February 22, 1926

CON

Alexander James Anderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto):

I can only

give the general impression that is abroad, and it is quite current throughout the industrial part of Canada that that is so. What we say is that agriculture in this country should bear a larger share of taxation. If agriculture, after all the assistance it has received, is not profitable, what excuse is there for you to come to us and ask us to give further assistance? The agriculturists have received great assistance already.

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

Alexander James Anderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto):

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

John Livingstone Brown

Progressive

Mr. BROWN:

In order to get the hon. gentleman's, viewpoint may I ask him a question. Do I understand that my hon.

friend is advocating the imposition of a duty sufficiently high to exclude United States coal, in other words the application of an embargo?

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

Alexander James Anderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto):

I would put the duty sufficiently high that we would be able to conserve our resources for ourselves. The extent to which the duty should be raised would be a matter for the much vaunted tariff commission to advise us upon, bu't it should be sufficiently high to effect the purpose I have mentioned. The duty should be sufficiently high to enable us to retain for ourselves the whole benefit -of the coal product of this country, and no higher. If we then pay a little more for our coal the money will be spent in Canada and not spent to keep up American industries.

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

John Millar

Progressive

Mr. MILLAR:

Would the horn, member be willing that the people buying coal in Ontario should pay the extra price?

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

Alexander James Anderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto):

Certainly.

What difference would it make to me? If as a result of this strike I am asked to pay $18 a ton for fuel that ordinarily I get for $15, would it not be far better to say to the mine operators of Nova Scotia and Alberta. "Let me have your coal and I will pay you $18 for it." Would that not be far better? That money would be in Canada, and would perhaps get into the hands of some of the grain growers. I am something like the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) who commenced his address by saying, "I am a protectionist." Well, I am a protectionist along the same lines that he is. I am not in favour of creating many Carnegies and Henry Fords in this country, but I do not know that that is one of the greatest dangers in Canada. I am not inclined to the view held by many people that Mr. Ford is a menace to the United States. I do not think he is. With the great wealth which he has accumulated, with his ingenuity, his courage and his business ability, he is able to distribute benefits, comforts and conveniences and happiness to more people probably than any other man in the United States; and it is chiefly due to the fact that he has been largely protected in the products of his manufacture. I do not think any of those wealthy men accumulate large amounts of money for the purpose of menacing the country in which they live. I do not. think it is any sin that a man, on account of his business ability, should acquire more money than I have been able to gather because I have not the ability to do it. Why should I be jealous of him? If I have got the conveniences of life, why should I worry?

122.5

The Address-Mr. Baldwin

I am not strong on the Scriptures, but I think there is a passage which says that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven. However, that is his lookout. I am striving along the road, but it is not the road to wealth. I do not think that the wealthy man is a sinner. I do not think that Mr. Carnegie, with all the wealth which he accumulated in the steel business, did harm with it. After he became wealthy he did not die with his money piled up around him, not having done good with it. He spent it in trying to advance the educational interests, not only of his own country but of Canada. He spent it in profusion. I do not think it is true that a few men are being made wealthy at the expense of the many. The statement was made the other day that the Ford Company at Walkerville had a paid-up capital of $125,000.

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

An hon. MEMBER:

Was it not millions?

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

Alexander James Anderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto):

I understand the capital of the Ford Company at the time of the incorporation in Canada originally was .$125,000. That does not mean that the present company attained the high position it now occupies on that amount of capital. It simply means that the men who put up the money to establish the company had the 9 p.m. confidence of the financial institutions of the country to such an extent that they could borrow for the purposes of their industry all the money they required to carry it on. They borrowed to a great extent, and as a result of these borrowings they were able not only to pay back the borrowed money and interest, but to make a profit; and that profit figured on the total money invested was only a. fair dividend. When you figured the profit on a capital investment of $125,000 it looked like a big sum; it showed a dividend of $1,100 a share. That, of course, was not taking the money out of the people. [DOT] It was not the $125,000 that made the profit. It was the large amount of money which was borrowed by the institution that made it. Every man in any industry or business who has not a large amount of his own money necessarily has to resort to borrowing as a means of financing; but if he has the brain power to make the business successful, he will not only be able to repay principal and interest on the money he borrowed, but will be able to make a profit out of it, which, sipread over the large amount of money he has borrowed, may not be a very heavy percentage. Ten millions of money invested in a concern might make a

profit of one and one-half per cent, but if you spread that over a capital of $125,000 it is a big profit. But that is not the money of the people of the country. In the case of Henry Ford we have cheap automobiles as a result of his method of business, and the people are enjoying the benefit of it. Ford has reduced the prices of new cars almost as low as the prices of second-hand cars. He is doing that, why? Not to put the money in his pocket; that was not his first object. His object was to do a service to the people, and the money comes back to him in the profit he makes on the tremendous output.

I submit we should establish in this country such a fiscal policy as will conserve our natural resources for our own benefit and result in the development and fabricating of those resources into the finished product. There is no reason why we should be producing natural products of all kinds for the purpose of creating wealth among the Americans and others. By developing our resources we are going to increase our immigration and get people in Canada who will not be transients, so that our immigration will not be a carrying system only, but rather a settling policy which will enable us to colonize our country, something which is not being done at the present time.

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

Willis Keith Baldwin

Liberal

Mr. W. K. BALDWIN (Stanstead):

I

congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on having been chosen to fill the position you now occupy. Your selection for the important office you fill shows the faith that members of parliament have in you. We feel that you are eminently and highly qualified for the dignified position. I next wish to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, on the logical way in which they dealt with the subject. The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) spoke the French language so fluently and eloquently that even those who could not understand that language felt quite at home and could understand his meaning.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I want to dear up a misunderstanding which occurred the other night. When the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) was speaking I was in a far distant section of the House and asked the hon. member a question. Hon. members on the opposite side made much noise and racket, and said "Shut up, sit down", and al that kind of thing; therefore the hon. gentleman did not understand the question I asked. I wish now to tell hon. members what I was asking. He was talking

The Address-Mr. Baldwin

about this government doing am injustice to the beetroot sugar factories of Canada, particularly at Wallaeeburg. I rose to ask him if he knew that in the year 1885, during the heyday of the National Policy, beetroot sugar factories were established in the town of Coaticook in (the district I represent, and also in the town of Farnham; and that each of those factories was closed down about two years. I do not say they were closed down on account of Sir John A. Macdonald's policy, but I believe the farmers got sick of drawing their beets when the roads were knee deep in mud. At that time labour was cheap; farmers could get plenty of help, and men only got from $150 to $180 per year. Sugar was selling at nine to ten cents a pound, and yet the factories were closed. I do not say they closed on account of the National Policy; but the hon. member for East Lambton spoke about the factories ceasing to run. I think probably if the roads were as good then as they are now those factories would have succeeded in doing a fine business.

The next member to whom I wish to refer is the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) who answered some questions which I put to him but who refused to answer one. I will tel! him what it was. I asked him if in his sojourn south of the Rio Grande his body was so impregnated with venom, poison and spite that he thought he could come to parliament and talk to his colleagues here as he would address a jury trying to convict a criminal for murder. I have listened for nearly seven weeks in this House to the expounders of the other side and to their logic. They first said that it was unconstitutional for the Prime Minister to summon the parliament of Canada in order to choose who should rule this country. These expounders of Blackstone on jurisprudence cited precedents over a period of two * or three hundred years in the British parliament. They said that it was unconstitutional for the free and independent electors of Canada to choose their representatives to come to this national capital and, here assembled, to decide who should rule this country. They cited one precedent after another as to the uneon-stitutionality of the action of t'he government, but I will not follow that up except to comment on the spite that they revealed in their remarks. The hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) spoke, and I say, with all due deference to him and his age and experience,

that he used language more befitting a rowdy than the polished gentleman which he should be.

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

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I would ask the hon.

gentleman to withdraw the expression "rowdy."

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

Willis Keith Baldwin

Liberal

Mr. BALDWIN:

I will do so most generously. Moving down the front row I come to that flowery and gifted orator from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett). I will give him credit for being able to smile at almost anything, for having a great conception of humanity and knowing that you can gain more in this world by smiling than by grouching. Next I come to the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) who delivered a most eloquent speech and whose eyes were closely confined to his work. The next was the bon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), a polished gentleman, but he like all ihe rest decided that this parliament could stand only for hours or days. They did not reduce the time to minutes, but they said: You have no right here; your action is unconstitutional. Then the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) made a point-blank bid, stating that this parliament could run for four years or even its full length of time under certain conditions on the part of a group in this House whom I highly esteem. I move down until I come to the vile vituperation of the hon. member for Frontenac-Ad-dington (Mr. Edwards) who attacked the Chair.

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

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I must ask the hon. member to withdraw the expression "vile vituperation".

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

Willis Keith Baldwin

Liberal

Mr. BALDWIN:

Thank you, Sir. Surely I cannot call them angelic. This debate has proceeded for nearly seven weeks. Now they are blocking and daring us to put on the * closure.

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

An hon. MEMBER:

No.

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

Willis Keith Baldwin

Liberal

Mr. BALDWIN:

Well, I do not wish to give away any secrets, but I may say we have no idea of invoking closure. We won the election of 1921 largely in my province by telling our people about the use of the closure by our opponents. I do not believe that the framers of the British North America Act ever supposed that a government in Canada would send ballot boxes to a foreign country to record the votes of those who had never seen the Dominion.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said about the Australian treaty. Why have these great and noble men become all at once so solicitous for the farmer? It is a joke. Their solicitude is simply camouflage to bemuddle his mind and persuade him to vote for the Conservatives so that they may dominate the country. In 1922 and 1923 this House worked assiduously to repeal the oleomargarine law that was put into force by the Conservative government. That legislation worked tremendously against the interests of the farmers. Many precedents were quoted to demonstrate that no country had ever repealed legislation to permit the manufacture of oleomargarine. Butter at that time was selling in this country around 30 cents a pound. After a hard fought battle in 1923, at the request of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) we repealed the act-and only seven members of the Conservative party helped us. Thereupon butter gradually rose in price, but not one of that group over there that go around in their Packards, their Pierce Arrows, their Rolls Royces, and other high-priced cars said a word on behalf of the common people of

122S

The Address-Mr. Baldwin

Canada. Let any of those hon. gentlemen go into any of the poorer quarters of our cities and see the people of small means suffering that the selfish few who are rich may become richer. I am a protectionist-

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

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

Willis Keith Baldwin

Liberal

Mr. BALDWIN:

I am perfectly happy. I am quite content to stay here till morning if necessary. I am a protectionist, but I am not of the kind that want to raise the tariff. I say to my hon. friends opposite: You are

not sincere over there, you dare not raise the tariff. From 1911 to 1921, while you were in power, how much did you raise the tariff? I challenge you to tell me. You are talking everlastingly of high tariff, but when in office you dare not attempt to increase the customs duties. The policies of this government have not injured the country. Facts and figures demonstrate that the balance of trade has turned in our favour, and this has brought our dollar back to par. Someone has belittled this condition of affairs, and has said that there was nothing of advantage to this country from the increase of our foreign trade. The butter business, the cheese business-

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

February 22, 1926