April 23, 1926

CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS


Bill No. 4, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Jelliff. Bill No. 5, respecting the Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Parent.


SECOND READINGS


Bill No. 24, to provide for changing the names of certain Pension Fund Societies.- Mr. Mercier. Bill No. 25, for the relief of Elizabeth Gertrude Orr.-Mr. Lennox. Bill No. 26, for the relief of Melville James Andrews.-Mr. Duff. Private Bills Bill No. 27, for the relief of Harry Reginald Oddy.-Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 28, for the relief of Mildred Roxie Horner.-Mr. Lennox. Bill No. 29, for the relief of Prances Muriel Burnet.-Mr. Geary. Bill No. 30, for the relief of Ada Toms.- Mr. McClenaghan. Bill No. 31, for the relief of Vera Sanderson. -Mr. McClenaghan. Bill No. 32, for the relief of Noel Leslie Deuxbury.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton). Bill No. 33, for the relief of Lillian May O'Reilly.-Mr. Arthurs. Bill No. 34, for the relief of Jean Victoria Dillane.-Mr. Lennox. Bill No. 35, for the relief of Ethel Alberta Barker.-Mr. Arthurs. Bill No. 36, for the relief of Annie Hazel MeCausland.-Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 37, for the relief of Sterling LeRoy Spicer.-Mr. McClenaghan. Bill No. 38, for the relief of Amy Bell Corney.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton). Bill No. 39. for the relief of David Frank Croiser.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton). Bill No. 40, for the relief of Ethel Gildea Nye Brown.-Mr. Duff. Bill No. 41, for the relief of 'Edward Thomas Faragher.-Mr. Peck. Bill No. 42, for the relief of Bertha Viola Lidkea.-Mr. McClenaghan. Bill No. 43, for the relief of Mike Ayoub (otherwise known as Michael Ayoub).-Mr. McClenaghan. Bill No. 44, for the relief of Alice Marion McGinley.-Mr. Garland (Carleton). Bill No. 45, for the relief of Harold Edgar Perinchief.-Mr. Garland (Carleton). Bill No. 46, for the relief of Hendel Tuerner Lubrinetsky.-Mr. McClenaghan. Bill No. 47, for the relief of Paul Hugh Turnbull.-Mr. Garland (Carleton). Bill No. 48, for the relief of .Helen Elby Pollington.-Mr. Mewburn. Bill No. 49, for the relief of Alexander Stewart.-Mr. Harris. Bill No. 50, for the relief of William Melville Moore.-Mr. Casselman. Bill No. 51, for the relief of John Samuel Milligan.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-HighPark). Bill No. 52, for the relief of Marion Richardson.-Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 53, for the relief of Isadore Boadner. -Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 54, for the relief of William Albert Thomas.-(Mr. Casselman. Bill No. 55, for the relief of Gertrude Isabel Clark.-Mr. Church. Bill No. 56, for the relief of Helen Seymour O'Connor.-Mr. Casselman. Bill No. 57, for the relief of Yetta Selma Trachsell.-Mr. Wright. Bill No. 58, for the relief of Alexander Dewar.-Mr. McClenaghan. Bill No. 59, for the relief of Florence Burrell. -Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 60, for the relief of Edith Marion Byam.-Mr. Lennox. Bill No. 61, for the relief of Charles Davidson.-Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 62, for the relief of Doris Selina Irvin.-Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 63, for the relief of Frank John Davis.-Mr. McClenaghan. Bill No. 64, for the relief of John Norman Smith McMurray.-Mr. Charters. Bill No. 65, for the relief of Archie Claire McIntyre.-Mr. Duff. Bill No. 66, for the relief of Mabel Elizabeth Harcourt.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton). Bill No. 67, for the relief of Louise Gordon Pook.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine). Bill No. 68, for the relief of Ezillah Harriet Cole.-Mr. Stinson. Bill No. 69, for the relief of Gertrude Bum-side.-Mr, Kay. Bill No. 70, for the relief of Cora Mae Murray.-Mr. Goodison. Bill No. 71, for the relief of Janet Thornhill Gorrie.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park). Bill No. 72, for the relief of Lillian Du-Bord Bulloch.-Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 73, for the relief of Henrietta Schierholtz.-Mr. McClenaghan . Bill No. 74, for the relief of Maude Elizabeth Gilroy.-Mr. McClenaghan. Bill No. 75, for the relief of Richard Howard Buckley.-Mr. McClenaghan. Bill No. 76, for the relief of William George Darlington.-Mr. McClenaghan. Bill No. 77, for the relief of Arthur Watson. -Mr. McClenaghan. Bill No. 78, for the relief of Frances Majorie Warren.-Mr. McClenaghan. Bill No. 79, for the relief of Charles Douglas Palmer.-Mr. McClenaghan. Bill No. 80, for the relief of Isobel Lam-ontagne.-Mr. McClenaghan. Bill No. 81, for the relief of Jane Johnston Mitchell Wells.-Mr. Geary. Bill No. 82, for the relief of Jeremiah Gibbs. -Mr. Mewburn. Bill No. 83, for the relief of Caroline Elizabeth Risbridger.-Mr. Mewburn. Bill No. 84, for the relief of Cassie Woodley -Mr. Church. Bill No. 85, for the relief of Isabella Freeman.-Mr. Harris. 2762 COMMONS The Budget-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw) Bill No. 86, for the relief of George Guthrie. -Mr. Stewart (Leeds). Bill No. 87, for the relief of Lily Stead.- Mr. Mewburn. Bill No. S8, for the relief of Alice Grace Hopkins.-Mr. Mewburn. Bill No. 89, for the relief of Vera Catherine Searle.-Mr. Ladner. Bill No. 90, for the relief of Sidney Charles Frost.-Mr. McClenaghan.


THE BUDGET

CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL


The House resumed the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (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 Hon. R. J. Manion.


LIB

John Gordon Ross

Liberal

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

Mr. Speaker,

when the House rose at six o'clock I was reading one of the wails of the protectionists in a speech of the Hon. Sir Charles Tupper in the budget debate of 1897: It is quite

similar to the wails that we have heard in this House. I will continue it:

Now, what is the result? The result is that this tariff goes into operation, and the hon. gentleman knows that the industries of this country are already .paralyzed in consequence. While hon. members gloat, vindictively gloat, over the destruction of Canadian industries I was reading the wail, the sorrowful wail, of those industries in the Montreal Gazette where one manufacturer after another declared that their industries were ruined, that their mills must close, and that they saw staring them in the face a return to the daplorable state of things that existed when the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House was in charge of the fiscal policy of this country. I say that a deeper wrong was never inflicted upon Canada.

What happened is a matter of history not conjecture. No sooner had the government passed that budget than industry sprang into life. Canada went forward as never before. But the wail goes on, and the leader of the opposition kicked about every reduction. Then for a while the Liberals did not do much reducing of the tariff. What happened? The ramparts of gold speech from the right hon. gentleman from Portage la Prairie! He was avid for tariff reduction then! My hon. friend kicks at everything. He reminds me of a remark made by a friend of mine in regard to the late Hon. Joseph Martin, a very able man and known to many in this House. He said of Mr. Martin:

He kicks the living and the dead,

He even kicks himself in bed.

One would think that my hon. friend would get weary, but he holds the courage of despair-despair of ever getting into office!

Now there is another matter to which I wish to refer. My hon. friend the member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) said the other day:

Who is being helped by this budget? The Americans largely. I know very little help that is being given to Canadians by it. What we have delivered to us here is simply an American budget.

I shall not follow my hon. friend further in this quotation. At this point he brought in the Pyrenees. When these mountains

come into the hon. gentleman's speech we may step out.

Well, what do we find? A delegation comes down to Ottawa and asks the government to put back the duty on motor cars to 35 per cent. Who comes? Who are the fiancial interests back of that delegation? Mr. Henry Ford will not be here; he is too big to go on his knees before even this government. Besides, he knows better. Mr. W. R. Campbell comes along and tries to tell us that he knows more than Ford. Listen, Mr. Speaker and hon. gentlemen of the House of Commons, to this petition:

I am a maker of cars. You have by means of a high tariff given us a chance to make 82.73 per cent out of you last year. The Liberals are trying to change the rules of the game. Heretofore, I have been able to extract that amount for the benefit of myself and my American friends. Be good, please. Please put back the duty on motor cars to 35 per cent.

That is the plea of these American stockholders. But Ford says that increased production would cause even greater progress under free trade.

And what about General Motors, Limited? The entire stock of that corporation is owned by the General Motors Corporation of the United States. Canadians have no direct voice in its affairs. The American parent concern is one of the great industrial organizations in the United States. Its assets are given in Pool's Manual as over $592,000,000. Its net earnings amount to $71,802,000. It controls eight great manufacturing divisions; fifteen accessory groups; eleven affiliated industries; one hundred and thirteen sales divisions; six accessory sales divisions; eight export and overseas departments. This again is closely linked up with the Dupont powder interests who control also Canadian Explosives and Northern Giant Explosives, Limited. We are told now that the general manager of the United States General Motors, says:

We will manufacture in the United States unless you amend this budget, which lessens by 15 per cent our power to exploit the Canadian people.

The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)

Well, I know my answer. I know too the answer of the hon. gentlemen in the front benches opposite. The Duponts and Morgans crack the whip, and the hinged knees of my hon. friends bend! My reply is different. Our ancestors kicked kings from their thrones; manned the tiny ships as the great armada bore down upon England; stood with the martyrs on the fields of death; fought tyrants as tyrants only can be fought-by risk of life and fortune. They would not bow down to the Duponts of New Jersey! I say to our manufacturers: Go back to your factories- devote to business the time now spent on lobbying. You have the capacity and ability for great national service. In Heaven's name do not waste it in seeking for government favours!

My hon. friend the member for Fort William, with all the capacity for mock heroics which fits so naturally on to his ample frame, tells us:

It will not be long before the international boundary line will no longer exist between these two countries.

I yield not so much as the width of one blonde hair to my hon. friend in devotion to my native land, but I say calmly and deliberately and with a full sense of the meaning of the words: if this parliament is to form its budget under the dictation of the Duponts and the Morgans, then the sooner we obliterate that line the better.

One word more and I am through. Before the English occupied Egypt, when that country was under the domain of the Turk, the collection of taxes was " farmed " out to certain gentlemen throughout the country. These men gave the government a certain amount and they squeezed the hapless fellah or peasant of Egypt to the last drop that was in him. We have developed that custom here. We give to certain United States gentlemen the right to exploit the Canadian people by means of a high tariff. They come over here and build branch factories; they squeeze us to the full extent of the tariff protection we have given them, and they send their profits back to the land of their birth. And hon. gentlemen opposite applaud and cheer and say: Isn't it great? Long live Canadians so they may be exploited by their neighbours!" Well, the British came into Egypt. The exploiters were driven out, and they wailed as every protectionist wails. But the taxes came down; good government was established. " We made a man out of Pharaoh," and in that land of oppression prosperity came. We are going to do that in Canada. Liberalism is alive in Canada; it has found its soul. We have been living in the shadows. You have

seen a tree grow up in the woods that way; the foliage is pale and the growth stunted. Then something happens to let in the light and the tree grows; the leaves take on a richer colour, and it reaches out into the sunlight. Above all the others, it stands sun-crowned, a monarch of the forest! Just so with Liberalism. It has had its shadows; there have been dark days when the road seemed hard and the task heavy, but the Liberal spirit has triumphed at last. Its sinews have strengthened; the mists have rolled away from before its eyes; the path before us is plain and straight, and in the light of that clearer vision, not only Liberalism but Canada goes forward to the achievement of a newer and a grander day.

Mr. A. M. EDWARD'S (South Waterloo):

I rise with a good deal of hesitation and [DOT]timidity after the remarks of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross). Belonging as I do to that very much hated class, the Ontario manufacturers, perhaps I may take from the hon. gentleman some very good advice inasmuch as he has referred to those engaged in the manufacturing industry. The hon. member in speaking this afternoon about the wonderful strides which the agriculture implement industry had made during the past two or three years made the statement that in 1925 the profits of the Massey-Harris Company were something over $1,000,000. That, I believe, is quite correct, but he did not inform the House that whereas, under normal conditions, the company employ from four to five thousand men in Canada, to-day they are employing perhaps only fifteen hundred, although their production is larger and they make more money than formerly. The only explanation that can be given for this, in view of the tariff reduction, is the fact that in 1925 they imported on a very large scale from the United States. Instead of making agricultural implements in Toronto they got them from their factories in Batavia, New York. Last year there were brought into Canada a sufficient quantity of malleable iron castings for the agricultural implement trade to keep 150 men employed 300 days in the year. Surely that employment is worth something to Canada.

Something has been said about the amount of steel used in the manufacture of agricultural implements. It is perfectly true that not much steel is actually used in the implement, but I would remind the House that as our machinery makers have to tender with the branch factories of huge United States concerns, a protection of five per cent does not

2764 COMMONS

The Bridget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)

help them to any great extent. The American branches in Canada import their machines from the United States where owing to greater facilities aid better equipment the production is cheaper, so that a tariff of five per cent affords our manufacturers little or no protection.

The hon. member for Moose Jaw referred rather slightingly, I thought, to the huge deputation that waited upon the government to-day, and I inferred from his remarks that he thought they were here at the instance of the manufacturers and who were financing their visit. He spoke particularly about the McLaughlin people. Now this is quite at variance with what I was given to understand this afternoon. In conversation with a number of men from Oshawa I learned that in very many cases where the men in the factories were asked to come to Ottawa they said that they could not afford the trip, but that they would contribute their bit to the expenses of anyone who could come. A collection was taken up and contributions ranging from fifty cents to $2 were made. This does not seem to be in keeping with the suggestion of the hon. gentleman that the whole thing was financed and really initiated by the manufacturers themselves. I think the hon. member will find out, as time goes on, and when it is discovered that a vast army of workmen have been thrown out of employment in Oshawa and elsewhere, that the present budget proposal will come home strongly to the government. It is a serious thing for a man to go to work in the morning and find the door locked; he must return to his family in a very depressed state of mind. Surely it is not the function of a government to contribute to such a situation.

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

John Power Howden

Liberal

Mr. HOWDEN:

Does the hon. member

think that the manufacturers were justified in closing their doors the day after the budget was delivered?

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

Alexander McKay Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo):

I am not

justifying the manufacturers of motor cars, but I must point out to the hon. member that what really happened was this: the doors were closed until a readjustment could be made and the manufacturers could ascertain just where they stood. I know of one dealer who went to get cars and who was refused for the reason that the manufacturers could not fix the price, not having yet made the adjustment. Furthermore, the question of storage facilities had to be considered.

The outstanding feature of the present budget is, of course, the reduction in auto-

EMr. A. M. Edwards.]

mobile duties, a reduction which was made regardless of the facts and, indeed, without any desire on the part of the government to ascertain those facts. It is entirely a measure of expediency submitted to under pressure from the western adjunct of the government, contrary to the pledges of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the country and also in contravention of the undertaking contained in the Speech from the Throne. I do not intend to quarrel with the amount of the reduction as such, nor do I intend to commend it. Frankly, I do not know what comment it calls for, and I am safe in saying that no hon. member in this House can tell whether or not the reduction in the tariff on automobiles can be justified. On the other hand, perhaps the government has not gone far enough in this regard; or perhaps it has gone too far. One thing is certain, however, no consideration was shown to the motor companies nor to the small stock holders interested in it, and there was an absolute disregard for the welfare of the working people in these concerns. As I understand it, those interested in the motor industry were ready and willing to put all their cards on the table. Therefore I contend that this matter should have been referred to the newly created tariff board, and the tariff lowered or raised, according to the findings of that board. If this was not a case for the tariff board, why was that board created? Surely it was created to be of service to the country, to deal with tariff questions affecting automobiles and other manufactured articles? Or was it simply intended to be a haven for derelict politicians? I would suggest that any industry which may be suspected of making unfair profits under its tariff protection should be brought before this board and investigated. If this were done, I am confident the continual howl that we hear from certain sections of the country would rapidly subside.

The industrial portions of Canada, My. Speaker, have been built up by a policy o.' protection, this policy having compelled large United States concerns to establish branch factories in the Dominion. Is this policy to be ditched now after hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in plant and equipment and workingmen's homes? Or are we to have a sane policy that will give sufficient protection, and sufficient protection only, to all productive enterprises? In the city of Galt where I live there are five factories devoting part of their space to the manufacture of parts and accessories for motor cars. In some cases these factories have been estab-

The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)

lished by foreign capital brought in under the policy advocated by our leading statesmen. After listening to these letters hon. members will be able to decide whether or not a slight reduction in the price of Ford cars is sufficient justification for curtailing these businesses and throwing thousands of people out of employment. These communications are in reply to letters I sent out. The first is a telegram:

Letter arrived yesterday, but was off sick, so just received to-day noon. Since changes in tariff we are only operating fifty per cent, also night shift discontinued, *orders cancelled.

Elliott & Whitehall,

Machine Tool Company, Limited.

The next reply is from the Dominion Tack

Replying to your enquiry, quite a considerable portion of our business was from automobile makers. This has been cut off, and will undoubtedly result in a loss to our plant and the release of a number of employees.

Here is another letter:

Thanks for your favour of the 20th instant. Now, with reference to the effect the recent tariff reduction will have upon our output, it is at this moment hard to say other than that it will be of a very serious nature. Taking into account the screws and parts which we make, and which go directly into automobiles, and also screws and parts for automobile accessories, which will be indirectly affected, wi* would say it will affect about fifty per cent of our business.

The main difficulty with this whole matter is that in an endeavour to give automobile manufacturers some redress, there will be an attempt made to further reduce parts and other raw material, which in many cases is somebody else's finished product. In other words, our finished product is the raw material for the automobile and automobile accessory industries. Were we then in turn to seek some redress, we would have to go back at the steel men, such as the Canadian and Union Drawn Steel Companies of Hamilton, which would again in turn affect them. The thing is of such a far-reaching character that if it is at all possible to do so, some supreme endeavour should be made to have this matter referred to the tariff board, which if done would enable not only the automobile manufacturers but all other lines affected would have an opportunity to place their case before them.

This letter is signed by the Galt Machine

I am in receipt of yours of the 20th inst., and in reply would say that the change in the duty as proposed in the budget in connection with the automobile industry, will have the disastrous effect of closing that department of our factory.

We have been doing an annual business of around $100,000 in manufacturing automobile parts for various automobile factories, and last Saturday we received instructions to stop all work. Of course we had to let all the men in that department go, some of whom, I am told, have already gone to the United States.

During the dull times, which all business has experienced. during the past few years, we looked around for something additional which we could manufacture

to advantage in order to increase and help out our business. We finally succeeded, after a lot of work and expense, in getting this line going. The result of the change of tariff means that all our labour and expense has been thrown away and we are afraid to go to the expense of taking up anything else, for we cannot tell what will be hit next. Making the change at this-time of the year, just when the busy season was starting, has spoiled the business for this year.

That is the story of how our industries in Galt are affected by this reduction in the tariff on automobiles.

While reading the clause in the budget referring to the tariff on automobiles, the thought came to me as to what would have been done providing even one automobile factory were located east of the Ottawa river. It seemed to me that that would have put an entirely different slant on the situation. Something apparently must be done to chide the great industrial province of Ontario. I would suggest that the government have a care, as there is always the possibility of "killing the goose that lays the golden egg.'' It might not be out of place for me to give a few figures as to what Ontario actually pays into the treasury compared with the contributions from the other provinces. When I state that out of the 225,000 taxpayers contributing to the treasury over 100.000 are located in Ontario, it will give hon. members some idea of what that means in Dominion revenue. Quebec comes second with over 43,000. Following this line I am going to quote from a paper that by the wildest stretch of the imagination cannot be considered to be favourable to the Conservative party-the Toronto Star Weekly. The feature article of last Saturday's issue was on taxation. Before quoting a few extracts from that article, I might state that Ontario's 100,000 taxpayers pay $11,000,000 into the treasury, while Quebec's 43,000 pays $8,000,000. so their contributions are not so very wide apart. It may be suggested that the total for Quebec is accounted for to some extent by the enormous number of big incomes enjoyed by people in the city of Montreal. But that is not the fact. Last year Quebec and Ontario had exactly the same number of people, 355, enjoying incomes of over $30,000 a year. These 355 wealthy men in each province paid in taxes in Ontario $4,122,088, and in Quebec $4,034,776. Of incomes between $20,000 and $30,000 Quebec had 282 and Ontario 480. Let us see how they contribute, taking each province of Canada. In Ontario there are 99,597 taxpayers, paying $11,370,769; Quebec has 43,646 taxpayers, paying $8,352,203; Manitoba, 19,870 taxpayers paying $1,684,154; British Columbia, 19,630 taxpayers paying $1,468,565; Alberta, 14,641 taxpayers paying

<*766 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)

$730,510; Saskatchewan, the province we hear so much about, has 14,200 taxpayers paying $615,842; Nova Scotia, 7,134 taxpayers paying $446,085; New Brunswick, 5,743 taxpayers paying $415,126; Prince Edward Island, 479 taxpayers paying $26,914.

Included in this total of 225,000 taxpayers there are 3,061 farmers, who pay into our treasury $162,944 in income. I think hon. members will see that perhaps it is not the wisest thing in the interests of the country to destroy the profitable enterprises of Ontario and Quebec. It will be seen that the unfair position into which the province of Ontario is being forced will have a tendency to react adversely upon the country generally, a result which will not be in the best interests of Canada.

With reference to the income tax, I regret to note that the dividends received from corporations which are not now included in income returns, become taxable. These dividends are already taxed by the municipalities, and the proposal to tax them further will work a hardship on many people depending on income from these sources of revenue for their maintenance. As explained by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) in his speech on Tuesday last, the widow with an income of $5,000 made up of dividends will now have to pay a tax; under the old ruling she was exempt. She will also have to pay a tax to the municipality in which she resides. The reduction in sales tax, the return to penny postage and the abolition of the receipt tax are very welcome, and very long deferred.

During the speech of the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) he quoted from speeches made at the Canadian National exhibition last year, and also from speeches made during the annual meeting of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association at Hamilton. One of his quotations was from the speech of Mr. Fortier, of the city of Quebec. I happen to know Mr. Fortier very weil personally, and any person who knows him-

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

Paul-Arthur Séguin

Liberal

Mr. SEGUIN:

He is a Tory.

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

Alexander McKay Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo):

2770 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)

These statistics given above re French and British imports are taken from Canadian Trade and Commerce reports, and Bradford Board of Trade reports.

The building up and safeguarding of the woollen and knitting industry would therefore not only affect the actual workers engaged in the mills, and the workers engaged in the subsidiary industries, and the retailers and professional men and women supported by the workers, but also would affect our railway problem and the prosperity of -the nation as a whole.

I would like to make a comparison of the weekly wages paid in Yorkshire with the weekly wages paid in Canada, in order to give some idea of the difficulties with which the woollen industry in this country has to contend. I had the privilege a few weeks ago of going into a mill employing some 800 odd hands and of checking these figures thoroughly, of going through the industry and checking their pay sheets. I wili give the weekly wages in Yorkshire, including costs of living bonus, as shown by the Minister of Labour as at the end of 1924, exchange value computed at the same date. I will give the weekly wages in Canada as averaged from figures supplied by Canadian mills and compared as to hours of labour and sex of worker. The figures are as

follows: Yorkshire Canada

Winders *5 92 I13-J15Twisters. 0 34 13- 15Spinners 5 77 13- 15Reelers 8 52 17- 20Doffers 5 22 13- 15Overlookers 17 03 35- 60Warehousemen 12 06 19- 22Blenders, carbonizers, labourers 12 06 18- 20Mail help in grey rooms; stock room, packing department 12 30 19- 22Firemen 13 89 30.00It is only fair to say that these wages werecompared as at the end of 1924. Since that

time there has been a reduction of ten per cent in wages paid to Canadian workers. Wages in Canada are not top high; it is the wages abroad that are too low. There is frequently a confusion of mind over the effect of money wages paid in different countries on competitive prices for selling goods and the purchasing power of the wages. The money wages paid for labour at the exchange value give the true basis of comparison in order to show the advantage gained by United Kingdom manufacturers over Canadian manufacturers when selling goods in Canada. What the wages paid to the operatives will buy in the respective countries has nothing to do with the selling price of the goods; it relates only to the standard of living of the operatives. The average wages in gold paid to skilled textile workers in Germany is 11 cents per hour, or $5.72 for a 52 hour week.

Let me now give the House in detail the effect of this competition on the home market as regards imports into this country. These figures allow complete comparisons for the calendar years 1921 to 1925 both inclusive. If the House will permit me, I will hand the figures to Hansard. They are as follows:

Imports into Canada (From Monthly Trade of Canada)

These figures show that the too heavy imports in the calendar year 1921, have been tremendously exceeded in all succeeding years.

The total imports of manufactured woollen and knit goods for these five years reached the tremendous total of $187,535,772.

It will be noted that there are slight reductions in the yardages of cloth imported in 1925 as compared with 1924, but this did not mean that Canadian mills got more business in 1925 than in 1924; in fact, they got even less. Owing to the decrease in the total purchases in Canada, due to general industrial depression and loss of population, the total market was greatly reduced, and consequently the import figures show that mills abroad actually obtained a greater share of the Canadian market than ever before.

Calendar Years 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925Cloth $ 18,154,459 1,453,956 4,194,100 2,205,280 2,793,269 392,948 $ 22,287,466 1,677,953 6,957,370 4,112,356 2,684,406 388,671 $ 23,688,991 1,732,055 8,039,228 4,048,965 2,903,087 288,582 $ 25,030,674 1,732,150 6,858,974 3,616,323 2,406,603 269,753 [DOT]$ 23,830,884 1,924,681 7,273,139 3,788,010 2,509,613 291,826Carpets and rugs

Knitted goods

Yams Made-up

Pressed felts

Totals $ 29,194,012 $ 38,108,222 S 40,700,908 $ 39,914,477 $ 39,618,153

The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)

Imports in yards, pounds or pairs

Woven Goods 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925Tweeds, in yds 1,579,315 $ 2,777,406 $ 4,630,529 $ 3,626,529 % 3,201,819Overcoatings, in yds 48,457 135,726 302,660 328,947 252,788Flannels, plain, in yds 479,337 976,784 1,499,246 1,018,095 770,779Worsteds & serges, in yds 5,002,582 7,597,800 6,942,844 10,290,990 9,201,298Lustres, mohairs, alpaca, yds 1,558,623 2,603,707 2,145,261 2,083,038 1,837,324W. & C's dress goods, sq. yds 3,239,397 5,512,419 4,938,361 8,075,539 5,531,513Blankets, in pairs

and in addition and not shown in yard- 43,187 60,471 140,203 159,655 127,174age, the following woven goods. $ 5,047,774 $ 5,215,651* 4,189,708 S 5,009,740 S 5,330,025 Knitted goods Socks and stockings, of wool, prs 2,920,464 7,460,556 8,240,592 6,077,340 6,585,600Socks and stockings, of silk, pairs 275,220 469,968 481,992 587,052 778,322Socks and stockings, cotton, pairs

And in addition the following knitted goods which are not shown in garm- 3,990,880 6,464,496 6,540,624 5,204,938 5,913,936ents:- $ 3,218,350$ 2,039,317 $ 2,989,313 $ 3,573,915 $ 3,093,319 Yams Woollen and worsted, nop... lbs 213,493 389,880 310,584 231,409 192,13330c. per lb. or over, lbs

and in addition the following yarns 1,584,604 2,862,259 2,895,480 2,649,992 2,452,113which are not shown in lbs.:- $ 191,693$ 60,998 $ 85,417 $ 169,700 1 137,290 Felt pressed All kinds, lbs 628,150 707,719 419,477 437,609 425,888

Piece goods manufactured from wool exported from Great Britain to Canada and from Great Britain to United States

January January February1925 1926 1926To Canada: sq. yds. sq. yds. sq. yds.Worsted cloths.. .. 1,143,000 1,413,000 1,278,000Woollen cloths.. .. 960,000 1,167,000 1,139,000To United States: Worsted cloths.. .. 563.000 713,000 440,000Woollen cloths.. .. 872,000 1,095,000 773,000Lion, members can see quite readily the great

disparity notwithstanding the huge population of the United States as compared with ours.

I have just a little I should like to say about the shoe business, which has been mentioned so often. Upwards of 2.000 people are engaged in the shoe business in my riding. These statistics are gathered by the Shoe and Leather Journal of Toronto and other sources.

As a result of the reduction in the tariff on boots and shoes under the British preferential schedule, the duty on leather and felt footwear from the United Kingdom is now

only 15J per cent-17i per cent, less a rebate

of one-tenth of the duty on direct shipments. This is the lowest rate since 1874. The above refers to tariff item 611a, which applies to most importations, small quantities of work boots enter under a British preferential tariff rate of 15 per cent tariff item 611.

The Canadian customs regulations permit British manufacturers to sell to customers in Canada at prices lower than their prices in their own home market to the extent of 5 per cent, before the Canadian anti-dumping clause is applied. In some cases at least, British firms have taken advantage of this provision, with the result that the protection to the Canadian factories is reduced to only 10J per cent.

British trade commissioners in Canada are actively engaged in helping the representatives of British shoe manufacturers, even to the extent of making appointments with leading retailers.

In the calendar year 1925, boots and shoes from the United Kingdom, exclusive of rubber footwear, were imported into Canada to the value of $1,132,850. The value of English footwear imported into Canada in 1922 was only $456,073. The number of pairs imported

2772 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)

in 1925 was 805,201, as compared with 652,925 in 1924 and 341,814 in 1923.

While there has been some falling off during recent months in importations of certain classes of British footwear, the Canadian factories making 'high-grade shoes for men and the felt footwear factories in Canada still are suffering severely from the competition of British footwear, imported under the low rates of the British preferential schedule. The Canadian business, which is lost to the Canadian shoe factories as a result of the British preference in turn means a loss of business to many other industries supplying materials to the shoe manufacturers and a reduction in the earnings and purchasing power of the shoe workers in Canada.

The total value of Canadian shoe business is limited and there is no way in which the Canadian factories can make up for the business which is now going abroad unnecessarily. South Africa has withdrawn its preference to Canadian footwear and, as practically every country in the world has a well developed footwear industry of its own, it has been'found impossible for the Canadian shoe factories to develop any considerable export trade.

Export of Canadian footwear have fallen from $5,679,720 in the fiscal year 1919-20 to $28o,634 for the twelve months ended February. 1926.

Canada's total production of machine-made boots and shoes

leather and felt-last year was approximately 15,500,000 pairs or about 1,500.000 pairs less than in 1912 and 4,500,000 less than in 1916.

If the shoe business now going abroad unnecessarily were retained in Canada the Canadian factories could handle it without any increase in plant or equipment and would be able to operate more efficiently and more *economically by reason of the larger volume.

The keen competition amongst the shoe factories in Canada ensures that the manufacturers' selling prices at all times will be exceedingly close to production costs in the most efficient factory and that any economy resulting from increased production will be passed on to the public in the form of lower prices. The Canadian shoe manufacturers require additional protection against importations of English footwear, not in order that they may charge higher prices, but that they may enlarge their volume of production.

More than 100 shoe manufacturing firms in Canada have failed or obtained compromises or extensions since 1920. While many causes have contributed to this heavy mortality,

rMr. A. M. Edwards.]

the principal cause has been that there has not been enough business available for all. This situation has been made worse by the British preference, which has permitted British shoe manufacturing firms to cut into the Canadian business and take out of the country orders which have been much needed by the factories here.

The wages paid by the shoe manufacturers in England are much lower than those paid in Canada, machinery costs in England also are lower, and the British manufacturers have important advantages in respect of cheap water freights to the Pacific coast via the Panama canal. The British manufacturers get all their equipment, materials, supplies, etc., duty free, while some of the equipment, materials, supplies, etc., required by the Canadian shoe manufacturers have to be imported, mostly from the United States, and are dutiable at rates ranging up to 30 per cent. These items still further offset the very meagre duty on boots and shoes imported into Canada under the British preferential schedule.

I come now to a consideration of the rates of customs duty on boots and shoes from the United Kingdom imported into the British dominions. New Zealand charges an import duty on British boots and shoes of 25 per cent of the value for duty, which comprises the invoice value plus ten per cent for freight and insurance, and a primage duty of one per cent. This represents a total ad valorem import duty of 28} per cent. New Zealand also requires that for British shoes to enter under this rate, which is lower than the general tariff, the proportion of British materials and British labour must not be less than 50 per cent. Australia charges an import duty on British boots and shoes of 35 per cent of the value for duty, which comprises the invoice value plus 10 per cent for freight and insurance. This represents a total import duty of 381 per cent. English shoes will not be admitted to Australia, under the above preferential tariff rate, unless the proportion of British materials and British labour is not less than 75 per cent. Newfoundland gives no tariff preference to British boots and shoes, but charges a duty of 40 per cent, plus a surtax of 5 per cent on invoice cost, freight and duty. This represents a total import duty of more than 45 per cent. South Africa gives no tariff preference now to British boots and shoes, but charges on most classes of British footwear an import duty of 30 per cent. Canada admits British boots and shoes under a British preferential tariff rate of 171 per cent, less a rebate of one-tenth of the duty on all direct importations, which rebate reduces the import duty to only 15} per cent.

The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)

Under the present British preference, goods manufactured in countries with depreciated currencies are imported into Canada as British goods at the expense of British and Canadian labour. This is altogether absurd, unsound, anti-national and un-British, and it is a condition which ought to be removed without further delay. So much for the boot and shoe business.

Now I come to the Canadian National Railways. The country during the year which has just passed was abundantly blessed by Providence with a splendid crop, not alone in the western country, but also in eastern Canada, and as a national result our financial position is considerably improved. This in turn is reflected in the statement of the Canadian National Railways, a report which I am certain will be received with a great deal of enthusiasm throughout the country. In our National railway system we are experimenting with the greatest public ownership scheme ever attempted; and upon the handling of this vast enterprise, upon the fairness shown the management, upon the total absence of governmental and other interference, coupled, of course, with capable management, the success or failure of the enterprise depends.

We in Ontario know something of that great municipally owned enterprise, the hydroelectric, but we are also well aware of the fact that the success of that great undertaking was accomplished by the indomitable perseverance of the founders, coupled with the outstanding ability of its management and the determination at all times to keep it clear of politics and all outside interference. It may interest the House to know that the birthplace of the great hydro-electric enterprise was in the good county of Waterloo, which I have the honour to represent in this House jointly with my good friend the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). The birthplace of that great Canadian through whose efforts much of the success of the enterprise was accomplished is also in my riding, the village of Baden in South Waterloo. I refer, of course, to the late Sir Adam Beck.

The people in all parts of the country from coast to coast are watching with a great deal of anxiety, and I may say with no little uncertainty, the efforts of the management to make the National railways a real asset to the Dominion of Canada, and if there is one point in this connection which I wish to emphasize more than another it is that no handicaps be placed on this great undertaking, that it should be given a square deal, and that no outside interference should be tolerated.

We listened recently in the House to a presentation of what appeared to be a very serious condition of affairs in the province of Nova Scotia, particularly in the Cape Breton section of that province. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) and his government should be congratulated on assisting to relieve the situation in at least a temporary way.

This brings me to the coal situation in general, upon which I wish to say a few words in the hope that whoever has the framing of a policy with regard to this great question will approach it in a broad way, having in mind a policy that will be of real service to the entire Dominion. Too long we have confessed a dependency upon the United States for our fuel supply. Owing to constantly recurring strikes there, the prospect is that in the no great distant future-as time is counted in the life of a nation-we shall be faced, as in fact we are faced at the present time, with the necessity of framing legislation that will adjust this great question. In this connection may I assure the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin) that I am in accord with the sentiments expressed by him in the House recently, when he stated that owing to geographical difficulties some concession would have to be made by the provinces of Ontario and Quebec in order that difficulties that now appear great indeed may be surmounted.

Between the western province of Alberta and the eastern province of Nova Scotia, coal sufficient to supply the necessities of all Canada for hundreds of years can be obtained, and we shall be recreant to our duty if we allow minor difficulties to stand in the way of the development of our great coal areas. The opportunity in this regard cannot be overestimated, and when we consider the fact that we are at present purchasing from the United States yearly over one hundred million dollars' worth of coal, sending the money to a foreign country, assisting to keep a foreign population employed, to the detriment of our Canadian citizens, it seems to me that this is one of the most pressing problems before the House to-day. In fact I am at a loss to understand-perhaps some hon. member can enlighten me-the reason or reasons why this question was not settled long ago. If we in the central provinces stop for a minute to consider what the immense purchasing power of the hundred millions spent east and west would mean to the industrial sections, surely our united interests lie in this direction. Great purchasing power, coal moving from the west

2774 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo)

and from the east, giving greater business to our railways, and carrying the manufactured goods from central Canada to these coal producing provinces, would very materially assist in relieving our transportation difficulties. If it is necessary to increase the duty slightly on this commodity, I trust the Minister of the Interior will not stick literally to his "death knell of protection" utterances.

In the constituency of South Waterloo, which I have the honour to represent in this House, we have the happy combination of the agriculture and industrial, a most striking example of what a home market really means. When I tell you that about 95 per cent of the products of the farms of Waterloo county are consumed in that county, some idea can be had of what it means to have the industrial section of the community fully employed. During the past four years this unfortunately has not been the case, and many hundreds of our finest mechanics and young men graduating from our schools and workshops have been forced to go to the United States to secure employment. They do not want to go, neither do they want to become United States citizens. They are all loyal Canadians desirous of living their lives under the Union Jack, but they are forced to migrate in order that they may obtain employment. But just so long as we pursue a policy of exporting our raw materials either wholly or partly unmanufactured, and giving insufficient protection to our productive enterprises to enable them to produce their goods in competition with mass production in the United States, low wages in mid-European countries, and depreciated foreign currencies, just so long will this condition of affairs exist.

Earlier in the session the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. McClenaghan) referred at some length to the great business done by the mail order houses of the Dominion. I was greatly interested in the case which he so ably put forward as it applied to our retail merchants, and he convinced me that the mail order house competition is most unfair. The countries of the world are scoured by the purchasing agents of these concerns. To have the products of foreign sweatshops and child labour distributed in this country, largely through these mail order houses, is bad enough; but when we consider that the ordinary retailer throughout the Dominion is forced to pay a stiff tax in his community, while these great octopuses are practically free of this tax, it will be seen that he suffers from a handicap that is very serious indeed. As a result, the small rural village is rapidly disappearing, which is to be regretted, as

these centres have assisted in no small degree to make rural life more desirable. In fact, Sir, I think I would be justified in saying that one of the chief causes of the trek from the farms to the bright lights of the cities and towns is largely due to the gradual wiping out of these small centres. This condition of affairs, I submit, is largely due to the inroads of the mail order competition under the unfair circumstances I have related. I hope the senior member for Ottawa will introduce legislation that will give us an opportunity of investigating the matter further this session.

With reference to the immigration problem, I quite realize that in order to do more business we have to have more people. I am in hearty accord with an immigration policy that will bring in selected immigrants to increase production by the cultivation of the vast untilled lands not only of our western prairies, but also of hundreds of thousands of idle acres in the other provinces. But care should be taken not to bring in industrial workers until such time as our industries are fully employed and our citizens-who through the paralyzing policy of the government during the past four years have been compelled to leave their native country to secure employment in the great republic to the south- have been permitted to return to their homes.

I wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of the House for the very patient hearing which has been accorded me.

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

Arthur Bettez

Liberal

Air. ARTHUR BETTEZ (Three Rivers-St. Maurice) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, as a

new member in this House, I think I would not be fulfilling my duty, should I not mingle my voice with those who have preceded and will follow me in this debate, so as to appreciate to the best of my ability the budget which our Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has just brought down. Rest assured, Sir, that it is not without a certain apprehension that I rise to discuss, in the most moderate way possible this budget, being content with emphasizing the important points and leaving to hon. gentlemen better qualified than myself the task of scrutinizing them more carefully. This budget, I state without fear, has been received by all classes of society with the greatest satisfaction, and has very much alarmed many of our opponents who never expected such important reductions. I am aware that, as in all wordly matters, some details which are not perfect may be found; however, as perfection does not inhabit this world, there can be no reason to worry, for we are free to fill the wants in the next budget, knowing that the Liberal party dislikes to leave a task unfinished.

The Budget-Mr. Bettez

I wish to point out a few of the many reforms carried out. First, there is the total disappearance of the receipt stamp, a rather annoying and expensive formality to our business men. Secondly, there is the reduction from three to two cents on postage stamps, a measure which will be a blessing to everybody on and after July 1. Thirdly, the wiping out, I might say, for the small wage earner, of the income tax and in a reasonable proportion a tax decrease for others, a measure which I advocated in my first speech in this House on February 1, last; a measure which will give to the wage earners more comfort and will help them to provide for the dull days of old age, and, it will leave to others a larger portion of their profits to apply to the development of their trade. Finally we come to this most discussed question of the reduction of customs duty on automobiles, a duty which has been lowered from 35 to 20 per cent on automobiles of less than $1,200, and from 35 to 27J per cent on automobiles of luxury, from $1,200 up.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that under the circumstances, all conscientious manufacturers who do not want to make political capital with this question, will be more than compensated of this decrease in the tariff by the reduction of 25 per cent on all parts imported which enter into the manufacture of automobiles, providing that 50 per cent of said parts is manufactured in Canada. Is that not an incentive afforded to our Canadian manufacturers to the detriment of foreign manufacturers? Is that not, I ask you, a truly national measure which will be beneficial to the Canadian workman who has as much need of protection as the foreign workman? A manufacturer who cannot carry on with a tariff in his favour of 20 to 27-2 per cent, moreover, with the appreciable margin which gives him the freight charges over his foreign competitor, is of very little use to his fellow countrymen.

Do you think, Sir, that we must everlastingly provide such a high rate of protection to that industry which, it is true, employs a great number of people, though, in much smaller numbers, after all, than the citizens which it exploits by means of' such a high tariff?

As a mere suggestion, and as a way out, may I point out the desirability of reducing for this year the tariff on motor trucks only, with the understanding that the reductions mentioned in the budget will but take effect next January 1, on the other automobiles, in order that we may not be taxed with having taken these industries by surprise, and

also in order to allow time for those who have large stocks of automobiles on hand to sell them without too great a loss.

As to the tax on dividends, is it not more equitable to impose a tax on those who are in receipt of dividends than on those who have but their daily wages and have no other revenue bearing assets? The policy of our opponents has always been that of favouring solely the large interests to the detriment of the small wage earners and those deprived of wealth. They would prefer, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) stated yesterday, to see the tax paid by a widow possessing absolutely nothing than by a widow drawing dividends. How logical!

One thing which will always reflect shame on the Conservative party, and that the public will not forget for a long time to come, is the exemption from taxation which they granted on the victory bonds, most of which were purchased by friends, war profiteers, of the Conservative government of that day, when it is these same people who should have paid the bill instead of the small industries and wage earners. If the Conservatives had not acted in this manner, the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) would not have had to deplore, yesterday, the fate of the widows forced to pay a tax on their dividends.

As I am neither a free trader nor an extreme protectionist like our Conservative friends, but rather a moderate protectionist wishing to give fair play to the consumer and the honest manufacturer, I want, on behalf of my county, to congratulate the government on the appointment of a tariff commission which I feel sure, will be able to give us a just and well considered tariff, studying on the spot and separately the numerous questions on tariff affecting our various industries and applying to each of them a tariff in keeping with the needs of the times, in order not only to assure their existence but especially in order to further their expansion.

Mr. Speaker, I am not a follower of those who believe that, alone, a high tariff can ensure our success, but I am one among many who believe in a moderate tariff affording us an oportunity to make treaties with other countries. Such as the treaty with Australia that has been so much criticised since I have been in this House, but which, to my mind, has been most profitable to our country, inasmuch as it has thrown open to us a vast market for the sale of our paper, in quantities such as we have never known before, giving employment to hundreds of thousands

The Budget-Mr. Bettez

of Canadians. In fact, what do we witness since the ratification of these treaties? An ever increasing number of paper mills employing thousands of people. You have quite close to here, at Chelsea and at East Templeton, a company which is going to spend between $20,000,000 and $25,000,000 for the development of that industry, creating a large city of 20,000 to 25,000 of a population, bringing prosperity not only to the citizens of that town but to all those in the neighbourhood, and spreading affluence everywhere in the district. There are, at present, towns like Shawinigan Falls with a population of

14.000, Grand-Mere with a population of

9.000, Cap-de-la-Madeline with 8.000 people, La Tuque with 5,000 of a population, Chicoutimi which has nearly 10,000 of a population, Kenogami, Jonquieres, and many other towns which are centres of paper mills. If we had not those treaties, we would not have such an increase in the number of manufacturers. I must tell you, Sir, that this industry not only supports hundreds of thousands of people, not only does it bring happiness to those employed there, but also to all the farmers in the vicinities of said places where a market is at hand to sell their products among the workmen of the lumber yards; and moreover the farmers can both in winter and summer send their sons to work in the lumber camps. I find evidence of the good results secured through the beneficial policy of the government in my native city itself, in Three Rivers. A few years ago, our municipal valuation was but $14,000,000; to-day it has reached $42,000,000. I must further add, Sir, that the population has increased from 12,000 to 34,000, and this thanks to the beneficial policy of the present government.

Since 1921, American, English and Canadian companies have erected paper mills at a cost of $45,000,000. These mills have an annual output amounting to $25,000,000, and it will reach the figures of $37,000,000 next year. These companies to-day have a payroll amounting to $10,000,000 yearly, and these figures will probably increase to $15,000,000 by next year, as they are at present putting in additional plants. This money is expended within a radius of 100 miles from my home town. Do you not think, Sir, that the farmer, within said radius, gets his share of the profits accruing from such development, since in a great many cases, he works during the winter, with his sons in the lumber camps, and moreover he easily finds a ready market for his products? Do you not think, Sir, that in return he is willing to allow a small portion of the Australian products to enter Canada,

such as, for instance, butter, cheese and eggs, in order that the paper manufacturers who are the mainspring of his livelihood the year around, and who are responsible for his prosperity, may for these considerations be allowed to sell their paper to Australia and other countries?

I have no hesitation in saying that before long Canada shall control the paper industry in America. Are not these advantages granted to Australia and to other countries on their exports of certain farm products to our country more than compensated by the exports to these countries of our manufactured goods? For, after all, the prosperity of our young country will only rest on a sound basis inasmuch as we shall know how to take advantage of our treaties with other nations and mutual concessions shall be made by the various classes inhabiting our Dominion. Even admitting as a fact that the Australian treaty might be a little to the detriment of our farmers, do they not themselves also find it profitable to sell, at better prices, to our workmen their eggs, butter and other products of the farm?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the benefit of the Liberal policy is felt a little everywhere. Look, for instance, at the phenomenal development which is taking place in the lake St. John district, where at present an aluminum industry is taking root, and expending from $25,000,000 to $30,000,000 for their plants, this will found large towns in localities which yesterday were practically unknown.

There are other signs of the benefit resulting from the carrying out of the Liberal policy; such as a very marked decrease in the operating ratio of the National railways which gives us hope that before long these railways, which w7ere so to speak in bankruptcy when we assumed power, will soon pay their way and contribute to a large extent to the progress and expansion of Canada, thanks to the wise and enlightened policy of our government who have entrusted the management of our railways to very competent men.

A further undeniable proof of the benefit conferred by the Liberal policy, is the marked increase of our exports over our imports, an increase never heard of, up to this day, and which figures out in the $400,000,000.

A number of members on the opposition side have stated that Quebec favours protection. It is so, my county comprising especially the cities of Three Rivers and Shawingan Falls is more in favour of a policy of moderate pro-

The Budget-Mr. Kaiser

tection than of one of profiteering as understood by the opposition, and that is the policy I advocate.

The conscientious manufacturers of my county are in favour of a moderate tariff, giving equally fair play to the consumers. And that is the reason why these two large towns, Three Rivers and Shawinigan Falls, have approved of the Liberal party's policy by a majority of 5,000 votes. And note, it is as a candidate of King that I came forward and not under false colours. The large majority of people in my county are aw^re that it is not under a high tariff that- we shall have prosperity, but under a moderate tariff and especially one which ia well thought out, in conjunction with new treaties, such as that of Australia.

Were we to listen to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), Providence alone is responsible for the good work accomplished by the Liberal government.

Other members of the opposition will propound that the Progressives alone are to be thanked for certain changes in the tariff.

I wonder if these people are in earnest and what they think of the mass of the people whom we represent in this House! For, after all, are not the Progressives the representatives of the people to the same extent as any other member and what can be the superiority of other parties over them? Was it not the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who made the most alluring overtures so as to rally their party to them?

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

Ernest Lapointe (Secretary of State of Canada; Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Translation):

Hear!

hear!

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

Arthur Bettez

Liberal

Mr. BETTEZ (Translation):

Our friends the Conservatives have kept on speechifying during two long months, this session, simply to express their disgust in finding themselves in the opposition and to try and persuade the community as a whole that the Liberal policy is not the, one which should predominate in this House. Are they not to blame for this loss of time which has cost the country, according to my estimation, millions of dollars?

No, Sir, it is not through such tactics that they will win back the public's trust and that they will again become the great party as in former days. They had better try something else, -let them drop their futile recriminations and accept as true Canadians the medicine that the majority of the country has administered to them, at the last general elections.

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

Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain

Liberal

Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):

Hear!

hear!

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

Arthur Bettez

Liberal

Mr. BETTEZ (Translation):

In regard to the Old Age Pensions Act, I would ask that this measure which is most humanitarian, be simply a Dominion Act without taking into consideration the provinces. In my first speech in this House, in February last, I advocated such a measure. This very day, I was reading a pamphlet which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elliott) has just published. I noticed with much pleasure that a great number of countries have adopted an old age pensions measure. I think the time has come, in Canada, to -look after our old people in stringent circumstances who, by a whole life of labour, have largely contributed to the prosperity of our country. They are not to blame if they have not had the chance to succeed as well as many others. To my mind, it is an additional reason to look after them. Knowing the spirit of equity and progress of my leaders, I feel convinced that they will have this excellent legislation adopted.

As regards the rural credit measure, there is no necessity of adding anything further, for everybody knows that agriculture is the prime industry in this country and that the government must neglect nothing to help the toilers of the land.

Before I take my seat, I deem it my duty to congratulate the government on its programme in connection with the Hudson Bay railway, and I trust they shall have sufficient money left to carry out the urgent improvements required in the eastern provinces.

I also wish to sincerely congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on his masterly statement on the budget, this year, and I cherish the hope that next year's budget will bring forth new and appreciable reforms which will contribute, in a large measure, to the expansion and progress of this beautiful Dominion.

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

Thomas Erlin Kaiser

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):

Owing to the incidents of to-day, Mr. Speaker, I was requested at a late hour to say a few words on the budget. On account of the limited time at my disposal for the preparation of anything in the form of an address I hope the House will bear with me while I endeavour to say something upon this occasion.

I would like to refer in particular to an important question before this House and before the country generally, that of what we are to do with the automobile industry. It has been argued that the automobile has become what is termed a necessity. That may be true, but I wish to refer to a statement which seems to have gripped the minds of the Progressive element especially in this House. It has been argued that any industry

The Budget*-Mr. Kaiser

which cannot stand upon its own feet with a 35 per cent protection should go down, and starting with that premise, I would like to submit a few facts. I ask hon. members whether knives and forks are a necessity; they are protected to the extent of 30 per cent. Railway locomotives have a protection of 35 per cent; fire engines, 35 per cent; sewing machines, 30 per cent; tools of all kinds, 30 per cent; window shades, 35 per cent; all the fabrics of cotton, 32J per cent. Are blankets a necessity in this country? They have a 35 per cent duty; wall paper, 35 per cent; envelopes, 35 per cent; soap-I wonder if that is a necessity-32J per cent. Writing ink has a duty of 25 per cent; drain pipes, which we use in order that our homes may be made sanitary, have a duty of 35 per cent; marble for fire-places 35 per cent; furniture for the homes of this country, 30 per cent; spectacles-I wonder if they are a necessity, I know they are to me-30 per cent; sterling silverware, 35 per cent; clocks and watches, 30 per cent; springs and axles for cars, 35 per cent; screws-I wonder if they are a necessity-35 per cent; bath tubs-I wonder if that is a necessity in this country; it all depends, I suppose-

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

An hon. MEMBER:

Not for the Progressive party.

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

Thomas Erlin Kaiser

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. KAISER:

If the Progressives want a bath they must pay a duty of 35 per cent, or go without.

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

April 23, 1926