May 7, 1924

LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

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

25 "

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

5 "

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

Joseph Henry Harris

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HARRIS:

When the hon. minister

is expounding his view on this matter, will he give the Horae the information per capita, rural and urban?

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

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

We do not take

our census that way.

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

Joseph Henry Harris

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HARRIS:

Does he expect the city

people to make butter?

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

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I will refer the

hon. member to the department. I took the figures as I got them and these are the right figures. Oh yes, these figures spoil all their little song over there; they will have to get some other story, because these figures puncture their story.

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

Joseph Henry Harris

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HARRIS:

Will the hon. minister

give us the urban population?.

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell

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

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

There is a statistical branch to which the hon. member can go and get the information. We do not give these figures on any other basis; and furthermore when we give grants it is on a per capita basis, irrespective of urban or rural. The Agricultural Instruction Act was operated on a per capita basis, irrespective of rural or urban population, and I am giving these figures on the basis the census returns are given. I am glad to know that my hon. friend feels he is up a tree.

Speaking of eggs, I have heard my hon. friends talk about eggs all this session, and every time they talk about them they give a culprit-look in this direction, as if I were responsible for there not being more eggs in this country. In the province I come from there are more eggs produced per capita than in the province of Ontario. The figures are as follows: .

Product Province Per capita

Eggs ....Saskatchewan 46

"

Alberta

43"

Ontario

24

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

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

Does my hon. friend not realize that carloads of eggs have been imported into Ontario during the past three months as a result of thn low tariff on butter and eggs?

Mr. MOTHERWELL: That makes it

worse.

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

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

And that they are

sold cheaper than the Ontario farmer can produce them.

Mr. MOTHERWELL: That makes it

worse. They should produce more here. That is why they are shy of eggs. "Produce more eggs" says the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). Why not have less hog cholera? Then we come to hogs. In that commodity Alberta leads again. The figures are:

Product Province Per capita

Hogs ....Alberta 1.11

" Saskatchewan

0.84" Ontario

0.57

Again we find Ontario away down, about half as much as Alberta-.57 per capita. Why can our friends from Ontario not develop the hog industry instead of lagging behind? They are all slaughtered for the cholera in that province.

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

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

Would the hon.

minister like an answer to that question?

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

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

Yes.

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

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

All you have to do is to refer to the quantity of American pork that is imported into Ontario to answer your question.

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

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

That does not

affect these statistics. These are live hogs. When I took the census return of 1921 it was a great surprise to me, although I knew the position with reference to butter and other articles. I knew that per capita we had more production of butter than any other province. Saskatchewan has the greatest amount of poultry next to Ontario-not merely per capita, but taken as a province. The pork industry has developed there to a remarkable extent, has flooded our eastern market, and to a large extent supplied the New York market last year. So that we are headed right in the direction that our hon. friends are pointing, and they will have to present some other argument than the one they have presented to switch us off the tariff, because it will not work.

Coming to dairy cows; Ontario should excel in this product. I am not speaking of this disparagingly because I know there is a large urban population; but man for man and woman for woman and child for child, we produce more out West than is produced in the eastern provinces. I did not take the figures for the province of Quebec, because I did not want to give the department too much work, and I had to do it in a hurry. I did not take Manitoba, but I believe they would show up much better.

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

Robert Forke

Progressive

Mr. FORKE:

Sure.

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

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

But I took the two provinces that were looked upon as the greater culprits. Referring to the product of dairy cows, the figures are as follows:

Product Province Per capitaDairy Cows ....Alberta

0.65.. ..Saskatchewan

0.50.... Ontario

0.42

The figures for the production of beef cattle are as follows:

Product Province Per capitaBeef Cattle .. ..Alberta

1.75.. ..Saskatchewan

1.39" .. ..Ontario

0.52I am going to give these figures to Hansard, so as to have them placed correctly on the record, and if anybody desires to check them up with the statistical department he can do so. I checked these statistics twice, so that there would be no doubt about their accuracy. .

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell

Then we come to manufactured goods. It has been suggested, "If you cannot make this form of production pay, why do you not develop industrial life out there and go into manufacturing?" Well, we are doing so now. There again we are taking their advice. We are also working along the lines of the middle western states of the United States. I do not know that in 'our time we shdll ever be a great manufacturing country, but nevertheless the manufactures that are being developed there are wonderful. I have a list of them before me, and I may as well explain, in reading this statement, that the Statistical department has classified1 the milling industry as a manufacturing industry-and strictly

speaking, I think that is right-and the packing industry as a manufacturing industry. I merely make that explanation. The milling industry is a manufacturing industry; we manufacture wheat into flour. If we have regard to that, in round figures Alberta manufactures on a per capita basis, $113 worth per capita; Manitoba manufactures $202 worth per capita. Saskatchewan is away down, as we might expect, because it has not devoted so much attention to manufacturing. In Saskatchewan there are no large urban centres and such like. Saskatchewan manufactures only $66 worth per capita; Ontario manufactures $481 worth per capita, and Quebec, $332 worth per capita. It will be noticed that the figures as regards Manitoba are less than one-half of those of Ontario, but they constitute a great deal more than one-third of the manufactured products when you count flour and abattoir. Surely then vre are not doing so badly.

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

Leon Johnson Ladner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LADNER:

Has the minister the

figures for British Columbia?

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

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I am sorry I did

not get those, because it was from British Columbia that we were receiving this kind of advice. I was not so much concerned with British Columbia; that province was not looked upon so much as an agricultural country as some of the other provinces, and I did not ask for the figures for that province. Alberta and Saskatchewan were alleged to be the chief sinners, and as the advice came largely from Ontario, I wanted to make the comparison between the ones that were alleged to be committing this grievous offence of not doing anything but growing wheat, and the ones that were giving the advice. The figures for British Columbia will be interesting, because that province has developed wonderfully along the lines of poultry raising as well

as fruit growing during recent years. Those are the figures, and that is the answer which I would give to those who are trying to becloud the tariff issue by telling us to go into mixed farming. I am not deprecating mixed farming, but I am glad to be able to produce this evidence that the people of the West as well as the people of the East are taking this advice without waiting for it to come from the sources to which I have referred. They are using it, not because they think these hon. gentlemen know anything about agriculture. They do not; they simply put it out as the only line of thought they have in order to try to divert our attention from the tariff.

Long before this budget came down, in fact, last January, I had the opportunity of giving an address in Montreal before the Rotary Club, who were good enough to invite me there, and that club being non-political, I could not mention the word "tariff." I have not a copy of my speech as it appeared in the Montreal Gazette, but I can give the substance of it. The subject of my address was that we should develop the practice of using more of "made in Canada" goods. That was before the House met and in the city of Montreal where this policy would meet with favour, although we might differ as to the best methods of attaining that end. I pointed out that some people believed that the way of attaining that end, that is, the end of having more "made in Canada" goods used, was to shut out other goods-I did not use the word "tariff;" I used the word "restriction" -by excluding goods by restrictive measures. I said that that will not work; that it never has worked. As a matter of fact, while there has been no systematic determination in the West not to use eastern goods, ever since reciprocity was defeated and we were denied the benefits of that market, western men have found it more and more difficult to prevail upon themselves to use eastern goods. That is human nature. That attitude, however, is wearing away. Time heals up those things, and now I have dared to preach in Montreal -I do not know whether they agreed with me or not; they did not look black at me-that trade restrictions will never develop a spirit of using "made in Canada" goods. I will venture to guess-and the same idea was promulgated by the hon. member for Brandon, the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke)-that if they'could see their way to take the stand of the Massey-Harris people, they would double and treble their sales to the Canadian farmers in the next four or five years. Is that not a better policy to pursue than that of sticking us to the full extent of

184S

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell

the tariff and then selling cheap implements abroad? Those practices cannot prevail any longer; the people will not stand for them. We have no enmity towards the manufacturers, and this is purely a political question. They tried to make out that we are the enemies of industry and that we think in no other terms than those of agriculture; but the industries themselves have demonstrated right in the midst of this debate what they can do; they have come out in the public press saying: "I am going to accept this tariff, to try it out and to rely upon the fairness of the Canadian farmer to patronize home industry." This is a statement made in the public press yesterday by the Massey-Harris Company: [DOT]

The new rates, now effective, represent a minimum of protection, and it is believed that apart from goods which are permitted to be imported free of duty, the customs rates now carried by farm implements are lower than those applicable to any other class of imported goods.

It represents the minimum of protection. This is a manufacturer that admits that 6 per cent is protection, that 10 per cent is protection; that 7i per cent, 124 per cent is protection. Our hon. friends opposite take the ground that because this tariff is reduced to as near as one can conceive a revenue basis, it is free trade. That is free nonsense and humbug, for effect. The manufacturers do not designate it as that. They know that every one per cent that is imposed is that much protection although it is revenue producing. Its protective features are incidental; the outstanding feature is that it is revenue producing. Further on the Massey-Harris Company state:

We shall endeavour to adjust ourselves to the new conditions and we will give to the Canadian fanner every possible advantage arising out of the changes made. We rely upon him to do everything within his power to stimulate Canadian industry by the purchase of Canadian-made-machines.

The provisions of the budget which exempt farm implements from the sales tax are most welcome, and these, combined with the lowering of customs duties on raw materials announced in the government's amendments, now enable the manufacturer to make an immediate reduction in his prices.

That is the proper kind of spirit. That is a vastly different spirit from that with which the manufacturers met reciprocity. If they are willing to forget it, I am willing to forget it. We cannot develop Canada to the utmost by harking back to our difficulties and differences. Lft us forget them. This company is a manufacturing concern of outstanding merit. Its implements, notwithstanding reciprocity, I have bought for forty years, and I intend to

continue to buy them; but I, as well as thousands of others, would buy them more freely so long as we are ready to pull on an even and double whipple-tree along with the other industries of Canada.

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

James Arthurs

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):

the volume of production and provide employment for thousands who to-day are idle, many having been forced to go elsewhere to find work.

I was very much interested in an address by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) who took this matter up in the House on March 31. He pointed out how inconsistent some of these rates were, particularly in regard to coal. After considerable negotiation last year the Canadian National Railway management offered on coal in train lots during certain months a rate of $9 per ton from Drumheller to Toronto, or $450 per carload. My friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) pointed out that the railroad would carry from Vancouver to any point in Quebec a carload of Epsom salts for $350, whereas they wanted $450 to carry a carload of coal one thousand miles less. On looking into the matter I find that the hon. member is correct. A number of other articles may be instanced on which the rate is lower than that offered on coal. Chinaware, one of the most fragile of commodities, is given a rate from Vancouver to Montreal or any other ocean port of $360 per carload, as against this $450 rate from Alberta to Toronto, a shorter haul by one thousand miles. I have already pointed out that this rate offered on coal was for train lots and at a time when the railroad had very little business; in other words, this traffic would keep their freight cars in use and their men on the job. In this connection I might point out that our importation of coal last year from the United States amounted to 4,840,713 tons of anthracite and 15.072,285 tons of soft or bituminous coal, representing a cost to Canada of over $90,-

000.000. I think, Sir this is one of the most important questions we have to deal with. We must see if there is not some way by which we can stop this leak of $90,000,000, in addition to the payment of heavy railway rates, and so keep the money in Canada for Canadian workmen.

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

An hon. MEMBER:

Particularly the miners of Nova Scotia.

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

James Arthurs

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ARTHURS:

Yes, particularly the

miners of Nova Scotia. This brings me to another question, Mr. Speaker, which I think is also more important at the present time than the tariff-the question of emigration and immigration. According to Canadian government reports we have received during the past fiscal year 133,000 immigrants; and according to equally reliable reports of the United States government we have sent to that country alone 183,000 emigrants who

paid the head tax as settlers. We must remember that almost as many men enter the United States who do not pay the head tax-young men who. go over as visitors and do not come back. If the Americans are ready to admit that last year we gave them over

183,000 men, it is a most distressing state of affairs. It has been calculated that the average workingman earns and spends $1,000 each year. If that be true, then Canada last year lost $183,000,000-not only for that year but for all future years while these men stay away. I can remember when it was a common practice in Ontario and other provinces to bonus factories, small towns were always willing to give a considerable bonus to induce a factory to locate with them which would have a pay roll say, of $100,000 a year. Yet our exodus to the United States alone last year would represent the pay roll of two thousand such factories if we could keep those men at home.

Some one has said during the course of this debate that we are losing to the United States immigrants whom we brought in at considerable expense. I think the government have been taking a certain amount ot comfort out of the thought that they were not losing true Canadians, they were just losing immigrants brought over from the various continental countries. But I have in my hand a return of the United States immigration authorities for the fiscal year which ended in June last, showing that during that year there were officially entered, to the United States, 117,011 immigrants from Canada, and they were classified. We must remember that we have no classification as Canadians in our census returns, consequently a Canadian is classed according to the racial origin of his father. Those immigrants were classified as follows by the United States

authorities:

English 39,295

French-Canadian 30,438

Scotch 17,045

Irish 12,000

Welsh 656

Or out of a total of 117,011 who proceeded officially from Canada to the United States during the fiscal year over 99,500 were absolutely Canadians who had been brought up in this country for years.

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

May 7, 1924