April 30, 1925

LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):

Who would represent His Majesty here?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF FINANCE, FISCAL YEARS 1924-25 AND 1920-21
Permalink
PRO

Harry Leader

Progressive

Mr. LEADER:

He would represent His

Majesty.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF FINANCE, FISCAL YEARS 1924-25 AND 1920-21
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):

Well, you had better arrange with the Imperial parliament about all these wonderful reforms of yours.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF FINANCE, FISCAL YEARS 1924-25 AND 1920-21
Permalink
PRO

Harry Leader

Progressive

Mr. LEADER:

When it is found convenient, the arrangement can he made all right. So far no attempt has ever been made to make it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF FINANCE, FISCAL YEARS 1924-25 AND 1920-21
Permalink
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):

You had better start in and you will find out what it will lead you to.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF FINANCE, FISCAL YEARS 1924-25 AND 1920-21
Permalink
PRO

Harry Leader

Progressive

Mr. LEADER:

I have been interrupted a good deal, Mr. Speaker and that accounts for my taking longer than I would otherwise have taken. I have about completed my remarks, but I have not yet explained my position in regard to the vote that is to be taken to-day. Hon. members will have guessed that I intend to vote against the budget. The amendment of my hon. friends to my right holds for me no attraction.

I want to take just four or five minutes now to discuss a little article that I find in a paper called The Western Record, printed in Winnipeg. It says:

A\e have been asked if The Western Record is a Conservative organ? Rather a stupid question for anyone to ask if they have carefully read it. It is a Conservative organ and has clearly enunciated the policies of both Dominion and provincial Conservative parties.

The article makes an attack upon the Progressives here at Ottawa. I am going to read one or two little samples of the material we1 find in this article. Following up a statement it makes as to our holding the balance of power at Ottawa, the article says:

Unfortunately this marvellous group, with the nomenclature "Progressives" comprised such a bunch of hayseeds that they were unable to make use of their power, and they furthermore had not the gumption to realize that- when a political party enunciates principles and fails to stand by them it destroys political morality. Not only that but puts the cog in the wheels of government machinery which naturally impedes national progress.

Then it goes on to say:

It was not long before this inflated group of windjammers began to disintegrate. The big suave Crerar found it impossible to lead his sheep.

The Budget-Mr. Boys

Then it goes on to say that now the Progressives are being led by the "doublepronged Forke." But the paragraph to which I wish particularly to call the attention of the House is one which was brought up in the House here the other day by the whip of the Progressive party, (Mr. Johnston.) The statements contained in it were most emphatically denied by him, and he deplored the fact that any newspaper of any standing in this country should dare to print such an article. I find that this Conservative paper printed in Winnipeg carried the same article, and I will read it so that the record may be available for future reference. It says:

Ottawa has been watching with amusement the conduct of this Progressive group. As everybody knows, the wheat market has been in a highly nervous condition, and at a recent important division a preliminary count by the whips showed 30 Progressives missing, their presence was needed to save the government. Where do you suppose those representatives of the farmers of the west were? Down town at brokerage offices watching the rise and fall of wheat prices on the blackboards, in which they were all interested. Autos were hastily commandeered and a little later a bunch of bareheaded members were located and their mental deliberations disturbed by being dragged back to the House, and the government was saved by a narrow margin.

Now, we are called "hayseeds," Mr. Speaker, "wind-jammers" and betrayers of public trust. I wonder if the Conservative members in the House here at Ottawa endorse what I have read in this Conservative paper printed in Winnipeg? I am glad to hear the chief whip of the Conservative party say that he repudiates the article. I wish to add, Mr. Speaker, that such scurrilous articles are a disgrace to our newspapers and an insult to the intelligence of our people, they are sure of the condemnation they deserve. If the rremnants of the once great party persist in [DOT]using such tactics the sooner the remnants are -disposed of the better it will be for our citizenship. If this kind of dope is what the Grand Old Party relies on to win the next election, they had better cash in and give up the ghost.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF FINANCE, FISCAL YEARS 1924-25 AND 1920-21
Permalink
CON

William Alves Boys (Whip of the Conservative Party (1867-1942))

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. A. BOYS (South Simcoe):

May I crave the indulgence of the House, Mr. Speaker, for five or six minutes? I did not intend to take part in the discussion, but in justice to the party to which I belong, and also to my hon. friends of the Progressive party, I feel that I should try to put right a very extravagant statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his speech to-day. He accused this party of obstruction, of taking up a tremendous amount of time, and he accused with us my hon. friends of the Progressive party. I think it is only fair that the House and the country

' r f 'T 'G

should know the length of time consumed in the debates upon the three matters to which he referred.

Last week I gave to the press a statement which I believe to be accurate regarding the time consumed in the debate on the budget. I have brought these figures down to date. I do not blame the government at all for taking up the time they did; I realize that they are entitled, if they want to, to put up speaker for speaker. In other words, they have one speaker while we of the opposition, both groups, have one speaker; and I concede to them that right. But I think we may properly object to any intimation on the part of the Prime Minister that we have taken more than the share of the time which belongs to U3. Up till yesterday-I cannot make the calculation for to-day because one cannot tell just how many columns of Hansard will be used by that portion of the debate which has not yet been published-the Liberals in the present debate have taken up 843 columns of Hansard. The Conservatives have taken up 634, and the Progressives and Independent 558. The Liberals have put up 46 speakers, the Conservatives 26, the Progressives 26 and the Independents 7. In connection with the ocean shipping rates discussion, about which the Prime Minister had so much to say, and in connection with which he made the most extravagant statements, statements which will not be borne out for one moment by an analysis of Hansard, we find that the debate started on March 3, and that it continued on the 10th, 12th, 13th, 17th, 19th and 20th. May I say in this connection that the Prime Minister accused the party to which I belong of consuming most of the time, and with us he coupled my friends of the Progressive party. What, are the facts? The Liberals took 279 columns of Hansard, the Conservatives 228, and the Progressives, including the Independents. 126. But how the right hon. the Prime Minister could venture a criticism of any group in this House in view of his own action in that debate is beyond my comprehension.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF FINANCE, FISCAL YEARS 1924-25 AND 1920-21
Permalink
LIB

Lewis Johnstone Lovett

Liberal

Mr. LOVETT:

In proportion to your

numbers you took more time by far than the Liberals.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF FINANCE, FISCAL YEARS 1924-25 AND 1920-21
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain

Liberal

Mr. CASGRAIN:

Hear, hear.

Mr. BOYrS: I am glad that affords comfort to my hon. friend. I do not know how I can do it any more fairly than I am doing it. I am quoting to the House the actual columns of Hansard, and if there is any other way in which I can do it better, I would be glad to do it. It is true that some speakers speak

The Budget-Mr. Kennedy (Edmonton)

faster than others and do not consume as much time, but one cannot calculate that. I am taking the columns of Hansard, and I have given you the totals.

And now let us look at just one other feature of that same debate, and if the Prime Minister pauses to consider this, one wonders how he could ever presume to accuse this party or the Progressives of consuming unnecessary time. He took himself 79 columns of Hansard, one-third of the total time of the Conservatives who spoke on this side of the House in that debate, 16 in number. He took 79 columns himself in that debate as against 126 by the Progressives or over half as much as all the Progressives that spoke in that debate, and yet he stands up here and attempts to criticize us of the Conservative faith and my Progressive friends of obstructing the business of the House.

He then dealt with one other feature, that is the canteen funds debate. Now I want to say to the House that my figures in this connection may not be accurate. I have honestly tried to find out what the truth is. It is difficult to go through it and be sure of your figures. I did it in a hurry, and I may be wrong, but so far as I could find from a search of Hansard to-night that matter was dealt with on one day, on March 5th, and the total time occupied-

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF FINANCE, FISCAL YEARS 1924-25 AND 1920-21
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

No. More than that.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF FINANCE, FISCAL YEARS 1924-25 AND 1920-21
Permalink
LIB

James Murdock (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. MURDOCK:

On three days.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF FINANCE, FISCAL YEARS 1924-25 AND 1920-21
Permalink
CON

William Alves Boys (Whip of the Conservative Party (1867-1942))

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BOYS:

My hon. friends can correct me if I am wrong. I have tried to be fair, and if my friends now can point to another day, I will admit at once I have overlooked it, but I could not find it. On March 5th I find that out of the whole day the only time consumed in connection with the canteen funds was 38 columns of Hansard, and I leave it to the judgment of this House whether the remarks of the Prime Minister, wTho tried to pass on to us and to my Progressive friends the thought of obstructing is justified in view of the facts I have stated. There has been no justification. The Peterson contract is an important matter, and warranted all the time that was taken upon it, and I venture to say that when it comes back, if it ever does, the members of all parties in this House will want to spend some time discussing it. My own view is that it will never come back from the committee stage.

I think it is only right to put this matter in its fair and true light. I think I have correctly calculated the time that was taken by the various speakers in this House, and if

my figures are correct, I think hon. gentlemen even on the opposite side of the House will agree that the Prime Minister could not have made a calculation, and that he spoke without thought, without looking the matter up, and without justification.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF FINANCE, FISCAL YEARS 1924-25 AND 1920-21
Permalink
PRO

Donald MacBeth Kennedy

Progressive

Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton):

Mr. Speaker, I know this is not a very good hour in the morning at which to start a speech, but possibly hon. members will not suffer any more than I have in listening to what has gone before. I can assure hon. members of this, however, that what I have to say I shall say in as few words as possible, but on the other hand I intend to say it. I have not previously taken any part in a budget debate, and I was anxious from the first to take part in this one.

Since the commencement of this debate we have heard a great many attempts made in this House to classify the budget. There are those who think it is a protectionist budget; there are those who think it is getting somewhere near a free trade budget; and there are those who think it is a moderate budget. So far as the members on the government side of the House are concerned, we have had almost free trade speeches in favour of the budget; we have also had members who stand out distinctly for protection apparently give the budget their blessing. The hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Arehambault) the other night in his speech said that this budget broke the back of the Conservative opposition. He said that the Tories were out apparently trying to scare the people by saying that there was a general reduction in the tariff coming, and that this budget had broken the back of that propaganda in the country. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that for the present at least the budget has done that very thing. But it has gone further than that in my judgment. It is a repudiation of the Liberal platform of 1919, and of the professions made by the vast majority of the Liberals before the people of Canada in 1921.

The Liberal party met in Ottawa in 1919 and drew up a platform. Now there are those who say that a platform _is all very well for the time at which it is drawn up, but that conditions change. Well, this platform was not drawn up by a party' that had had no experience in this*

sort of thing, because the party had been in existence a great many years and hadi previous experience, and in its ranks at that day and at that convention were men who-had been in the Liberal party in 1893 when they drew up that platform, which the country

2702 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. Kennedy (Edmonton)

were assured meant that the Liberal party, once they came into power, would so fix the tariff for revenue purposes that not a cent would be taken from the pockets of the people that did not go into the treasury of the Dominion of Canada. I wish to read the tariff part of the Liberal platform of 1919, so that the House and the country may know what was definitely promised in this regard. The reason I want to do so is, that there has been a tendency throughout Canada to justify any reductions that have been made in the tariff on the ground of concessions to the Progressives. Now I do not believe that the Liberal party or any other party has the right to make concessions to any party for support. Wherever reductions are made in the tariff they ought to be made on the ground that they are believed to be the best thing for the Dominion of Canada. But I wish to demonstrate this morning that even though there have been some reductions made, those reductions do not come anywhere near meeting the definite pledges made by the Liberal party in 1919, and 3gain in 1921 to the people of this country. The resolution on the tariff at the Liberal convention of 1919 reads as follows:

That the best interests of Canada demand that substantial reductions of the burdens of Customs taxation be made with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance: First, diminishing the very high 'cost of living which presses so severely on the masses of the people; second, reducing the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, the vigorous development of which is essential to the progress and prosperity of our country.

If the platform had stopped there there might not be much difficulty, but it becomes very specific from that point to the end:

That, to these ends, wheat, wheat flour and all products of wheat; the principal articles of food; farm implements and machinery: farm tractors,

mining, flour and saw-mill machinery and repair parts thereof; rough and partly dressed lumber; gasoline, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils; nets, net-twines and fishermen's equipments; cement and fertilizers, should be free from customs duties, as well as the raw material entering into the same.

That a revision downwards of the tariff should be made whereby substantial reductions should be effected in the duties on wearing apparel and footwear, and on other articles of general consumption (other than luxuries), as well as on the raw material entering into the manufacture of the same.

That the British preference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff.

And the Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provision of this resolution when returned to power.

Now, it might have been argued, indeed it was argued in the first session after the general election of 1921, that the Liberal party should not be expected to go the full length of their platform in their very first budget; but this is the fourth budget brought down by this government, and we have not made much more than a respectable beginning, if it could be called that, towards the accomplishment of those definite promises made to the people of Canada-the pledges that the party promised to implement when returned to power. I have taken those definite promises made to the people. I have examined the various items as they stood in the tariff in 1921, and where they stand to-day, and we will take them in the order in which they appear in this platform:

- British Preference Tariff Inter- mediate Tariff General TariffWneat, when imported from a country which imposes the customs duty on wheat grown in Canada, per bushel 8 cents 12 cents 12 cents

There has been, no reduction whatever in this item. The tariff stands as it did in 1921:

Wheat flour and semolina 30 cents

The d?ties stand at the same figure to-day. have taken out just a few. We will take, for The principal articles of food." example, sugar which is one of the neces-

This would be a very long list, and so I sit-ies of life.

Sugar, 1921

Sugar, 1925

Apples, 1921

Apples, 1925

Raisins and dry currants

$1 52 0 S3 0 60 0 60 i cent

SI 93 1 50 0 90 0 90 f cent

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF FINANCE, FISCAL YEARS 1924-25 AND 1920-21
Permalink

SI 93 1 50 0 90 0 90


| cent [Mr. D. M. Kennedy.} The Budget-Mr. Kennedy (Edmonton) On raisins and dry currants there is a possibility that the rates will be 3 cents under the British preference, 3 cents under the intermediate, and 3 cents under the general tariff if our treaty with Australia goes through. On tea there has been no change whatever. On coffee there has been no change. On tomatoes and other vegetables, which are necessities of life, the tariff stands practically to-day as it stood in 1921. Farm implements. These were going on the free list. Item 445 of the tariff reads: Mowing machines, harvesters, self-binding or without binder, binding attachments, reapers, and complete parts thereof, not including shafting or malleable iron castings, 1921 12| p.c. 121 P-c. 121 P-c.Mowing machines, harvesters, self-binding or without binder, binding attachments, reapers, and complete parts thereof, not including shafting or malleable iron castings, 1925 Free 6 p.c. 0 p.c.Cultivators, 1921 10 p.c. 15 p.c. 15 p.c.Cultivators, 1925 Free 74 p.c. 71 p.c. Traction ditching machines were free under all tariffs in 1921. To-day they are also free. 1921 ploughs and complete parts thereof 124 p.c. 171 p.c. 171 P-c.1925 ploughs and complete parts thereof 5 p.c. 10 p.c. 10 p.c.Windmills and complete parts thereof, 1921 121 P-c. 174 p.c. 174 P-C.Windmills and complete parts thereof. 1925 124 p.c. 171 P-c. 17j P-c. I might point out that windmills affect years. In portable engines there has been no particularly the cattle industry. It is one change. The figures are 12| per cent, 171-branch of the agricultural industry that has per cent, 174 per cent, been hit hardest within the last two ' British Preferential Tariff Inter- mediate Tariff General Tariff12| p.c. 5 p.c. 20 p.c. 10 p.c. 20 p.c.10 p.c. Mine and quarry machinery is free. 5 p.c. 71 p.c. 10 p.c.5 p.c. 74 p.c. 10 p.c.10 p.c. 15 p.c. 20 p.c. Planks and boards were free under the tariff and dressed on one side only, and so on, were of 1921 and thej7 are free today. There was, free in 1921 under the three tariffs and they of course, 7i per cent war tax. Planks, boards are free to-day. and other lumber or wood, sawn, split or cut, Gasoline under -725 specific gravity at 60 degrees temperature, 1921 Free FreeGasoline under -725 specific gravity at 60 degrees temperature, 1925 Free FreeGasoline -725 specific gravity but not heavier than -750 specific gravity at 60 degrees tenperature, per gallon, 1921 \ cent i cent 1 cent That is the tariff to-day. There has been natural state. It was free in 1921 and it is no increase there. Crude petroleum in its still free. Illuminating oils, composed wholly or in part of the products of petroleum, 1921 15 p.c. 171 P-c. 20 p.c. The percentage is the same to-day under all three tariffs. Lubricating oils, 1921 11cents 21 cents 21 cents 2704 COMMONS The Budget-Mr. Kennedy (Edmonton) The tariff is the same to-day. In the case of oils-petroleum the rates in 1921 were 4 cent in each case. The same rates appfy to-day, 4 cent per gallon. I wish to call the attention of the House to the tremendously high duties in connection with clothing, and clothing of course is one of the necessaries of life especially in this country. I take item No. 563 of the tariff, women's and children's dress goods. This of course was not to be made free according to the Liberal platform, but substantial reductions were promised. This is how the item stood in 4921 and how it stands to-day: Tariff Items. - British Preferential Tariff. Inter- mediate Tariff. General Tariff.Women's and children's dress goods, 1921 15 p.c. 21| P-C- 25 p.c.Women's and children's dress goods, 1925 15 p.c. 22J P-c. 25 p.c.565 Blankets composed wholly of pure wool 22! p.c. 22! p.c. 30 p.c. 30 p.c. 35 p.c. 35 p.c. less 10 p.c.568 567 Undershirts, drawers and knitted goods, n.o.p Fabrics, manufacturers, wearing apparel and readymade clothing, composed wholly or in part of wool, 22b p.c. 20 p.c. 30 p.c. 30 p.c. 35 p.c. 35 p.c.1921 France, Belgium and Netherlands 30 p.c. 27| p.c. 35 p.c. 35 p.c. 35 p.c. 35 p.c. 32| p.c. 32! P-c. 32! p.c. 35 p.c. 35 p.c. less 15 p.c.568a 611 Socks and stockings of all kinds France and Italy Boots and shoes, pegged or wire fastened, with un- 25 p.c. 25 p.c. 35 p.c. 35 p.c. less 10 p.c.stitched soles close edged 17! p.c. 15 p.c. 22! P-c. 22! p.c. 25 p.c. 25 p.c.61 Boots, shoes, slippers and insoles of any material, n.o.p. 1921 France, Belgium and Netherlands 20 p.c. 17| P-c. 274 P-c. 27' p.c. 274 30 p.c. 30 p.c. Now the other clause states: That the British preference be increased to fifty per cent of the general tariff. I am not going into any specific cases because that has not been done, but I want to say that there is not, as far as I can see, any reasonable excuse for not carrying out those specific and definite pledges to the people of Canada, for the simple reason that the gentlemen drawing up this platform had experience previously both in drawing up platforms and in the government of the country, and understood the financial condition of Canada- at the time the platform was drawn up, and if anybody challenges me this morning to provide something constructive I would say that the constructive suggestion I should like to offer to this government or to any other government is that when a government makes definite pledges to the people of Canada they should keep those pledges. There has been ever since 1921 and ever since the campaign a line of argument taken by various members of the government, and members supporting the government to the effect that the Liberal party is the great central party, the moderation party, a party between the two extremes, the high protectionists and the free traders. Well, Mr. Speaker, that may be, but that point of moderation has been shifting considerably. I remember back in 1921 this position was taken by the Prime Minister in his manifesto to the people of Canada. It was taken by the Prime Minister in his speech on the discussion of the budget in 1922. It was taken also by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) the other night, and taken by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) yesterday; but I wish to say that it is not a justification to say that because the Liberal party stands midway, or claims to stand midway between the high protectionists and the free traders, or the extremely low tariff party, they are necessarily right. They are not right according to the standards set up by themselves, and the definite promises they made to the people of Canada, and there ought at least to be some substantial reason given to the people of Canada as to why these pledges have not been carried out and why the policy has been changed. I wish to say that I believe that the last election should mean something to the government and to the party supporting the government. In this campaign book, the Speaker's Handbook, we have not only the Liberal party ' platform, but we have the Farmers' platform, and a little further on we The Budget-Mr. Kennedy (Edmonton) have an article devoted to reasons why the Farmers and the Liberals ought to get together, and having appealed to the people of Canada on the basis of this platform, we have about 117 Liberal members, of course a few of these refused to recognize the platform, but still the vast majority of them stood apparently on the platform, and we have about sixty or sixty-five members in this corner of the House elected on a platform, going not only in the direction of the Liberal platform but a little further, and therefore I claim that there was a mandate given to the government and to the House of Commons to fulfil at least all the pledges of the platform of 1919. I think it would not be unreasonable to say that it should be done in the first session, and it is certainly not unreasonable that after four sessions it ought to be carried out in full. The argument has been advanced that the country needs revenue. Well this statement was met by an argument in this -campaign handbook; both the protectionist and the revenue arguments are treated here. I am not going to take time to read from it at any great length. I find in the Handbook an article headed, "Women and Politics," and at page 4, the following: There are two ways which the country has of raising the taxes necessary to pay its debts. One is by direct tnxation which means that every man and woman must pay from his or her income a certain sum annually. If an individual's income is over a certain amount, that individual will easily understand how much he will have to pay by way of income tax. Among working people this income may not be sufficient in amount to be directly taxed, and therefore it may appear to such individuals (who make up, after all, the bulk of the nation) that they are not paying taxes at all. This is a mistaken idea- Every man and every woman pays taxes in some form. Now regarding the tariff this book says: Let us suppose therefore that in the United States there is a manufacturer of shoes who can make ordinary wearing boots for $3 a pair. Suppose the cost of selling and transportation of these boots from the United States factory to the consumer in Canada amounts to $2 a pair,' a duty on these goods coming into the country is, say 50 cents per pair, they canbe sold in Canada for $5.50 in all. The 50 cents duty goes into the government treasury for the payment of the country's obligations. It is collected at the boundary as a customs dutj\ The real duty is much higher. If, in Canada, there is a manufacturer of shoes who can also make the same kind of wearing boots at $3 a pair and if the selling and transportation from the Canadian factory to the Canadian buyer costs also,say, $2 a pair, making in all a cost of $5, yet, nevertheless, he sells the boots in Canada for the same price as does the American producer. He gets $5.50 for the boots, but the difference of 50 cents he puts in his own pocket. This difference is the amount of protection that the home manufacturer gets behind the tariff wall, which shelters him against American competition.


PRO

Edward Joseph Garland

Progressive

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

What is the hon. member reading from?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SI 93 1 50 0 90 0 90
Permalink
PRO
PRO
PRO

Donald MacBeth Kennedy

Progressive

Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):

Of the

Liberal party of 1921. Then I refer to page 6, of the same pamphlet, " Mr. King against High Protection ". This deals with the question of protection and the repudiation of it by the Prime Minister, and also the question of revenue:

Mr. King thinks first of the people and second of the industry. All the people are greater than a few manufacturers. Mr. King stands for all the people. Mr. King is against high protection. In the example of the pair of boots just referred to, Mr. Meiglien would stand for the manufacturer getting fifty cents for himself on each pair of boots. That is the tariff should be fifty cents per pair. But Mr. King would say: No-twenty c

manufacturer have this amount to aid his industry, but let the other thirty cents per pair be allowed to the woman who buys the boots making the price to her $5.20 instead of $5.50. All over the country the difference in these policies on every article to wear, to eat, for the husband, the wife, the children, means millions saved in the homes and incomes of the people, and the manufacturers will still have a fail profit as well.

It means besides, that there is still a tariff on the American boots of twenty cents per pair instead of fifty cents per pair. The twenty cents per pair as duty collected against foreign goods will still go to the government in customs duties. This explains the difference between a tariff for protection and a tariff for revenue.

This is a little different from the 1893 explanation, of course.

But, some one argues, that on such a reduction of duties the customs revenue will fall and the government will fail to get money with which to carry on. The answer is reasonable, lowering of tariff duties means a great increase in trading, a great increase in buying by the consumer because he can get so much more for his money and consequently-

And the rest is in heavy black type.

-a sure increase in government revenue.

But they go further than that. This is the plank resolution on "Financial condition and taxation," and I am going to read just a small part of it. I leave out the various "whereases."

Be it and it is hereby resolved:

1. That the serious nature of the country's financial situation calls for the profoundest consideration of all patriotic citizens-

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SI 93 1 50 0 90 0 90
Permalink
PRO

Henry Elvins Spencer

Progressive

Mr. SPENCER:

What is the hon. member reading from?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SI 93 1 50 0 90 0 90
Permalink

April 30, 1925