain trade of Canada, it will be seen that the project deserves very serious thought. It is not merely the dream of a visionary. The people of St. Stephen and of the whole of Charlotte county are solidly behind the scheme. They believe they have the door which Canada needs for they feel there is no other port which provides the unique advantages and is so perfectly situated geographically to handle the fast growing volume of Canadian trade during the winter months.

The development of St. Croix would not mean that St. John would no longer be a grain port. The construction of the railway would also place St. John sixty miles nearer Winnipeg than is Portland and St. John could be developed to its capacity. There would be plenty of business for both. St. Croix at least deserves the very serious consideration of the federal government, and of the railways.

The Budget-Mr. Grimmer

That comment coming from a paper published in St. John is very agreeable to those who are making exertions for the development of St. Croix harbour. The policy pursued in Canada in the past has been such that we have been adding enormously to our railway mileage without enlarging our ports to any appreciable extent. Is it not a recognized fact that in any country where facilities ahead of the actual requirements have been provided an enormous development has taken place with a resultant increase of trade and of population? It is an unchanging law in economics that exports, in the end, have to be paid for by imports. We should encourage shipping in both directions-from our ports in Canada to European ports, and from the ports of Europe directly to Canada. Such a policy would not only help to find a market for Canadian manufactured goods, but would also assist the Canadian consumer by enabling him to receive goods from the European markets not obtainable in Canada as cheaply and as directly as possible.

We believe in Canada. We have great faith in the future of the Dominion. Still, are we as Canadians doing our best to bui'd up our own country rather than the United States? If we are, may we not ask ourselves the question why we should be giving even one-half our export grain trade to a United States seaport? What we need are such grain rates on our railway's as will develop trade through Quebec, Montreal, Halifax, St. John, St. Croix, Vancouver, or any other Canadian ports in preference to ports in the United States. But if we develop St. Croix harbour we can take care of all our export trade. Is it not a matter of interest to every Canadian that every possible bushel of grain should be shipped out of Canada through a Canadian port; and is it not of just as much interest that every ton of goods imported into Canada should enter through a Canadian port? If that hope were realized our railway deficit would soon be lessened and there would be fewer empty cars going west along our railways. The utilization of St. Croix harbour does not concern the people of Charlotte county alone. It will not only be a benefit, locally but it will result in national benefit, it will be profitable to Canadians as a whole. If this port, is made use of the development of trade as a result will be such as to dispel, to some extent, the dark cloud of gloom which seems to have settled upon the farmers of the West, judging from the speeches of some of our Progressive friends, with respect to the future.

In summarizing the situation which exists in connection with the harbour of St. Croix we have these advantages to offer: The port will be a terminus of a Canadian railway system running entirely through Canada. We have the greatest natural harbour on the Atlantic coast of North America. The harbour is well sheltered and there is a straight run from the Atlantic ocean into the port with a good depth of water the entire distance There is ample accommodation for the fleets of Europe, and no dredging is required. The port is fifty miles nearer Liverpool than any port on the Atlantic coast except Halifax. It is 100 miles nearer Winnipeg than Portland, Maine, by the proposed route. It is 200 miles nearer Winnipeg than St. John by the proposed route. It is 370 miles nearer Winnipeg than Halifax by the proposed route. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the project I have placed before the House is feasible, is advisable, and is not only in the interest of our railways but will be advantageous to Canada, and the Canadian people as a whole.

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

Lewis Herbert Martell

Liberal

Mr. L. H. MARTELL (Hants):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say at the outset that it is not my intention to occupy any undue amount of the time of this House, and that in the course of the few remarks which I intend to offer I shall not discuss the tariff in a scientific way, nor follow some of my Progressive friends through the mazy labyrinths of political economy which they have outlined.

Before getting down to my speech I wish to discuss briefly the remarks of the hon. member for South Bruce (Mr. Findlay) who spoke yesterday. He was very profuse in his expressions of regret with respect to the policy of the Liberal party, and seemed to be very much put out because that party had not put into force the so-called tariff platform of 1919, which necessitated his leaving the Liberal fold. My hon. friend should have been surer of his facts, because he forsook the Liberal party and opposed the Liberal idea prior to any time during which that party would have had an opportunity of putting the so-called platform into effect. However, I am glad to know, and many gentlemen on this side, I believe, are glad to know, that the hon. member has still a spark of Liberalism within his breast, because I believe if that were not so, good and honourable as he may be, he would "be as Sodom and like unto Gomorrah.'

I am not going to take up the budget from a scientific standpoint. In the course of my remarks I am going to be somewhat local,

The Budget-Mr. Martell

and am going to endeavour to place before this House some of the matters as I see them, that are of interest to the Maritime provinces. I am not going to discuss tariffs.

I do not know very much about scientifically making them, however, I am opposed to any tariff which has for its object protection for protection's sake. I have not changed my idea one iota in that respect. I am a low-tariff man. I was elected on a tariff-for-revenue platform, and I believe, in the light of all the conditions obtaining in Canada at present, the tariff policy which has been brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr Fielding) cannot be characterized as other than a tariff for revenue. People in this country are clamouring for government ownership of railways. I am not going to give to any extent my reasons why I may be, in some respects opposed to government ownership, but if the railways of Canada last year had a deficit, we are not going to get the money for the purpose of paying that deficit unless it is by some sort of a tariff, or by direct taxation upon the people of the country, and I believe the people of Canada are so pressed down by taxation, municipal, provincial and federal, that they are not prepared to accept any more direct taxation at the present time. I believe that if my hon. friends would, at least, meet this question in a spirit of compromise, and say that they would be prepared to give up government ownership of railways, in order that they might get low tariff, then, with the result we have to-day, the fifty millions of money spent to meet deficits on the railways might go towards the lessening of the tariff. So long as the country is advocating government ownership, just so long will it be necessary for the people of Canada to get their revenue from tariff sources, and the sooner we come to a realization of the fact that there is no royal way for the country to secure money, and that there is no other method than by taxation, the better for all concerned. I believe I can say of the hon. Minister of Finance, in so far as the tariff is concerned, the words of Goethe, "All I have done, I have done in a kingly way, and let tongues wag, what I saw to be the right thing, that I did." That I believe is the attitude and state of mind that animated the Minister of Finance in the budget policy.

He has divided his budget into various heads, and I am going to deal with one of the most important from my point of view, or more properly I should say, from the standpoint of the constituency which I have the honour to represent, namely, in regard to our

relations with the United States. Some of my hon. friends will say, "Your constituency in 1911, when it had the opportunity of securing reciprocity, defeated that issue at the polls". I can say that also to my hon. friends from the province of Manitoba, but I do not say it in a bitter way, as I believe it is to the everlasting disgrace to the people of Manitoba and of Nova Scotia that they defeated reciprocity. But the people probably did not have the matter properly placed before them at that time. Matters of reciprocity were not discussed on their merits. People on the other hand were carried away from the issue by flag-flapping and all sorts of special pleadings. The government to-day has placed in the budget an offer of reciprocity to the United States. It is true it has not so far met with a great deal of favour in the United States. It is probably not receiving very much favourable - comment from certain sections of that country. The government .has gone further; they are asking parliament to give them the right of negotiating with the President of the United States, if at any time they feel the occasion is ripe. These are, I say, outstanding characteristics of the Liberal party's policy and they show that they are always prepared, on all occasions when the time is ripe, to fulfil all the pledges they gave to the people of the country. I am for reciprocity. I do not apologize from any standpoint for my tariff views, and I am supporting the budget, not on account of the element of protection in it,-though I know that a budget which has for its object a tariff for revenue, must incidentally give some protection-but on account of it being a tariff for revenue, and irrespective of the incidental protection that results therefrom.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

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

Lewis Herbert Martell

Liberal

Mr. MARTELL:

Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I was dealing with the offer of reciprocity as contained in the budget. I need not dilate upon the benefits that would accrue to the people of the Maritime provinces were we in a position to secure reciprocity with the United States. The government has done everything possible to that end. With a view to showing how reciprocity would affect one of the chief industries of Nova Scotia, I crave your indulgence while I place upon Hansard a brief statement with respect to the fishing industry in that province.

The Budget-Mr. Martell

Some time prior to the coming into force of the Fordney tariff the people of Nova Scotia as well as of the other Maritime provinces could get their fish into the United States, which was their chief market, but the Fordney tariff now makes it almost impossible for them to do that. The injury that is done to the fishing industry of my province as a result of the Fordney tariff will be realized from the following comparison of the duties under the Fordney tariff and the Underwood tariff respectively on fish and fish products which constitute one of our main exports :

Article Underwood Tariff Fordney Tariff Fresh or frozen halibut mackerel

or salmon.. .. Free 2 cents per poundAll other fresh or frozen fish, except shellfish .. Free 1 cent per poundDried fish

Free 1J cents per pound

Pickled herring and

Mackerel... Free 1 cent per poundFinnan Haddie .. Free 25 per cent ad

valorem

Smoked herring .. J cents per pound 2$ cents per pound Green salted cod,

Free cents per pound

Cod oil 3 cents per gallon 5 cents per gallon

As I have already stated, the United States had always been our chief market, having usually taken over 40 per cent of our total exports of fish. Of course, some of the fish imported into that country were for re-export. The following is an estimate, based on the business done in 1920, which was a normal year in the industry, of the duty collected on Canadian shipments of fish and fish products to the United States, and what that duty would have been under the present tariff. From the whole of Canada the total value of the fish exported to the United States was 815,541,517 and the estimated duty collected was $72,558. Under the Fordney tariff the duty would have been $1,710,055. From the Maritime provinces we shipped to the United States fish valued at $9,075,457. Under the Underwood tariff the estimated duty was $15,842; under the Fordney tariff it would have been $933,887. You will thus see that the United States market and low American tariffs or reciprocity is necessary to our fishermen if we are to survive in the fishing industry. Is it, therefore, any wonder that we in the Maritime provinces are looking for the markets of the New England states for our fish? The only way in which we can get that market is through reciprocity. If we had in force a reciprocal arrangement such as was made by Mr. Fielding and Mr. Paterson in 1911, we could put our fish on that market free of

I Mr. MartwU.]

duty. To-day our people are still looking forward to the day when they will once again have the opportunity of carrying out a reciprocal agreement with the United States; because I believe, Sir, that if the question were placed before the people of the country today they would not repeat the mistake which was made in 1911.

Now, there are several phases of the question that might be dealt with, but I want to refer more particularly to the effort which has been made to get this measure of reciprocity. I stated before recess that the government of the day had gone a long way in this direction; they have not only placed a declaration for reciprocity in the budget, but they have asked parliament to give the Governor in Council authority to appoint one of the ministers of the Crown to carry on negotiations to that end with the President of the United States if at any time the conditions seem favourable. But to-day I think we have a weapon in our hands whereby we could to some extent force recognition from the United States authorities. I am not one of those who believe that because the United States people have set a high tariff wall against us we should retaliate by setting up an exceedingly high tariff wall against them. I do not believe, Sir, that that is good Liberalism. There is something of the milk of human kindness in the breast of the Liberal party; we are more inclined to follow the Biblical injunction to turn the other side of the face.

However, we have a weapon, I believe, in our hands. Every person

here knows that as a result of the treaty of 1818 the United States authorities renounced forever the right to come within three maritime miles of the coast waters of His Britannic Majesty 3ave for the four humanitarian purposes of wood, water and shelter and effecting repairs. An act, however, was passed by the Canadian parliament, Chapter 47 of the Revised Statutes of 1906, under section 2 of which act the Governor in Council was and is empowered to grant to the United States fishing vessels the right to come into our ports for every other purpose whatsoever. That is done by means of a license, and a fee is charged. For a time the fee was something like $1 50 per ton, though I believe of late years it has been reduced to the sum of $1 per ton. These vessels are coming in and using our ports. At the outset we would not grant any licenses to United States vessels if they were propelled by motor power or by any power other than sail, but as a result of the war when people were coming very

The Budget-Mr. Mar tell

much closer together the people of the United States were given the same rights to obtain licenses for motor craft as they were for sail craft. The result is that fhe United States vessels being a great deal further from the fishing banks are enabled by means of this licensing system to come into Canadian ports, and use our ports to tranship their catch, take bait, buy their nets, twine and all their other supplies and outfit, and ship their goods through to the United States in bond. As a result of these licenses enabling the United States vessels to make use of our Canadian ports, they can ship their fish through in bond and they go in as American fish, and thus evade the United States duty, whereas when our own fishermen come in from the banks, if they wish to sell to the United States, which in days gone by took forty per cent of their catch, they are obliged to pay two cents a pound duty on fresh fish, which is practically a prohibitive rate. The United States vessels I believe would not be able to successfully prosecute the catching of fresh fish if they were not allowed the use of our Canadian ports, and while to prohibit them from using those ports might affect cert am sections of the province of Nova Scotia to-day, particularly the merchant class who sell them supplies, I think it would be good business and in the interests not only of the province but of the country as a whole no longer to permit United States vessels to use the ports of Nova Scotia or any other ports of Canada for fishing purposes. If they were denied that privilege I really believe that it would be conducive to the United States authorities negotiating with the Dominion government for reciprocity at least in fish. I think I have stated fairly succinctly what the benefits to be derived from reciprocity with the United States would be and if I have not made myself intelligible to most members of the House they will simply have to pardon me in that regard. I have simply taken one great industry and I believe, Sir, and I say it without fear of contradiction, that I have demonstrated beyond all peradventure that reciprocity in fish is in the best interests of the fishermen of Canada.

Now I pass on to the question of bounties as noted by the hon. Minister of Finance. As I said before, I am not going to deal with the tariff in a scientific way. I am not capable of doing that. I have often heard it said, and I believe it has been said by many political economists, that bounties are the most vicious form of protection. If that is so, then God knows I do not want them, but I do not believe they are the most vicious form of protection. I believe they are best suited to encouraging industry. It is true that of bounties we might say in the words which Addison puts into the mouth of that fictitious character Sir Roger de Coverley "Much might be said on both sides." I have at least to my own satisfaction convinced myself that the Minister of Finance did the right thing by not increasing the tariff and giving instead bounties in order to encourage these particular industries.

I said at the outset that I was going to be brief. I believe it was St. Paul who said that a man should always be ready to give a reason for the faith that is in him, and that was my only purpose in rising to say a few words in regard to this budget. I know I shall be told by some of my Progressive friends, many of whom I admire, that I have developed into a protectionist since coming into the House of Commons. I would hurl that back at them and say that I am as much a low tariff man as ever. As I said this afternoon, I am supporting this budget because Canada needs revenue, and the primary object of this budget is to raise revenue.

I have one or two other reasons for supporting this budget. First, because I say it is a tariff for revenue, and that is the policy of the Liberal party. Secondly, because the changes in duties are made downward. Thirdly, because it increases the British preference. There are about eighty-two classes of goods on which that preference has been increased. I have not the list here although I have read it, and if any hon. member wishes to see it I will secure it for him. Fourthly, because it adopts reciprocity as a permanent plank in the platform of the Liberal party. Fifthly, because I was elected as a Liberal. I was opposed both by a Progressive and a Conservative. I stood on the straight Liberal platform and the understanding of the people of my constituency was that if my hon. leader were returned to power the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) would be Finance Minister. That is to say, he would have charge of the tariff. He has had charge of the tariff, and I believe I am only doing my duty by supporting that government whose Finance Minister has the confidence of my constituency and who has framed the tariff which I am supporting to-day. If I took any other attitude than that I would deem it my duty, Sir, to go back to my constituents and to hand them back my mandate. They knew, as I have already said, when I was coming here that I was coming here to support the Liberal party not the Progressive party, not the Conservative party because I got no support in my constituency from either. I got

2908 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. King (Huron)

support from what are always known down there as straight Laurier Liberals.

I have also another reason. If we are going to prevent the railways which have been handed over to us from going on the junk pile it is necessary for us to raise a revenue, and the people of Canada to-day with the demands that are made upon them for municipal taxation, provincial taxation, and direct forms of federal taxation are not prepared at all times to have moneys to pay to the Dominion government when such are demanded of them. But when we have a tariff for revenue such as this, they can buy the articles upon which a tariff is imposed to suit their convenience, and they are thus enabled to stretch that taxation over a period. I am one of those from the maritimes, probably the youngest man from the maritimes, but 1 want to say this: I have faith in my party, I have faith in my country. I believe this is not a time for pessimism. There is already a bright star breaking over the horizon, and if we in this House, particularly the men from the West, will not be pessimistic but look towards the future and not go around crying, "Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted within me?" and rather give our attention to the stream of prosperity and drink of the brook of optimism by the way so that we will lift up our heads, then in this Canada of ours, which is a young country, with a Finance Minister still young, we will sing in concert:

Grow old along with me!

The best is yet to be,

The last of life, for which the first was made:

Our times are in His hand Who saith, "A whole I planned,

Youth shows but half; trust God: see all, nor be afraid! "

In other words, have faith in Canada, have faith in the Liberal party, have faith in the Minister of Finance, have faith in a tariff for revenue, and you will soon see Canada back to the golden era of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's day.

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

John Warwick King

Progressive

Mr. J. W. KING (North Huron):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to unite with other hon. members in the felicitations which they have extended to the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). I have been a great admirer of that hon. gentleman for years, and I hope that he will long live to deliver budget speeches although not exactly of the nature of his recent deliverance.

I do not agree with the tariff as embodied in the budget speech we are now considering. Take for example the duty on automobiles. How does it operate? Why, sir, Henry Ford

is probably one of the greatest customs collectors we have in Canada. Henry Ford collects somewhere in the neighbourhood of three or four million dollars per annum. And where does that money go? Into the pocket of Henry Ford and it will doubtless be used to defray his expenses in the next Presidential election in the United States instead of going into the exchequer of Canada.

The hon. member for Hants who has just resumed his seat said when he began his remarks that he was not a tariff expert, that he did not know very much about the tariff. Yet, almost in the very same breath he went on to state that the present tariff is a tariff for revenue only. How can the hon. gentleman advance such a contention as that when I have shown the enormous sum of money that the people of this country pay in duties on automobiles alone? Does not that one instance prove that the present tariff is a protective tariff purely and simply? Sir, it is because the Liberal party did not live up to its promises in regard to the tariff that the Progressive party is in existence to-day. In 1896 the Liberal party had a good platform and I helped to support it. Sir Wilfried Laurier was probably one of the greatest statesmen ever produced in Canada, and I heard him declare on one occasion in the neighbouring town of Listowel that if he were returned to power he would positively reduce the tariff. Not only that but that he would either abolish the Senate or place it on an elective basis. How did the Liberal party carry out their promises when they were returned to power in 1896? They acted in just the same way as they are doing to-day. I do not impugn Sir Wilfrid Laurier's motives in not putting into operation the platform of his party, neither do I blame altogether the present Prime Minister for not carrying out the pledges of his party. In the case of the former statesman we find that he and his party were deserted by eighteen Liberal magnates in the city of Toronto headed by Sir Thomas White. They were the men who kept Sir Wilfrid Laurier from bringing the platform of his party into effect and, Sir, if our suspicions are correct the same influences are at work to-day, the same influences are keeping the present government from carrying out their pledges. These are some of the reasons why the Progressive party has sprung into existence. Now, although we may differ politically there is no reason why we should differ socially; there is no reason for not entertaining a kindly spirit towards each other. But when it comes to politics there is serious ground for difference and we must differ and we must fight. Some of my good Liberal friends-and I have many yet-and some of

The Budget-Mr. King (Huron)

my good Conservative friends, say "Scratch a Progressive and you will find a Grit or a Tory." Well, they have been scratching for the last eighteen months and what have they found. The Liberal party found two members of the Progressive party that were not true Progressives, and the Tory party have found in the provincial arena in Toronto two others who were not real Progressives.

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

An hon. MEMBER:

Horse and horse.

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

John Warwick King

Progressive

Mr. KING (Huron):

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LAB

James Shaver Woodsworth

Labour

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Would the hon.

member object to the federal government taking that $2,000,000 extra before the man died?

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

John Warwick King

Progressive

Mr. KING (Huron):

Yes, I would object, for the reason I stated a moment ago, that any country on this earth, I do not care what country it may be, has to be very careful of its capital. If you take capital out of any

2910 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. King (Huron)

country, what have you? You place the country in a state similar to that of Russia at the present time, you drive capitalists out of the country and you prevent capital from coming in.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LAB

James Shaver Woodsworth

Labour

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Would it not have the same effect if the 32,000,000 were taken after the man is dead? Would not the capital of the country be affected in that case?

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

John Warwick King

Progressive

Mr. KING (Huron):

After the man is dead he would not have any kick coming. I was particularly well pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see that an offer was made of reciprocity with the United States, the offer to remain on the statute books of Canada. I wish to follow' up that proposition for a few moments. One of the first arguments against reciprocity between Canada and the United States, by the opponents of that scheme, was that there is a similarity of a sameness in the products of the two countries. Granting that-and I do not grant it altogether-there is not one particle more similarity between the products of Ontario and the products of the state of Michigan than there is between the products of Ontario and of Quebec. There is no more similarity between, we will say, the products of Manitoba and the products of Alberta than there is between the products of Alberta and of one of the northern states. For instance, there might be a failure in the line of production in one section while another section might have an abundance in that same line, and by a system of fair exchange the balance is retained all the year round. Plums are produced in the province of Quebec six months after they are produced in California, and I could name any amount of other products which are in the same position. Therefore you would have a more uniform exchange for that reason.

There is also a diversity of products between the United States and Canada. Cotton and semi-tropical fruits are produced in the United States, whereas in Canada we can grow the best wheat in the world. In regard to the area from which certain products are produced, what have we in the Maritime provinces? We have coal and fish in abundance, and we have the New England states lying side by side with the Maritime provinces, and a water haul all the way, if we only had free trade. Then sir, what have we in Pennsylvania and Pittsburg? We have coal. But when Ontario gets her white coal, she will not need the black coal from Pennsylvania and Pittsburg. At the present time we in Ontario and Quebec have coal to the south of us. In the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta we have illimitable beds of coal,

while in the states immediately to the south they have not this coal. What could be better than a treaty of exchange? Under the old reciprocity treaty which was in effect from 1854 to 1866 exports to the United States increased from $10,000,000 in 1854 to $87,000,000 in 1865. Our exports quadrupled in twelve years of reciprocity and the opponents of reciprocity will say that it was the Americans who got sick first. I do not know whether that is correct or not. I think it w;as on account of the favouritism-I might call it favouritism

shown by Canada

and Great Britain towards the South in the Civil War more than anything else. When real restriction began with the McKinley tariff, the effect was more injurious and was felt with especial force by the agricultural industry of Canada. The first relief came in 1897, when the late Hon. Sydney Fisher removed the quarantine restriction. The real boom came, however, in 1913, when some agricultural products were placed on the United States free list. As a result our exports of cattle alone to the United States during the seven years from 1914 to 1929, both inclusive, was 260,000 head per annum as against only 28,000 head in 1913. Our ex ports of all animals and the products of animals jumped from less than $13,000,000 worth in 1913 to $113,000,000 in 1920. What better proof can any person get, or what better proof do we want of the advantages of a reciprocal treaty with the United States? If any stronger argument is required as to the value of the American market for the Canadian producer, it is found in what has occurred since the Fordney-McCumber tariff went into force. Our exports of potatoes alone were $447,000 worth in the first six months under the new tariff as compared with $2,000,000 worth in 1920.

When the question of freer trade relations between Canada and the Uuited States is under consideration, the discussion is generally limited to natural products; but I am going to say that I do not see why the manufacturer cannot live and do well also. I do not see any reason why the discussion should be so limited. In my opinion, reciprocal free trade with the United States in all lines would be more beneficial than a reciprocal arrangement limited to natural products. In no other part of the world are there greater facilities for manufacturing than in Ontario and Quebec. In both provinces raw material is to be found in abundance. It is true you do not fiud iron; but we have the iron if we only had the capital to develop it. That is where capi tal comes in. If you do not have the capita'

The Budget-Mr. King (Huron)

you cannot make a country; you cannot make a nation. Both provinces have power in unlimited quantities, and when we get the SI. Lawrence deepened, we shall have power galore. There is just one thing lacking-a market. With all of North America open to our manufacturers, that want will be supplied, and in a few jrnars no two states in the union will surpass Quebec and Ontario in the manufacturing industry.

I know that the late president of the Mas-sey-Harris Company said to myself: "I am ready for free trade right now." Why not?

I do not see that any government, I do not care what it is, need be afraid if ever we get an opportunity of concluding a reciprocal treaty with the United States.

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

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

Were the duties

under the proposed reciprocal pact of 1911 not higher on agricultural implements than they are under the present tariff?

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

John Warwick King

Progressive

Mr. KING (Huron):

I do not know that I can just answer my hon. friend, but I do not think they were.

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

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

A good deal higher.

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

John Warwick King

Progressive

Mr. KING (Huron):

I will continue. At the present time there is between Canada and the United States a better feeling than ever existed in the past. In the Canadian parliament there are 119 followers of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who have been elected with reciprocity as one of the planks in the party platform. I do not know whether they are all going to stand up to it or not. Behind my own leader there are 63 followers who have even more strongly declared for reciprocity.

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

George Perry Graham (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM:

They will not dare to vote against it.

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

John Warwick King

Progressive

Mr. KING (Huron):

I do not know but the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) will support it unless he has radically changed since 1910. Therefore, there cannot be quite 50 members of this House of Commons wh" are opposed to reciprocity with the United States.

Again the United States have at the present time a president who has done more than any other man living or dead to promote world peace by the Washington Disarmament Conference. President Harding realizes that next to the piling up of armaments by nation against nation, the greatest cause of war during the last two centuries has been found in commercial rivalry and restrictions of trade brought about by such rivalry. He also realizes that nothing will do more to ensure the peace of the world to-day than the cornplete removal of tariffs and restrictions now interfering with international commerce. Examined from every angle, there never was a more opportune time for the beginning of negotiations towards the making of a trade agreement with the United States. It seemed in the past that when Canada was ready for a treaty, the United States was not ready, and vice versa. We went around with a chip on our shoulder at one time, and at another the Americans went around with a chip on their shoulder. Any boy who goes to school knows that the boy who goes around with a chip on his shoulder will eventually get some one to knock it off.

We have a great country to live in, and what we want in Canada is citizenship. It is estimated at the present time there are five million Canadians in the United States. Chicago has the largest Canadian population of any city in the United States and New York is a close second. Everywhere one goes in the United States, one finds Canadians in positions of eminence. That is the kind of people the Canadians are; no matter what country they go to, they secure positions of eminence. Have we the best possible people to take their places to-day? We have brought over shiploads of riff-raff and remnants of Europe, and we have planted them on the land. What are we going to do with them? We should have taken hold of this problem as our neighbours to the south of us have done. There they have told the foreigners to become good Americans or get out, and we ought to do the same in Canada. We ought to tell the foreigner when he comes to Canada that he must become a good Canadian or get out. That is where we have fallen down. We should at once put up the bars against all those whose children we would not like to see marry our children. We should not admit anyone who would not become as good as ourselves, and we should keep out those whose traits are dishonest and whose morals and mode of living are low.

In old times citizenship was valued; but even the Roman Empire went to pieces from two causes. One cause was the depopulation of the land, and I warn Canadians in this House of Commons that we are in danger from the same cause at the present time. The other cause was that they let anything and everything become a citizen of Rome. Let us start right away to teach every boy and girl in Canada citizenship, to take an interest in Canada. We have everything in Canada worth while. Canada is a white man's country, and I hope to see it remain a white man's country.

The Budget-Mr. Ryckman

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

May 18, 1923