May 9, 1924

LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I think that

what I have said would indicate that it is,- yes.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   FIRST READINGS
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Everybody else has spoken. We are all helping you.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic:   FIRST READINGS
Permalink

THE BUDGET

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


The House resumed from Thursday, May S, the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. The Budget-Mr. Stevens



Robb (Acting Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Woodsworth.


CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):

Mr. Speaker, as a basis for the contribution which I propose to make to this debate I desire first of all to recite some obvious facts and then to outline certain problems and perplexities facing the people of this country, whereupon I shall offer to the House what I believe will most effectively assist in dealing with and solving these problems and perplexities. In the first two divisions of my remarks I hope to carry with me the united approval and concurrence of the House; in the others I know I shall enter upon controversial ground, because there is room for difference of opinion. In respect to these I shall merely attempt to present what I believe to be in the best interests of the country under the circumstances.

In the first place, let me direct the attention of the House to something which perhaps it is wholly unnecessary to state, but which I refer to merely for the purpose of laying a basis for what I shall say later. Canada is vast in area, but it is divided into two general sections by a great V-shaped plateau stretching from the shores of Labrador southwesterly into Ontario, taking in the northern part of Quebec and Ontario, then proceeding westerly, taking in the northern half or more of Manitoba and the northern section of Saskatchewan and touching the northern half of Alberta. This great plateau, a vast area of forest and lake wilderness, has formed what has sometimes been described as the despair of the statesmen of Canada. It contains, however, great mineral wealth.

In natural resources Canada is peculiarly placed, in regard to forest and fisheries, mines, arable land and water-power-the latter particularly I shall bring to the attention of the House. In fact, Sir, we have every prerequisite necessary for a great nation, industrial, agricultural, and scientific. In addition to this, Canada has peculiar advantages in markets and transportation. We have the Great Lakes transportation facility, unexcelled in so far as inland waters are concerned, by any country in the world. We have systems of railway transportation which are unequalled, considering the nature of the country. Consequently we may say that our transportation facilities are of the highest type. So far as markets are concerned, on the east we have reasonably ready access to Europe and its great markets, and on the west coast we have access to the

great, new and growing markets of the Orient. In spite of these advantages-geographical, marketing, climatic, transportation and natural resources-we find a condition of depression and anxiety pervading this country; industry is languishing and agriculture is complaining; taxes are high, and emigration, to the United States in particular, is becoming alarming. The question I want to put to the House is this: What is the trouble; what is

wrong with the country? I hold that it is the duty of members of this House to solve, or attempt at least to solve, this problem.

Let me, as the second point, state what I believe to be the problem. I think the House will agree that the problem facing Canada today is, first, lack of true national co-operation. The country is divided occupationally as well as geographically. I have pointed out the geographical division of the country by that vast area north of lake Superior in northern Ontario which constitutes a hiatus between the East and the West, and, as I say, there is an occupational division as well as a geographical one. Second, there is a financial stringency; there is a peculiar difficulty in getting credit, at least on the part of certain sections of the community. Third, capital is becoming timid and is not investing in Canadian enterprise and development as we would like. Fourth, although transportation facilities are unexcelled in their magnitude and in their distribution over the country, nevertheless there is a grave shortage of tonnage for the transportation facilities that we enjoy. I think the House will agree that that is a fair statement of fact. .

Now I come to the third part of my remarks, which will almost certainly be controversial. The function of parliament, as I understand it, is to determine what general policy or political principle shall be applied to the solution of this problem. It is the peculiar function-indeed, Sir, the duty-of parliament to search out some general policy that will meet to the fullest possible extent, and solve, the problems and perplexities that confront the people of Canada.

From time to time in debates and discussions in [DOT]this House there are those who are, perhaps I might say, allied to the new political school of thought. My hon. friends to my left call it the Progressive party; it is designated in different ways; some call themselves Independents, and so forth, but those who belong to that school of thought sometimes reproach us who still hold allegiance to the old parties with being more or less reactionary, and also with being really Conservative or Liberal, as the case may be.

The Budget-Mr. Stevens

by birth, rather than by reason and by choice. Now, in case that that charge may be levelled against me, and in order that I may offer what argument I have to offer, with, shall I say, a brand of independence attached to it-let me say to those who offer this criticism, that my recollections of politics dated back to my early days when I went down through the streets of old Bristol to a polling booth and waited while my father polled his vote for the late William Ewart Gladstone. He, grand old man, very naturally you would expect me to say, was a strong supporter of Mr. Gladstone, and a Liberal all his life to the day of his death in 1894. Now, as to the background of my political persuasion from the standpoint of reading. I early took an interest in political economy and political works. I remember very early in my life, long before I exercised the franchise, reading with a good deal of interest Progress and Poverty, by Henry George, Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, and the utterances of John Stuart Mill and others; I merely cite this to show that the background of my political faith and my early persuasion as far as I was concerned personally, were Liberal and not Conservative. But when the ballot was placed in my hands in this country, when I became of age, I addressed myself as well as I could to the decision that I was bound to make as to my political alliance and I came to a decision at that time based upon arguments which I thought were sound" then, and which I think are sound to-day, and which I purpose bringing before the House this afternoon, that the great National Policy of Sir John A. Macdonald, as preached and taught and practised by the Conservative party was the best political doctrine for the development of the Dominion of Canada. I merely cite that by the way, and I hope that I may be acquitted at least of the charge that I am following this course simply because I was born to it, when, as a matter of fact, I was not.

My hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Irvine) the other day in a public speech he made, referred in a manner of ridicule, I think, to those who reasoned, as he said, from the past down to the present; in other words, he intimated that those of us at least who hold the Conservative faith, were far behind the times. Indeed he took us back to the time of Bacon, and said that ever since that time that form of reasoning had been abandoned and that it was altogether out of date. I was interested in reading his

speech and I turned up a quotation that had occurred to me some time ago from Bacon, which I will quote to him and to those interested in that particular school of thought as worthy of their consideration. Bacon has this to say in his Advancement of Learning:

Antiquity deserveth that reverence, that a man should make a stand thereupon and discover what is the best way; but when discovery is well taken, then to make progression.

In other words, translated into what might be called the parlance suitable to the discussion before us, these words mean that we should bring from the rich storehouse of experience and history all the knowledge we have, to bear on the problems before us for consideration, determine what is the best course to pursue, and then make progress. And, that, sir, is the true modern Tory doctrine; that is what the Conservative party believes in. We believe in holding to such institutions and such things and policies as time and experience have proven to be sound and true, but not to hold to them as they applied one or two or three hundred years ago, but having searched out from amongst them that which is still applicable to modern problems, to take our stand there and make progress along the line of sound and reasonable development.

There is another school of thought which might be called the school of experimenting with parliamentary and governmental affairs. That school includes those who are restive- shall I say?-under some of the old institutions. My hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), the colleague of my hon. friend from East Calgary, gave us a very eloquent address the other day, but one of the things above all others that ran through his address was a repudiation of things that have been in the past, and an impatience with such: and this school of thought desires to enter into experiment with untried and unknown practices in regard to government.

With this extreme school there is allied what might be called the opportunist group, and with that group I classify my hon. friends opposite, particularly as exemplified in this budget-opportunists who, counting noses in the House of Commons, and finding they are a little short, ask: "What shall we do? Why, across the way,"-'angularly opposite,' as it were-"is a large group which may be tickled into supporting our proposals and our government if we can concede something. What shall we concede? What is the minimum?" And so certain tampering, certain meddling with the fixed and proven-sound policy of the country is indulged in for the sake of getting a little support. So

The Budget-Mr. Stevens

I am justified in saying to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that he and his party can properly be classified as belonging to the opportunist school of political thought.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I take my next step. I want to examine as to what principles and policies can best be applied to the development of Canada's natural resources, the illimitable resources of this vast estate which is committed to our care to develop and administer. We are, as it were the directors, the trustees, of this great estate. Now then, what policies shall be applied to this estate so as to bring forth a maximum of reward to Canada as a whole? Last year the province of British Columbia produced 22 varieties of mineral products; I am merely citing this as an illustration I have the list under my hand, with the tonnage and all the rest of it. Now, a large proportion of the 22 varieties of the mineral products that were mined in British Columbia went out of Canada in an undeveloped, raw condition. What advantage is it to Canada to dig out of the ground a ton of copper ore, which is nothing more than ordinary rock until the processes of science are applied to it, if all that Canada gets out of it is the labour cost of extracting it from the ground? And then we take that ton, and thousands and millions of tons as we are doing every year, and send it across the border, for what purpose? That it might there be brought to a high degree of manufactured perfection; that is what we are doing and have been doing in greater or less degree in Canada. I know it maybe thrown back at me: Oh, but you have had a protective system in Canada to a degree. But as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the protective system in Canada has been very near the margin of a free trade tariff during recent years. There has been a process of attrition going on for many years in connection with the Canadian tariff.

Now, what policy shall be applied? The more highly manufactured the article the greater the man-earning value to the country that produces it; that I think is a sound principle in economics, and one, I think, as to which no one will differ with me. It is told of Michael Angelo that on one occasion he was showing one of his masterpieces to a friend, and he showed how by a touch here and a touch there he had brought out the full perfection of this marvellous work of art. The friend said, "Oh but these things are mere trifles." Michael Angelo replied, "True, they are trifles, but trifles make perfection, and perfection is no trifle." Now that same principle can be applied to industry. It may seem a trifling thing to take

off or lower the duty on an industry comparatively small like the one I have under my hand that makes rods, and bolts and nuts; it may seem a trifling thing, Mr. Speaker, by reducing the tariff to put a little industry like that out of business. But I remind you, Sir, and the House, that these trifling industries, so described, lead to the perfection of national industry, and perfection in national development is no trifle. Canada must preserve to its industries the home market and, what is of greater importance, secure entry for its merchants and manufacturers under favourable terms to the markets of other countries. This must be secured through a fiscal policy of consistent and adequate protection. There are those in the House who will at once repudiate that argument, but I am not seeking to argue the point with the mind that is closed. Still I do invite consideration and attention to this suggestion.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the tariff has three peculiar functions to perform, a fact, I think, which very often is overlooked. We hear a great deal about the protective function of the tariff. That is only one, and to my mind, a minor function of the tariff; it has two other functions to perform, and very vital and important functions: One is to preserve the home market, to which I shall make further reference in a moment. There is the further function, which to my mind is the most important of all-the tariff constitutes a bargaining power in the hands of a government. Now let me examine those three functions.

First, the function to preserve the nome market. Mass production is the chief competitor of Canada; it is the chief competitor of any manufacturing industry whether it is in Canada or elsewhere. This great problem of mass production is, we know, one of a wholly technical character. May I in passing suggest this-and I wish not to dwell upon this more than a moment because I know it is unnecessary for me to do so; hon. members are just as close students of these subjects as I am: Does not the great British Empire, spread as it is all over the world, having dependencies in every corner of the world and existing under every climatic condition-does not this great Empire offer itself in a peculiarly advantageous manner for the development of the mass production of commodities indigenous to the countries which form its various parts? I should like to suggest that the policy of Canada should be not only to preserve the home market

The Budget-Mr. Stevens

for the sake of home industries, but to erect a protective policy for Canadian industries so that those industries might co-operate with the industries of Great Britain, Australia, South Africa, and other parts of the Empire, and enter upon a scheme of mass production enabling them to compete with the great manufacturing countries of Germany and the United States, our chief competitors.

Now, let me give an illustration of what mass production can do. I have in my hand a detailed statement, which I purpose dealing with when we come to consider the schedule, covering logging and saw-mill machinery. It will be recalled, Sir, that in this budget the government have reduced very materially the duty on manufactured articles of this class. I am simply going to make a statement of facts at this time; later I shall argue the point in detail. The present reduction in the duty on logging machinery will affect thirty-seven firms in British Columbia who are now producing this class of machinery at a cost no higher than is the production cost and the sale price in the state of Washington, and taking no advantage of the duty. The duty simply gives to the Canadian firms all of the Canadian market or practically so. These firms employ 1,555 men at good rates of wages, 4 p.m. with an annual pay roll of $1,817,489. Now, the question naturally comes up: If these establishments can compete with the Washington firms and do not take advantage of the duty then they do not need the duty. That is the argument. What is the answer? It is a very simple and very pertinent one; it is this. The duty in this case preserves the home market to the Canadian firms, and there are a number of them-I have the names of four or five firms under my hand that manufacture this equipment; they constitute a kind of competition among themselves. The standard logging equipment will cost about $13,000, and it is sold in British Columbia, as I have intimated, at the same rate as the same equipment was sold for in the state of Washington, and in many cases a little less. But take off the tariff, or reduce the tariff to a very low rate-which practically means that it might as well be removed entirely-and what is the result? The duty into the United States for our manufacturing concerns is 40 per cent. If the duty into Canada is removed, or almost all removed, the Washington manufacturer has his own market still intact, and he has a share in the Canadian market, whereas the Canadian manufacturer

is unable to get into the Washington territory at all and his home market is divided. Let me give an illustration-a typical case. I will take a firm with a capital of $100,000. It should be allowed as part of its overhead charges 7 per cent interest on its capital, that is $7,000 per annum. The cost of its sales management and staff, oversight of the staff, and so forth, will be $18,000; of insurance, taxes, advertising, and incidentals, $15,000; making the total overhead charges on its operation $40,000. Its output amounts to $500,000, or about that, and it turns out fifty units at $10,000 apiece. Now, if the Washington concern can take half its market, reducing its unit output to twenty-five, what is the result? The overhead charges against that unit in the first instance was $S00, but the minute you cut its output in two you simply double the unit cost of the overhead charges and raise it to $1,600. In other words, by the sharing of that market, without any interference other than that, you increase the cost of this article to the British Columbia firm by the sum of $800. That is an illustration of what is done when you deprive a manufacturer of the home market.

Now let me take the next step and that is the protection. I say the tariff should protect, it should protect industry against a lower standard of living. I notice that one or two hon. gentlemen in this debate rather ridiculed that. Well, I hold in my hand a statement by the Department of Labour, an official statement, showing the Minimum Wage legislation of Canada. Five provinces in Canada have a minimum wage, and I want my hon. friends to the left to mark this, that in every instance, in every minimum wage law in Canada, the agricultural industry is exempted. I am not saying this with any desire to reflect on that industry, I am merely stating a fact, that in Canada, as in other countries, the agricultural industry has always been exempted from this-what shall I say? Arbitrary law. But other industries, particularly the manufacturing industries, are not only saddled with this obligatory law but they are subject to another law, which is a good law, and that is the workmen's compensation act. But, Mr. Speaker, Canada cannot enforce this class of legislation compelling the manufacturers and operators to maintain a certain minimum standard of wages and then ask them to compete in an open market with countries where no such conditions maintain. I pointed this out in figures in regard to the woollen industry: In Canada the minimum

wage is double what it is in Great Britain. Now, these are stubborn facts, and so I say

The Budget-Mr. Stevens

one of the functions of a tariff, and one of the duties of a government, is to see that Canadian industry is protected in regard to the minimum wage.

Also, it is the function of a tariff to protect industry against competition with countries with depreciated currencies. This is, perhaps, one of the most dangerous rivalries that we have to-day in regard to modern competition. I hold in my hand at the moment a prospectus or circular of a certain American company, George Borgfeldt & Co., of New York. This concern has been appointed, so he declares, by D. & W. Gibbs, of London, as the sole distributors of a long list of German goods for the United States and Canada. These goods are sold to the public as English goods. I have under my hand, for instance, their own circular, and on one of the articles I find a very handsome comb marked the "King Edward" comb. Supposing a very ultra loyal Britisher, like, let us say, the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke), steps into a drug store and picks up a comb-like myself he does not need one very badly-and he sees this comb stamped "King Edward" He does not have to ask, so he would think, whether this was made in Germany or Canada or Great Britain; it seems to speak for itself That is the competition which we are up against, plus the advantage given to the German exporter in regard to the depreciated currency credits of his country Let me give the House briefly two items in regard to this. Last year, 1923, we imported from Germany $4,959,000 worth of goods upon which the total duty paid, including the dumping duty and every other charge of that character, was $1,030,000, or about 20 per cent. How can Canadian industry be expected to compete with German industry on that basis? I am quite aware of this, as some hon. gentlemen will in a moment point out, that some of these goods were admitted free. That is true enough and the duty on the dutiable portion would be higher; but what I am giving to this House is this stubborn fact, that Canadian industry is competing to-day with German industry with a protection of 20 per cent which is not enough, and I do not think such competition is possible once the facilities of Germany for export and import are increased as they undoubtedly will be if this condition is continued.

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

John Evans

Progressive

Mr. EVANS:

How much did we sell to

Germany?

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

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

I have the figures here fo.r every country in Europe, but I did not wish to go into too much detail. I will give

the figures to my hon. friend-my object today is not to go into analytical detail, but rather to touch upon certain general points. We sold to Germany more than $14,000,000 worth.

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

John Evans

Progressive

Mr. EVANS:

And we bought only $4,500,000 worth?

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

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

That is true, but that does not alter the fact in the slightest degree. My hon. friend is drawing this red herring across the trail about paying for exports with imports. I will deal with that in a moment. It does not alter the fact that we imported $4,959,000 worth upon which duty amounting to $1,030,000 was paid, which duty as a matter of fact, amounts to about 20 per cent.

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

Edmund James Bristol

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BRISTOL:

What is the rate of wages in Germany as compared with the rate in Canada?

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

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

There is no comparison at all. I have not those details at hand, but they do not detract one iota from the point I am making. The policy of the government as regards dumping is of a kaleidoscopic character. Apparently just before the budget was introduced and there was evidenced a necessity for something to be done, the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Bureau), conceived the idea that there should be a suspension of the 5 per cent advantage under the dumping clause, and he promptly suspended it. It was very useful because it rather solaced some of the manufacturers, at least whose goods were being affected. But then there was a caucus, we are told, of my hon friends to my left, at which caucus a great deal of indignation was expressed when it was discovered, after two or three weeks, that this suspension had occurred, and the sensitive faculties of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) received from this comer of the House sensations of alarm. The radio, as it were, conveyed to him the fact that there was some possibility even of a desertion in this corner.

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

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I may say to my hon. friend, since he has spoken of a caucus in this connection, that no such subject was mentioned.

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

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

I do not suppose the right hon. gentleman would be at a caucus of the Progressive party.

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

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I mean the caucus to which my hon. friend refers. He said that the Liberal party had a caucus, I understand.

The Budget-Mr. Stevens

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

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

I mean the caucus of the Progressive wing of the Liberal party, not my right hon. friend's caucus. The facts are, however, that the suspension of the 5 per cent allowance in the dumping clause was itself promptly suspended. The next move, we are told, is this: Some ambiguous piece of legislation, the contents of which are not revealed-are carefully concealed, as a matter of fact, until this budget is passed-is going to be brought down. We do not know what the terms of this legislation are, but the Minister of Customs and Excise indicated, in his manner if not in his words, that there would be a restoration of the first suspension. if I might so term it.

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

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I do not think his -words carried that interpretation.

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

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

I admit his words did

not, I said his manner; I am making a guess and I leave it at that. When this legislation comes down, I expect to have the privilege of reminding the Prime Minister that I had guessed fairly correctly.

The third function of the tariff is that of a bargaining power. The tariff gives to the government something with which it can trade with the government of another country. This I conceive to be of great importance. All hon, gentlemen will, I think, admit that it is desirable for a country to gain favourable access to the markets of another country. In these discussions we must not be carried away by glittering and spectacular theories; we are dealing with stubborn facts in the form of governments of foreign countries, enactments of foreign parliaments. There they are before us not only as they are to-day, but as they have been decade after decade. That is what is one of the difficulties of the Mother Country to-day, recognized by it; it cannot make any bargain with the countries of Europe because its own markets are open. The axiom is often given expression to in this House, that exports must be paid for with imports; and this I admit is a perfectly sound argument. But it is within the right of a people to determine, first, what products shall be exchanged and, secondly, upon what terms such exchange shall be made. That is the right not only of this country but of every other country besides; the principle is recognized the world over. I repeat, it is the right of this country, nay, it is its duty, to determine what products shall be exchanged and upon what terms, provided that it protects the interests of its own people by imposing a substantial tariff upon the countries into whose markets we have no favourable entry. In other 122

words, there are goods from countries which hold a very high prohibitive tariff against us; and against the imports of such countries I believe that Canada should maintain a substantial tariff. On the other hand, having given that protection to our people, we owe it to our friends who give us a favourable entry to their markets to accord them a reciprocal advantage. And that is one of the functions of the tariff; you cannot have that bargaining power unless you have a substantial general tariff.

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

Robert Forke

Progressive

Mr. FORKE:

Is my hon. friend willing

to give Great Britain the same advantages that Canada enjoys to-day?

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

May 9, 1924