February 22, 1926

CON

Alexander James Anderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto):

The hon. member probably knows that better than I do; I do not know the reason. If the Hudson Bay railway was a justifiable work for the Liberal party to undertake in 1910; if it was a proper work for the Conservative government to carry on until 1918-I suppose the war had something to do with the suspension of the work at that time-why have not the present government made themselves responsible for its continuance and the necessary expenditure of money it involves?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PRO

John Livingstone Brown

Progressive

Mr. BROWN:

But does not my hon. friend think the Conservative members from Manitoba are entitled to credit or to blame, as the case may be?

Mr. ANDERSON '(Toronto): I think the province of Manitoba is capable of looking after itself. All I would ask is that that province give us the same consideration as we are prepared to give them, for instance, in the matter of reasonable tariff protection. If they do that we in Ontario are prepared to do what is right and proper for Manitoba, and by so co-operating each will do its part in building up a united1 Canada.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PRO

John Livingstone Brown

Progressive

Mr. BROWN:

But what about the Conservative members for Manitoba?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Alexander James Anderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto):

Let them speak for themselves. I am here representing the constituency of Toronto-High Park, and it is for the people of that riding that I am speaking here.

In reference to immigration, the Speech from the Throne points out that some ar-rangments have been made by which assistance is to be given to agricultural and other immigrants coming from the old country to Canada. We are not only to assist their passage to Canada, but after we get them here we will assist them to establish themselves. That may sound all right, but so long as we have unemployment in our country and so long as our own people are going to the United States to obtain employment, I am opposed to such a contract or agreement in regard to immigration. If that agreement had been preceded by some arrangement by which the unemployed in our own country could be assisted and those who have gone to the United States in the last three or four years brought back and put upon the land under the conditions that it is proposed to apply to the British immigrant, then I would be prepared to support it. But as it stands I am opposed to it; I see no reason why we should give a preference to British or foreign immigrants as against the people of our own country. We are suffering from lack of population, yet our actual resident population is going down by emigration as rapidly as we add to it by immigration. The returns show that the number we have brought in has been practically equalled by the number who have left. Our population remains stationary. It is no use spending money to bring people here while our own people are leaving; we may just as well spend our money to keep our own people here.

The best form of immigration is the bringing back of those who have been forced to leave our shores, and the next best is the immigration that we get from the cradle. This is a phase of the question of population

1218 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)

that should be carefully attended to; and the members of the medical profession will appreciate that better than I can. When we think of the number of people who are going to the States to find employment, spending their money and their time in the building up of American industries, by investment of capital and otherwise, instead of building up the industries of Canada, we must realize that we are working on a wrong basis. We should begin our work in this connection at home; we should foster our own people, give them assistance and keep them here.

It may be said the Dominion government has no land upon which to put the immigrants; -that the lands are largely in the hands of ithe provinces. The Dominion must have some land, otherwise their immigration scheme is no good. Where do they hope to put the immigrants? Surely they expect to place them on the lands in the western provinces which are still in their hands. The government are giving to Albertla the control of the lands which they now hold in that province, so they will have no land there for settlement. They may have some in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but I have no doubt Saskatchewan will make a demand upon the Dominion government for the return to that province of its natural resources. Saskatchewan and Manitoba have just as much justification for such a demand as Alberta. After these lands are handed over the Dominion government will have no means of carrying out the immigration scheme. It will be for the provinces to join in this matter; and it seems to me there should be co-operation between the Dominion and the provinces in order that we may retain our population, and work out our own destiny. We should not allow these people to go to other countries. It would be better to put the money into the pockets of the people of our country and let them maintain their families here, than to permit them to cross the line.

In reference to the cradle immigration which I mentioned, I will read from an address given by Mr. Justice Riddell of the Court of Appeal of the province of Ontario. This paper gives the result of an investigation. Mr. Justice Riddell says:

But the best immigration and the immigration that Canada must in the long run rely upon is immigration by the cradle, and surely that immigration demands and should receive as much care and attention as immigration by the steamship. What would the Canadian people say if one out of every ten immigrants died within a year of their arrival? And yet that as well within the percentage of deaths within one year of their birth of our Canadian baby immigrants. One out of forty dies at birth, 10,000 within a week and 5,000 more within the year.

And here is the unfortunate part of it.

Nor does the mother escape; one out of every twenty births means a dead mother. Proper care would reduce the appalling number of 370 dead mothers in Ontario in 1922 by more than three-fourths.

That statement is applicable to, and the percentage would be equalled in, the other provinces of the Dominion.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PRO

Edward Joseph Garland

Progressive

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

My hon.

friend has expressed great interest in immigration by the Cradle. Would he, in order to assist such immigration, be willing to support a policy of mothers' pensions?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Richard Franklin Preston

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. PRESTON:

What has that to do with it?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Alexander James Anderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto):

That might

be a solution, but that money should be first spent upon the people in this country, in order to retain theim here, no matter whether they are babes or adults. Any scheme that will lessen the death rate amongst children is a proper one on which to spend money. Any proposition that will save the lives of 'the children and the mothers is more important to this country than bringing in hundreds of thousands of British immigrants, paying their way and supporting them for a while, which is the policy the Liberal government is offering to the Progressive party and my own party. They are asking us to support such a policy, yet they will not do anything to support or retain the people who are here.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PRO

Milton Neil Campbell

Progressive

Mr. CAMPBELL:

Has the Progressive

party ever asked for that policy of immigration?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Alexander James Anderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto):

I do not

know. If the hon. member does not, he should.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Alexander James Anderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto):

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I referred to the question of unemployment as it affects Ontario generally and my constituency in particular. Sir Thomas White, who delivered an address recently before the Canadian Cluib in Montreal, had evidently collected some information respecting unemployment in Canada and I think it is rather useful as it demonstrates that although there is not a great percentage increase in unemployment, yet in many branches of industry the percentage of unemployment is high. He stated that the trade union returns in September, 1925, showed a percent-

The Address-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)

age of unemployment of 5.7. That would not necessarily indicate a great amount of unemployment. It would mean a very considerable amount if the unemployment happened to be grouped in any particular place or places, but if scattered over the whole Dominion, the amount of unemployment would not seem to be very great. When we come to consider specific industries, we find1 that in many of them the percentage of unemployment is high. The percentages in certain

industries are as follows:

Industry Percentage

Unions in manufacturing industry, grouped 11

Garment workers 34

Building and construction 10

Non-ferrous metal, group 25

Textile and carpet workers 25

Mining 6

These various groups show a heavy percentage of unemployment and that unemployment will be more or less accentuated1 in urban centres. The city of Toronto, being the largest urban centre in Ontario, necessarily has a great deal of unemployment and we are suffering because of that. The unemployment situation in Toronto and generally throughout the province is such that it accounts for much of the migration of our people to the United States. Many of them may not be fitted by experience or knowledge for agricultural work, and I doubt very much whether the government is going to succeed in its aim in trying to bring agricultural immigrants from Great Britain. As I understand the matter, Great Britain is an industrial country; agriculturally, it holds a low position. Agriculture in Great Britain is at a low ebb, and that is one of the reasons that has impelled Lloyd George to put forward his land policy in an effort to solve the problem of unemployment. Whether he wiil succeed or not does not affect my argument. He sees the necessity of stimulating agricultural activity by putting into use land now held as private paries and for other unproductive purposes. This means no surplus of agriculturists in Great Britain, and therefore we are not likely to get many immigrants of that class, for naturally those who are already well established at home are not likely to wish to come here, especially when they read the press and find that a large number of our people are going to the United States for lack of employment here, and that Old Country immigrants have failed in the northwest to get any but seasonal employment extending over three or four months. Moreover, they know that Canada makes no provision for her unemployed-they will not find the dole system in operation here. In view

of these conditions in Great Britain it appears to me that the government will fail to induce any of the farming class to settle in Canada. The only immigrants we are likely to receive are the unemployed of the cities and towns of the Old Country. They certainly cannot be numbered among the agricultural class, and I doubt if they are of as good quality as our own unemployed. Rather than spend money to bring such people here why not utilize it to assist our own people? The latest figures of our expenditure on immigration that I have been able to secure are for 1924. In that year we spent $2,417,374, in return for which we received 148,560 immigrants. We lost practically as many of our population by emigration to the United States in that same year. Instead of this negative result, I think it would be much better if we put our business on such a footing that the prosperous condition of the country would not only attract newcomers but would help to retain our own people; and, besides, would cause many of our expatriated Canadians in the United States to return home to share the benefits of steady and remunerative employment.

My hon. friends to my left have suggested that by strengthening agriculture we shall be able to cure all our troubles, both economic and political. I do not think so. Since 1878 agriculture has developed rapidly along sound lines, and in recent years it has expanded even more rapidly owing to the excellent wheat crops of the three prairie provinces. And agriculture has also prospered in the other provinces. In other words, the protection of our manufacturing industries has not hurt agriculture; on the contrary, it has benefited it. As I said in an earlier part of my remarks, protection is absolutely necessary for the greater part of Canada, and consequently we should not hesitate to stabilize our protective policy. In this connection it is interesting to note that of the 148,560 immigrants who came into Canada in 1924, 65280 settled in Ontario; 7,940 in the Maritimes; 19,979 in Quebec; 21,451 in Manitoba; 13,200 in Saskatchewan; 10,430 in Alberta; and 10,280 in British Columbia and Yukon. The three prairie provinces absorbed 43,081 immigrants or 30 per cent, whereas old Ontario took 65.280, or 43 per cent. It is interesting to analyse the figures a little further. Of that total number of immigrants, men, women and children of the farmer class numbered 56,308- So Ontario took a greater proportion of the total than comprised this class. General labourers numbered 18,337; mechanics, 22,319; clerks, 8.327; miners, 3,372; domestics, 13,865; miscellaneous 26,082. What accounts for Ontario attracting a larger share of these immigrants

1220 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)

than any of the other provinces? Simply because it is ahead of the rest of the Dominion, both agriculturally and industrially. This desirable condition of affairs might just as easily be extended over the whole Dominion.

This brings me to the position of the prairie provinces, and I am going to take Saskatchewan as an example, for it has made greater progress agriculturally in the last few years than the other two wheat-growing provinces. In 1925 the field crops of Saskatchewan exceeded the value of those of 1924 by 53 per cent; that is, the purchasing power of the people of Saskatchewan was increased by that percentage. The crop value exceeded even the high water mark of 1919, when high prices prevailed-in 1925 Saskatchewan received for its field crops S383.837.000. At that time its population was 757,510. To-day, allowing for natural increase, it is probably about 800,000. At any rate, putting it at 800,000, that crop return of 1926 represents $454 to every person in Saskatchewan or, to a family of five, $2,000 in purchasing power. Now the question naturally arises, where has that purchasing power been in evidence in the Dominion? It has not shown itself in the province of Ontario and II doubt whether there has been any evidence of it in Quebec. Certainly the Maritime provinces have not benefited by it, if I follow the statements made by the representatives from that part of the country, and the people of British Columbia declare that they have seen nothing of it in that province. Obviously it must have been expended in the prairie provinces. If the prairie provinces, then, have had the benefit of the prosperity resulting from that purchasing power, if it has been confined exclusively to that section of the Dominion, the people there must be in a position to buy more readily than they could before.

The next question therefore is, where are they buying? It is interesting to note that we imported in 1925, of manufactured goods of which we have knowledge, goods coming in through official channels and not in any underground way-and I hope that in this regard the investigation now in progress will reveal something sooner or later-a total of $520,000,000 worth. I have been wondering to [DOT]what extent the crop return of Saskatchewan is represented in that import value. I have not the figures here, but II am rather inclined to think that a fair percentage of that purchasing power to which I have referred has gone into the buying of goods which have come into Canada, and which are represented by that total I have just given. At any rate, this inference is consistent with

the view put forward by the representatives of the prairies, that they are entitled to buy in the cheapest market and are therefore on that principle opposed to any protection being given to the manufacturers of eastern Canada. This, I think, is not an unfair inference, and it is a logical conclusion therefrom that the large proportion of the purchasing power from the crop return of the province of Saskatchewan has gone into the purchase of manufactured goods coming in from the other side.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PRO

John Millar

Progressive

Mr. MILLAR:

Is not the hon. member

taking ,the gross receipts and representing them as purchasing power?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Alexander James Anderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto):

I am making a general statement. Saskatchewan and the other two provinces have shown splendid crop returns, and whether the money thus acquired is distributed locally or in the world's market it represents so much purchasing power to the western farmer. The crop is worth a certain amount of money and the farmer consumes very little of it, so that what is not used locally is naturally sold abroad. My contention is that this purchasing power should be reflected not merely at home among the farmers and their immediate friends but throughout the Dominion, through the ordinary business channels.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PRO

John Millar

Progressive

Mr. MILLAR:

But a great deal of it

goes in expenses.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Alexander James Anderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto):

And that is

true of all production. But even assuming that a part of that $363,000,000 goes in expenses, it is not all consumed in that way. If it all went in expenses then I would declare that farming was a farce and a failure and did not deserve the encouragement hon. gentlemen ask for it. But I do not agree with that view. I say that farming should be productive, and as a matter of fact it is productive and is adding to the wealth of the country. Now, I do not care how you use that purchasing power, but I do think its effect should be felt not only among the farmers of the west themselves but throughout the country.

An. hon. MEMBER: How much of a

country would you have if there were no farming?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Alexander James Anderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto):

I did not

hear the question, but as it is received with ridicule on this side I will not stop to answer it. Now, I repeat, that purchasing power has not been reflected in Ontario, and1 I say that

The Address-Mr. Anderson (Toronto)

if the agriculturists of the west ask concessions of us, concessions which are not necessarily unreasonable in themselves but which entail a certain obligation in return, and if they are anxious to have us grant those concessions, then they should be as ready to concede to us something for the benefit of our industries in Ontario and in other parts of the Dominion. They should be prepared to concede protection to our industries against the unfair competition that comes from the other': side, which, as everyone knows, is quite considerable.

On looking into figures obtained from the Bureau of Statistics, I find that in 1922 the amount of capital invested in Canadian manufacturing industries-for which, as I have before said, I have no brief, being however very much concerned for the men who are dependent upon those industries-totalled

$3,125,773,000. Of that sum the proportion invested in industries in Ontario was 52.6 per cent and in the province of Quebec 29.8. So that these two provinces represent 81 per cent of the total capital invested in Canadian manufactures. That being so, are they not deserving of very great consideration from other parts of the Dominion, especially in view of the fact that the agricultural portions of Canada are coming to parliament and demanding concessions which, though not necessarily unreasonable, should be granted only so long as the people who ask for them are ready to give something in return? Those people cannot expect to get what they want without giving a quid pro quo to those who shoulder the burden of taxation in this country. The Canadian manufacturing industry pays the taxes of the country, and not agriculture. It has been said, by some who seem to know what they are talking about, that of the taxation in Canada the three prairie provinces bear about three per cent, leaving aside income tax; and if you take the income tax into consideration then they bear less than one per cent of our taxation. I am not sure that these figures are correct, but they have been quoted authoritatively.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PRO

Henry Elvins Spencer

Progressive

Mr. SPEINCER:

Does not the hon. member realize that the farmer pays a very large amount of taxation indirectly?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CON

Alexander James Anderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto):

Yes, so do we. My constituents 'are all labouring men who have to buy clothes and boots and shoes the same as my hon. friend, and they must also procure for thelmselves food and other necessaries. They, on the other hand, have no big crop returns. Let the agriculturists compare themselves with the workingmen of 14011-78

the city of Toronto, from which I come, and see what a contrast there is. The workingman in the city cannot raise a particle of food for himself; he does not grow any vegetables', nor does he produce any meat or flour. All these things the city people must pay for, and where will they get the money to pay for them? They are dependent absolutely on industry, and that industry must be protected.

Now who are the competitors cf our manufacturers? They are the manufacturers in the United 'States and elsewhere, and though we should naturally expect the farmers of the west to purchase from otir own manufacturers, they unfortunately do1 not do so. They are purchasing from our competitors. Their money is going to a large extent to the United States to build up industry there in competition against our own manufacturers. We object to that; we say that the farmers of the west should help us if they want us to help them.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PRO

John Evans

Progressive

Mr. EVANS:

Does the hon. member imply that we are evading the tax collector? Or does he suggest that our industry is so impoverished that we cannot pay more than one per cent of the taxation?

Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto). The hon. member has asked me a very civil question, and I shall try to give him a civil answer. He may not cheat the collector, but I must tell him right now that there are too many in all classes in this country who are cheating the collector, and from the fact that the farmer does not pay income tax and other taxes to this Dominion it is a fair inference that he is not bearing his proper share of the taxation of the country as compared with those who are dependent on industry.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PRO

John Evans

Progressive

Mr. EVANS:

The hon. member infers that that is something peculiar to the agriculturist alone?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink

February 22, 1926