I knew you would not like it at all. Do we Liberals entirely disregard the industries? Not at all, but our primary thought is the development of our natural resources, the first of which is, admittedly, agriculture; then, if you like, lumbering, then mining, then fishing. Which is the correct thing, to forget all about agriculture and think only of building up industry, which after all must be a secondary institution? Why, the early settlers all around Bytown here, one hundred or one hundred and twenty-five years ago, had no manufacturing institutions to support or to get their implements from. They hoed the ground with crude hoes and got their crops in without agricultural implements. I had the pleasure, Mr. Speaker, of seeing a collection of agricultural implements at Budapest some ten or twelve years ago which illustrated the development in implements of agriculture in the course of hundreds of years. Some of these instruments were very primitive indeed, and yet the people who used them managed to grow crops with their aid. I do not want to go back to those primitive aids to agriculture, neither do I want to be made insolvent by buying high-class machinery although high-priced machinery may be necessary in employing the best methods of cultivation today. But there is a happy medium between these two extremes. We believe the primary industries must be given primary consideration; after we have developed them all we can, let us see to the advantage of the manu-
The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
factures that are indigenous to the country and get along with reasonable assistance in their early days. By all means develop them, but do not develop them by crucifying the primary industries-that would be a mistake. Some countries must export raw material. How is it that Great Britain became the greatest manufacturing country in the world? Through the medium of her mercantile marine, through her access to the raw materials of the world, through cheap labour, and through a low tariff or no tariff at all. If she has to buy the raw materials that she needs some other nation must sell them, and we in this country are producers, essentially producers, of raw materials. Do not misunderstand me. Do not gather the impression that I say that we should not manufacture any of these raw materials. We should manufacture all of the raw materials possible when we can do so profitably without injury to the rest of the people; but to compel a lot of us to be made the goat in order that other people should profit is a mistaken policy and one that cannot last. We have stood it all these years because in the past there has been enough to go around; but when there is a great war debt to be paid then the burden must be equalized, it must be properly distributed. One of the most hopeful signs of the times to-day is the manner in which the Massey-Harris Company is accepting this budget. They say "All right. If you are going to give us ^ raw materials we will do our best but we rely upon the good will of the Canadian people to patronize Canadian manufactures." And that is right. The manufacturers will get popular support far more quickly in that way than they will by compulsion under a high tariff, because you never can compel people in the long run to assume an obligation if they can evade the obligation at all. Let me say that this is not a western budget alone; it is accepted just as freely in the Maritime provinces, in nearly all Quebec, in a great deal of rural Ontario and some parts of urban Ontario, as it is in the West. It is a budget for the whole of the people, and I am particularly glad that the manufacturers are showing a disposition to accept the situation and try it out. Then later on, if they cannot operate under a budget like this, let us inquire into the situation and see if anything is due to them -not from their former victims but from the state itself. I take this ground: if we have to have industries, and if they cannot support themselves, although that has not been shown yet, then we will accept them
at their own classification-that is that they put themselves in the class of industrial pensioners. I am not doing that, the Massey-Harris firm has not done that; but I take the ground that if our industries are not self-supporting, if they cannot operate, if they cannot navigate the commercial waters of Canada under their own steam as it were, then we should1 devise some other way than that of authorizing them to levy on their customers as they have been doing the last fifty years. If such a proceeding is necessary in Canada's interests, if these manufacturers admit now that they are not self-sustaining and cannot operate without protection, then they become industrial pensioners and should be supported by the state like any other pensioners, and not by their customers upon whom they have been living all these years. When the returned soldiers came back to Canada we were glad to contribute towards a pension for them. But that pension was not levied on any one particular class. When a civil servant is superannuated by parliament the money for his superannuation comes out of the general treasury. Now, if we are going to have industrial pensioners- and I do not believe we are; but if that is the position the industries are in as claimed by our opponents, if they are not self-supporting-then I say that these industrial pensioners should be supported by the state, out of the public treasury, and not by the customers as the practice has been.
Examining into this whole system I doubt very much whether the system of giving the power to levy taxation-and this power has practically been delegated to companies and to manufacturers-is sound at all. I take the ground that the power to impose taxation belongs to the state and the state only. When I say the state I mean either the Dominion, the provincial, or the municipal governments. When we introduce a protective tariff if is a tax which is double-barrelled in its character. One feature consists of a straight tax levied by the state through the medium of the customs. That is one barrel. The other is the excess price that the manufacturers are permitted to charge by reason of the protection which that tariff affords. Virtually these manufacturers adopt a system of taxation whereby they are permitted by law to levy a higher price on their customers. After a person has submitted to such a system all his life that fact is as plain as the nose on a man's face-and that sometimes is fairly conspicuous.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that the right to tax is a function that should be reserved for the
The Budget-Mr. Motherwell
state and for the state alone; and if the manufacturers are to be helped the state should do it and not the individual.
Now, I do not wish to be harsh. I have never taken the ground, in this House that a new industry should not be supported, I have always taken the very opposite ground. I have always held that if an industry was worthy of the name, if it was indigenous to the country with some reasonable likelihood of succeeding, it might be justifiable to lend it some aid in its infantile days, some sort of help that would recede with time, get less and gradually disappear. But I am not satisfied that these industries should be infants for all time. That is the difference between myself and hon. gentlemen opposite. In nature young life requires nursing; I do not care whether it is a human being, a denizen of the jungle or a domestic bird on a farm, infancy always requires to be taken care of; and at this particular time when new industries are established I believe they will require to be taken care of in some way. But what has been the result of the system we have followed in the past? The effect has been to establish a privileged class in Canada that you cannot shake free from protection. That system has grown to such an extent that industries though established for half a century want to continue under it in perpetuity. I see the friendly face of the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Marler), who spoke about the possibility of establishing a "cost of living tariff." I wonder what that means. A cost of living tariff in Montreal would be a sumptuous affair to the man on the prairie or on any of the farms of Canada. Personally I do not know what it means. However, I wish to make myself quite clear on that point-that while I am opposed to protecting institutions after they have got on their feet, I have never opposed at any time in my public career giving some form of reasonable receding assistance to young institutions. That is a vastly different thing to adopting protection as a principle in the case of industries of old age such as has been the system followed in Canada.
When this kind of talk is indulged in we are told by our Conservative friends, "Well, if you would do something else besides growing grain, you would not be putting all your eggs in the one basket, you would not be in the condition you are in now and would be able to get along nicely under the present tariff". I do not think the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) realized just how his advice sounded when he was handing it to us. I took it to myself, although he directed it to the Progressives
I come from the same part of the country as most of those hon. gentlemen, and his' remarks indicated that he thought the people of the West should farm their property. Of course our farming methods can be improved, that is admitted; but my hon. friends across the way seem to think we do not do anything in the West except grow wheat. Although this is not directly connected with the budget, I would like to disillusionize the House on that question. We are rapidly becoming a general farming community out there; so much so that I am sure some of you who have not seen these figures will be inclined to doubt some of them. My hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) is interested in dairying, but if somebody had said offhand that if the farmers on the prairie produced more butter than the farmers in Ontario, that would be a wild-looking statement. And yet it is a fact. Why all this gratuitous advice to us? They say, "Leave the tariff where it is, and go and throw away your can-opener; get busy at something else rather than wheat growing." The figures I have before me come from the statistical department; I checked them up and I think they are right. Take first the product of butter. The figures are as follows: -
Product Province Per capitaButter ....Alberta
37 pounds" Saskatchewan
30 "" Ontario
It is true that part of itheir dairying goes in other directions, but I am speaking only of butter. In the matter of poultry, the figures are as follows:
Product Province Per capitaPoultry....Saskatchewan
11 pounds" Alberta
10 "" Ontario
Subtopic: THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic: CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE