May 3, 1926

LIB

George Spence

Liberal

Mr. SPENCE (Maple Creek):

Do not

tell us how to farm.

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

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

I am not telling my hon.

friends how to farm; I am not even suggesting it. But all the wisdom of the world is

The Budget-Mr. Cahan

not concentrated in western constituencies. I have great respect for the hon. member who interrupted me, because I realize that he knows more about farming than I can ever hope to know. But I can state the grounds of the faith and the confidence that is in nle, and I say that when the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) will undertake, in a duly protected market, to raise wool, for instance-

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

Robert Forke

Progressive

Mr. FORKE:

I do raise wool.

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

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

And sheep and lambs-

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

Robert Forke

Progressive

Mr. FORKE:

I raise them.

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

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

And sell them in the market

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

Robert Forke

Progressive

Mr. FORKE:

Yes, I do that right along.

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

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

When my hon. friend undertakes to raise these products in a properly safeguarded market he will increase his inr come ten times what it is to-day, and that trade would be far more profitable to him than all the wheat and grain grown on his farm.

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

James Alexander Robb (Minister of Trade and Commerce; Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. ROBB:

Will the hon. member permit a question?

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

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

Yes, and I know what it is before the hon. minister asks it.

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

James Alexander Robb (Minister of Trade and Commerce; Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. ROBB:

Would you put a duty on wool?

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

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

Yes, certainly I would put a duty on wool. My hon. friend has asked that question time and again in this House, as if he were questioning some ignorant class of scholars who did not understand the basis of that industry, and trying to make them think they dare not place a duty on wool. I would put a duty on wool and assist every farmer who is raising sheep and lambs. I would produce wool in this country as far as it could be consumed by our factories, and make Canada deal independently of every foreign country as far as possible. I think this country in its wisdom will soon find it is unprofitable to send out its wool in car loads for manufacture in other countries into clothing, to be shipped back in bales and parcels in finished form to keep us warm in winter. The sooner we produce within our own boundaries every commodity which is natural to the country, and manufacture it here in all its processes, the sooner we shall enjoy industrial activity and commercial prosperity such as has not been known in this country during the last twenty-five or thirty years.

For my part I say-and I say it clearly- that I do not believe the industrial prosperity of Canada can be maintained by a government which is not prepared to challenge every hostile tariff which it finds opposed to the admission of its own products. It is abso-

lutely necessary that we Should pursue a policy of tariff stability so that Canadian industry will know exactly where it stands and not be subject to these interminable changes of tariff such as hon. gentlemen opposite have introduced within the last five years, changes whidh have only one result, namely to destroy our manufacturing industries, send people out of the country, and, as I said before, undermine the entire confidence of those who have money to invest in our own undertakings.

Situated as we are in close proximity to the United States, it is absolutely necessary that we should take conditions which prevail there into consideration in dealing with the question of tariffs. I do not wish to discuss at length this automobile question. ( have read every document which I have received through the mail from those who advocate a lowering of the duty and also from those who advocate the retention of the duty I have read the addresses of hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House dealing with the matter. I am accustomed to deal with facts and figures; I am accustomed to deal with statements of account, and I say that I am not yet able to form an opinion as to whether there is any just cause for reducing the tariff on automobiles a single one per cent. I do not believe there is a gentleman on the opposite side of the House who really knows all the facts.

I find that located within the limits of the city of Montreal, a place where I did not imagine any person was interested in the production of automobiles-I thought that was confined to Ontario and to a few towns in Ontario-there are twenty-eight establishments which have put before me their claim that the automobile industry should not be prejudiced or destroyed because a large proportion of the products of these various concerns find their way ultimately into finished automobiles. The matter has equally broad ramifications throughout the entire length and breadth of the country, and I repeat, hon. gentlemen are pledged, before they make such a reduction, to have a thorough public investigation before their tariff commission.

I quite agree that any industry which is protected and safe-guarded by public legislation of any kind, by tariff legislation or otherwise, becomes to that extent quasi-public in its nature and it assumes special obligations to the public as long as it enjoys that safeguarding provision or protection. It continues in many cases to be privately-owned and privately-managed, but it becomes subject to certain limitations arising from the equally fundamental rights of those to whose well-being its products contribute. It exists

The Budget-Mr. Cahan

and it must exist as a profit-making enterprise; otherwise it cannot exist under our modern industrial conditions because unless it yields a profit it will not continue to function in this country. But the public has the essential right to receive from that enterprise or industry the most effective service possible at prices which, providing a stable and certain profit for the investor, will nevertheless stimulate home consumption and tend to improve the general standards of living in this country in which its products find their market. Such an industry should be in a position and should be required by the public and the government to take advantage of all improvements in art and science in order to extend its operations as reasonably required and in order to produce commodities of the best quality at prices commensurate with those which are paid in other countries operating under similar conditions.

All this requires ample funds and credits and that no industry can obtain if it is to be the victim of rapidly changing tariffs and values which are the bane of all manufacturing industries. Therefore this country owes, I think, due protection to its industries, but no industry has the right to use the public protection which it receives through the tariff or otherwise for the purpose of profiteering at the expense of our domestic consumers.

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

Alexander MacGillivray Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):

What did Mr. Ford have to say on that very thing the other day?

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh.

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

Alexander MacGillivray Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):

Hon. members do not like to hear that.

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

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

I will deal with Mr. Ford in a moment, but I want to lay down the general conditions as they appear to me. I am speaking simply for myself and giving my own view. Therefore it has been admitted by successive leaders of successive governments of this country that if the stability of an industry is threatened it has paramount right to a full inquiry before some independent or semi-independent tribunal before final judgment and condemnation is passed upon it. Such full inquiry, such independent investigation has never been accorded to the automobile industry of this country.

The tariff changes which 'have been proposed are admitted by the Minister of Finance to be due to public sentiment and not to a public inquiry into the fundamental conditions surrounding the industry. If public sentiment is to prevail in a country such as this in preference to a judicial or quasi-judicial inquiry, there is no innocent man who would be kept out of the penitentiary. There is no place in Canada for public sentiment which is another word for individual or general prejudice. You must deal fairly with these men whom you have invited to come into this country, and establish factories here.

In ease profiteering is established, I wish to repeat what I stated the other day that in my opinion a reduction in the tariff is not the efficient and advantageous way of dealing with the problem. The removal of the protective principle, whether that principle is embodied in a tariff or other legislation, serves only to destroy the domestic industry and to transfer to foreign competing countries the employment and the profits which should be retained by Canadian labour and Canadian investment. It sends our expert workmen out of the country to obtain employment. It ruthlessly destroys the capital invested in those industries. It paralyzes the home industry, renders thousands of our people homeless, causes the abandonment of our towns and villages, and the destruction of civic life and property. It is burning down the house to cook the pig. It is absolutely essential for the well-being of this country that the government should devise other ways and means for preventing profiteering. I am convinced that on the part of 90 per cent of our industrial establishments there is no profiteering, and if there is profiteering among the other 10 per cent, then it is the duty of the government to devise other ways and means of defeating the profiteer than by destroying the town and village life in the places where such industry is conducted.

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

Charles Gavan Power

Liberal

Mr. POWER:

What means would the

hon. gentleman take?

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

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

I made a suggestion to

the House the other day, that where a company was found upon examination to be profiteering there should be immediately imposed upon it an excise or a business tax which would render it impossible for that company to make a larger profit than might be considered reasonable.

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

Charles Gavan Power

Liberal

Mr. POWER:

That is a matter of appreciation, is it not?

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

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

It always is a matter of

appreciation. Now hon. gentlemen refer to the case of Mr. Ford. They say that from an original investment of $125,000 or thereabouts his company has now a capital of some $6,000,000 representing assets of between $8,000,000 and $9,000 000, bringing in a profit of $6,000,000 annually. I think that, in round figures, that is their contention.

The Budget-Mr. Cahan

What disadvantage would it be to Mr. Ford to remove the tariff on automobiles? Why, the removal of the tariff is the very thing which Mr. Ford and his associates are anxious to obtain, for tariff removal would enable them, by increasing their production in the American factories by five per cent, to supply all the requirements of Canada for Ford automobiles annually at any price that Mr. Ford might be prepared to fix. There may be a reduction in the price of automobiles, because a number of dealers have automobiles on hand, which, as a matter of fact, they are advertising at lower rates in order to get rid of them. But while I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet I venture to suggest that within a year American factories will be supplying these same automobiles to the Canadian consumer at relatively higher prices than they are now supplied by Canadian factories. Furthermore, I have not seen any statistics-although I have tried to read them all and examine them fairly-which indicate that any other factory than thie Ford has been making an undue profit out of the automobile industry in Canada.

An lion. MEMBER: That is due to organization.

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

May 3, 1926