May 17, 1926

SCREENINGS

CON

Robert Rogers

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. ROGERS:

For a copy of all orders in council, letters, telegrams and other documents relative to the purchase of screenings during the years 1917 to 1921, inclusive, along with a statement showing the firms from which the said screenings were purchased, the amount from each firm, the price paid, to whom sold, the amount to each firm and the price in each case.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SCREENINGS
Permalink

THE BUDGET


The House resumed from Friday, May 14, the debate on the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance), that the 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

Alfred Edgar MacLean

Liberal

Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):

When I moved the adjournment of the debate on Friday night, I did so in the hope that my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Hatfield) rather than myself would speak to-day, and I feel that the House would prefer to hear that hon. gentleman. I sincerely trust, however, that at some future time we may have the pleasure of hearing him. Now, inasmuch as only one side of the case has been presented from the province in which I have the honour to represent a constituency, and lest the people of that province in common with the members of this House should think that the representatives of Prince Edward Island are all of one opinion in regard to the budget which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) has brought down on this occasion, I shall ask the indulgence of the House while I present the views of those people as I understand them. Before I proceed to discuss the budget, however, I beg to be allowed to welcome back to the House the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) who unfortunately has been absent through illness.

I am sure that all sides, irrespective of party, are glad to see him once more in the House.

I think I may also say on behalf of hon. members on this side that we shall all be only too pleased to welcome back, when he returns, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) who, I understand, has been slightly indisposed for the past few days. I for one admire our public men, whatever party they may represent. I have admiration for the leader of the opposition and respect for his followers, not only those who occupy the front benches but the members of that party generally. Naturally, too, I admire the,members of my own party, and before I resume my seat I shall probably have something further to say on that point.

As it is always a pleasure for one to be able to bring good news, I think the position in which the Minister of Finance found himself on April 15, when he was able to present to the House the budget now under consideration, must have been very gratifying indeed. Not only must it have been a matter for congratulation on the part of the minister himself, but it must have afforded the people of this Dominion from coast to coast an unusual degree of satisfaction to have such a budget brought down in this parliament. Our friends opposite tried, of course, as one would naturally expect an opposition to do, to criticize the budget adversely but I think the House will agree with me when I say that this criticism has not been characterized by any note of seriousness. The tidings which the Minister of Finance was able to broadcast to the people of Canada a month ago were of such a character that they must have been received with enthusiasm by hon. gentlemen opposite themselves. When for some fancied reason people fear that some dreadful pall is hanging over them, that some dire calamity

3408 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)

is about to befall them, it is doubly gratifying to them to find that after all their fears were unfounded, that the storm that threatened has passed, and that the sun will dhine with increasing brightness, dispelling the gloom.

Hon. gentlemen opposite, though perhaps unintentionally, have painted a gloomy picture to the people of Canada. They have tried to tell the people, or at least some of the people, that if this dreadful alliance between Progressives and Grits continued the country would certainly be ruined. Those hon. gentlemen must have been greatly disappointed when the Minister of Finance was able to show that the Dominion had been able not only to meet all obligations but to report a surplus of over $20,000,000, besides reducing the income tax and in other ways lightening the burden of the people. In view of this satisfactory condition of affairs, my task to-day is a comparatively easy one. I do not think it requires any special pleading to convince a man that it is easier for him to pay $30 instead of $100 in income tax, nor is it difficult to prove to him that he can much more readily afford an automobile which costs to-day $150 less than it did previously. I do not think, either, that it calls for any special pleading to convince the people of this country that the return to the two-cent postage rate will benefit them at the same time increasing the revenues of the country as we hope it will. Contrary to the views expressed by some of our friends across the way, I firmly believe -we shall see an increase in the sales of automobiles, an increase in our postage revenue, and if not an increase at least a very slight falling off in our income tax revenue. Taking the revenue as a whole, I hope the next budget statement will show that the various reductions announced by the Minister of Finance this session have not materially affected it.

My good friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) has moved an amendment to the budget. However its real intent may be camouflaged, I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, most emphatically to the fact that the hon. gentleman's amendment constitutes a direct vote against the budget in every particular. It is a direct vote against the reduction in the income tax; it is a direct vote against the reduction in the automobile duty; it is a direct vote against the return to penny postage; it is a direct vote against the wiping out of the receipt tax-in fact it is, I repeat, a direct vote against the budget as a whole. I do not think I need labour that point any further. Our friends opposite camouflage their opposition to the reduction in the automobile duties by saying: Leave

that to the tariff board. I venture the assertion, Mr. Speaker, that if the tariff board has recommended such a reduction, our friends across the way would immediately have condemned the tariff board and declared: This is something that the government should handle themselves and not leave to the tariff or any other board. In a word, they would have found some excuse for voting against the budget..

Although these hon. gentlemen have to a certain extent opposed the legislation that has been brought down, such as the bill for the revaluation of soldier settlers' land, the old age pensions bill and the rural credits bill, I am certain that they will not have the courage to vote against the final passage of any of these measures. I think I am safe in saying that they will sit absolutely quiet and swallow every bit of legislation when it comes up for third reading.

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

Robert James Manion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

May I ask my hon. friend who on this side of the House ever opposed the revaluation of soldier settlers' land?

Mr. .MacLEAN (Prince): My hon. friend will remember that there was a great deal of criticism of this measure from his quarter of the House.

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

Robert James Manion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

There was criticism as to method, but there was no opposition to the principle. My hon. friend is hedging now, that is all. '

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

Alfred Edgar MacLean

Liberal

Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):

I feel sure that

in the course of a few days when the measures I have referred to come up for final disposition my prediction as to what will happen will be fully borne out.

Now, a great deal has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite about the pledges that they allege the Liberal government have broken during the past four years. We have been told that every pledge made to the people in 1921 has since been broken by the government. I take very strong exception to this allegation. In the 1921 election the big question before the electorate was: Will we be able to make revenue and expenditure meet? The Liberals said: Give us a chance and we will do it. They have accomplished this, as I shall show in a few minutes. They also promised to reduce the tariff on the implements of production. I submit, Sir, that this pledge has been fully redeemed. I remember quite well in the first two sessions of the last parliament hon. gentlemen opposite day after day taunted the government wtih having succeeded to office on the strength of these pledges: To reduce the tariff, and to make revenue and expenditure meet. We

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)

were told that the government had accomplished nothing towards the redemption of these pledges, that they were standing still, in fact they were afraid to make a move to implement those promises. Immediately the tariff reductions were made our friends opposite changed their tune and declared that we had ruined every factory throughout the Dominion. I state most emphatically, Mr. Speaker, that the pledges made to the people in 1921 by the Liberal party have since been fulfilled by this government. We have made revenue and expenditure meet, we have reduced the tariff on implements of productoin, and also the duties on certain commodities. The ruin that our friends opposite predicted would follow reduction of the protection enjoyed by the manufacturers of agricultural implements did not follow; on the contraiy, instead of driving our implement manufacturers out of business, their financial statements disclose that they have been making more money than they ever made under the former tariff. Our friends of the opposition are not now charging this government with doing nothing, they are not charging us with breaking our pledges, except in one particular. They claim that the Prime Minister pledged himself at the opening of parliament not to interfere with the tariff. Well, Sir, I do not think that the Speech from the Throne can be fairly construed as constituting such a pledge, nor do I agree that either the government or the Liberal party were in any way committed to the course suggested by our friends opposite.

Now, Mr. Speaker. I wish for a few minutes to deal with the financial condition of the country in an endeavour to prove to the House and to the people that we have met our pledges with respect to making revenue and expenditure meet. In this connection I propose to put a few figures on Hansard The gross national debt reached its peak in 1921. The public records show a reduction in 1925 of $84,000,000. The net national debt reached its peak in 1923. The public recards show a reduction of $4,698,116 for 1925, and a further reduction of $22,353,000 by this budget. In other words, there has been a reduction in the net debt of over $27,000,000. These figures are from the public records and can be verified by any hon. gentleman. They wil be found at page 46 of the Public Accounts. Sir, we have more than met that pledge to make the national revenues and expenditures balance, we have placed on the right side of the ledger a substantial surplus in reduction of the national debt.

But let me go a little further. Since confederation we have had only eleven surpluses

totalling $101,000,000; of these this government has to its credit a total of $58,692,182, made up of three surpluses as follows: 1924, $35,993,593; 1925, $345,589; 1926, $22,353,000. This government has been able to show a surplus greater by $15,602,277 than the surpluses shown by all governments from confederation to the present day. That is a record of which we on this side of the House should be extremely proud. We have been twitted by hon. members opposite since 1921 with our supposed inability to make revenues and expenditures meet, but these records prove the contrary. I do not think we need more substantial evidence of the progress made by this government in meeting its obligations and keeping its promises in this regard.

It has been stated1 that a large portion of our expenditure is uncontrollable, and I think that is perfectly true. It is very hard under present conditions for any government to show a substantial reduction in yearly expenditures. We have such large amounts as our provincial subsidies, aggregating over $12,000,000; interest on war debt amounting to $167,000,000; interest on debts other than war debt of over $12,000,000; pensions of over $36,000,0000 and superannuations of over $1,600,000. These are fixed charges which no government can escape; so long as Canada is a self-governing country these obligations must be met yearly, and it is impossible to make any substantial reductions in these amounts. I could make further reference to these matters but I think it is not necessary, because I feel sure the people in general are quite aware that this government has made revenue and expenditure meet. Not only that, but it is substantially reducing the debt, and everyone knows that Canada has turned the corner so far as her financial obligations are concerned.

The hon. member for Fort William in his speech the other day attributed a great deal to Providence; he said that Providence had been kind to this government and that by the assistance of Providence they were able to show a surplus. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, I must say that Providence was very unkind to the last administration, because never in the history of the Dominion has such a continuation of deficits been rolled up as was done by the late government. I therefore think I am safe in saying that, if the surplus Shown by this government is attributable to a kind Providence, that Providence was certainlv unkind to hon. members opposite when they were in office. On the other hand the hon. member said that Providence was kind to drunken men, and often took care of those in an intoxicated condition when they were not able to take care of themselves, alluding to the

3410 - COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)

present government. If that be so it would have been much better for this country if our friends opposite had become intoxicated in 1911 and remained in that condition until 1921. Our finances would have been in much better shape, because the situation was certainly serious when this government came into power and there has been nothing but improvement since then. When this government came into power in 1921 the estimates for the coming year were prepared and, I understand, were largely in excess of the revenue expected. So. if our friends had been returned to power, we would have had a continuation of those deficits which were rolled up in previous years. When hon. members opposite undertake to criticize this government on their financial showing, they do it with very poor justification.

The hon. member went further in speaking of the manufacturers, and said that he for one would be willing to pay his share of any increases in price necessary to keep the manufacturers in business. I suppose the manufacturers will have no objection to accepting money from hon. gentlemen across the way, but I venture to assert that these hon. members and the supporters of the Conservative party throughout the country will be just as willing to accept the benefits accruing from these reductions as will members and supporters of this party. If the hon. member for Fort William wished to contribute something to keep the manufacturers in business I suppose his contribution would be received, but I do not think he was serious in that suggestion.

The hon. member went still further, and said that this country had been treated by the United States as a customer who, having gone in to deal with a storekeeper, had been kicked out of the store. I take exception to that statement; the United States has not treated us in that way. I wish to point out to hon. members who may not fully understand the situation that we in the Maritime provinces are almost wholly dependent upon the United States for a market, and this statement applies especially to the people of Prince Edward Island. We are an agricul-* ural province; we have no industries of any .Jnd, and if this budget works an injury to some other provinces, I certainly do not see that it can possibly be injurious to Prince Edward Island. I do not understand how hon. members opposite representing that province can vote for the amendment, thereby voting against a reduction in the income tax; a reduction in the duty on automobiles; a reduction in postage; against the wiping

out of the stamp tax on cheques and, in fact, against every other item contained in this budget. I do not see how they can do that and square themselves with the people of their province. That is none of my business, however, and I leave it to the hon. gentlemen and their own electors. They are able men, well qualified to judge the situation; they are fair men, and I give them credit for carrying out their convictions as they understand them. So far as I am concerned, I believe that this budget in every particular is beneficial to the people of the province of Prince Edward Island.

It was stated, and stated very emphatically, during the last election campaign, that this government was driving business out of the country, that it was ruining the industrial life of this country. I have a few figures here which I do not think bear out that statement. They show the prices at which the stocks of our leading banks sold in 1921 and 1925, as follows:

Price Price

1921 1925

Canadian Bank of Commerce

$184 $213Dominion Bank

192 205Imperial Bank

180 159Bank of Montreal

205 259Bank of Nova Scotia

251 275Royal Bank of Canada

196 238

That does not look as if this government was driving the banks out of business at any rate. It does not look as if this government was hurting industry in this country. I have a few more figures here regarding the industrial situation, showing the prices realized for industrial bonds in 1921 and in 1925, as

follows:

. Price Price

1921 1925

Canada Cement

$54 00 $106 00HoiUiiuger Mines

7 35 14 95Dominion Canners

27 00 134 00Canadian Salt

62 00 152 00City Daily

76 00 88 00Dominion Glass

55 00 107 00Canadian Cottons

72 00 119 00Steel Company of Canada

55 00 91 00Dominion Bridge

69 00 101 00Sherwin-Williams

90 00 125 00Ontario Steel Products

53 00 68 00Asbestos

44 00 89 00Penman's Limited

95 00 159 00Spanish River

54 00 100 00Laurenti.de Paper

71 00 80 00Tuckeht's

40 00 65 00Provincial Paper 94 00 101 00

Even the most sanguine broker could not hope for a better showing than those figures indicate in the prices of industrial securities. In a great many cases the prices have doubled and trebled as compared with 1921. So as far as the financial situation of our country is

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)

concerned, I do not think hon. gentlemen opposite, by any special pleading, can prove to this country that any of our industries have been seriously affected, let alone driven out of business.

Coining to the tariff, I wish first to point out that the difference between the position of the farmer and the position of the manufacturer is very marked indeed; so much so. that there is really no comparison at all. The manufacturer, under protection, can set his own price. He can take the cost of production, add to that the cost of distribution, add insurance, add all taxes on his business, federal, provincial and municipal, including the sales tax, add the duty on the imported article, and to all these he can add a good substantial margin of profit, and then go out and sell his product in a protected market. The farmer, on the other hand, has to sell his product in open competition with the world. There is the comparison between the two, and when our friends across the way talk of protecting the farmer I think they are endeavouring, to say the least, to camouflage the situation. They are endeavouring to pave the way to lining up the farmers of this country in support of a high protective tariff all round, but I think I shall be able to show as I proceed that protection can be of very little use to the farmer when he has a large surplus to export.

Our friends from the Maritime provinces, a great many of them, have been elected on the question of Maritime rights. The provincial papers at that time said that these men were neither Liberal nor Conservative, but that they were supported by a large number of the independent people of the Maritime provinces as Maritime righters, and that they were going to be independent in their viewpoint. But I notice that our friends across the way from the province of Nova Scotia, since coming to this House, have not been very independent in their viewpoint. Whatever their attitude may be in the future, they have up to the present been very strong supporters of the Conservative party, and they have strongly advocated the principle of protection. That, of course, is their own affair. If the principle of protection is satisfactory to the people of Nova Scotia, if protection is essential to that province, our friends are no doubt doing right in supporting that principle, but representing as I do a constituency in the Maritimes which is altogether an agricultural and a fishing constituency, I cannot see how a high protective tariff can be of either direct or indirect benefit to that province or to my own constituency in particular. I do not wish to be considered an

extremist in my tariff views. We realize in the province of Prince Edward Island that if we had free trade with the rest of the world, it would be of advantage to our little province in particular, but none of us has ever advocated that. We are big enough and broadminded enough, I trust, to be willing to contribute our share of any protection that is needed for any legitimate industry in this country, and I think the people of that province, both Liberal and Conservative, will continue to maintain that attitude and be willing to pay their share to see that no industry shall suffer unduly from too radical reductions in the tariff. But we feel very strongly on this point: Where any industry is receiving

a degree of protection which is out of all proportion to that which it should receive, our people are very, very strong in the contention that that protection should be brought down to a reasonable point which would allow the people of our province to import, if they wished to, these products at a reasonable figure, thereby contributing to the revenues of this country a certain proportion for the upkeep of the government, rather than allowing the whole amount of the protection to be turned into the coffers of the manufacturers. That is the attitude, I believe, of the people of the province of Prince Edward Island.

So far as the automobile industry is concerned, that is only one of the many which we thought was possibly receiving too high a protection, and that a reduction could be made. I have an article here on Maritime rights which appeared in the Canadian Annual Review this year. It was written by W. C. Milner, B.Sc., LL.D., and I should like to put an extract from it on Hansard. The author gives his view of the situation. I am not saying that I accept that view; I simply give it for what it is worth. The writer says that one-half or more of the people of the Maritimes are engaged in agriculture. For lack of markets this industry has practically made no progress in ten or even twenty years.

He goes on to state that there cannot be successful competition against the farmers of Ontario and Quebec in the Toronto and Montreal markets. I wish to emphasize that as a fact which we realize in the province of Prince Edward Island. We cannot compete with the farmers of Ontario and Quebec in their own markets, and it is absolutely impossible ever to think of doing so. The writer goes on to say that the list of articles produced in the Maritime provinces for which there is a demand in the central provinces is exceedingly small. Efforts have been made to extend west the demand for fresh as well

3412 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)

as for cured fish, but that demand has been exceedingly limited and the movement has virtually failed. Nova Scotia apples are in request, but on the other hand, the British Columbia product is retailed in nearly all the grocery stores of the Maritime provinces. New Brunswick ships certain commodities west, -and Prince Edward Island has of late years developed a large egg trade with Montreal. The writer further states that there is a wide demand for the silver fox pelts of Prince Edward Island. He says that the coal industry has been regarded of late as the obstruction that hindered the progress of the Maritime provinces. He remarks that the coal areas are owned and operated by Montreal capitalists who, being human, work for their own profit while their expenditures are necessarily enormous. The local consumer complains that the price has advanced from $3.50 per ton delivered at Halifax twenty years ago to $12 a ton at the end of 1924. The expenses of every household have been raised as a result and the increase has added materially to the cost of living. A reliable mining man has furnished the following statement:

The contention is made in the (press that no increase in wages or cost of material warrants the advance, and demands are made for an investigation that will go to the root of the matter and ascertain the cost of mining and profits. If it costs the people $12 per ton to mine and deliver their own coal it is argued it would be more profitable to take off the duty, import cheaper American coal, and close our mines entirely. In other words the coal mines ought not to be a burden on the other industries of the country.

This writer has no doubt given considerable study to the matter. As I say, 4 p.m. I am not endorsing his views, I am simply giving them as coming from a gentleman who has made a study of the subject.

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

Isaac Duncan MacDougall

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MACDOUGALL:

Will the hon. gentleman name one mine in the province where the cost of coal is $12 at the pit mouth?

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

Alfred Edgar MacLean

Liberal

Mr. MacLEAN (Prince) :

In this case the price is given as $12 a ton delivered.

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

Isaac Duncan MacDougall

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MACDOUGALL:

You said it was the

price at the pit's mouth.

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

Alfred Edgar MacLean

Liberal

Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):

No, I did not say that. I said the price was $12 a ton delivered.

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

Isaac Duncan MacDougall

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MACDOUGALL:

Where?

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

Alfred Edgar MacLean

Liberal

Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):

3414 COMMONS

The Budget-Mr. MacLean (Prince)

National railway, is simply making it easier for them to send their stuff down here. We might save a little on the freight we have to pay on their goods, that is all. In nine years out of ten they have enough for themselves. They don't want our cheese, our butter, our eggs, or fish, etc.

They want the Maritime provinces to hunt up their own markets, while they take the pure gold and spend it there.

He then went on to give a further review of * his trip. No Liberal member could express the views of the Liberals of Prince Edward Island better than Mr. McEwen did in the statement I quoted. Those are the facts of the case and I am glad to see our Conservative friends as well as our Liberal friends appreciate the situation. A few minutes ago I referred to the subsidy which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) suggested he might give in ease of freight rates as a compensation to the Maritime provinces. Here we have the statement by one of the right hon. gentleman's own followers that he cannot see how a subsidy to the Canadian National system or any other Canadian railway system would be of any benefit to the shipment of the products of the Mnritimes to the central provinces.

I wish to say a few words in regard to the tariff which will always be a live question in this country. I notice that the Montreal Star on October 7, 1925, gave a report of a conference held at Washington of representatives from all countries in the world with regard to interprovincial trade and trade throughout the world in general. At that conference the following resolution was passed:

A resolution calling for abolition or diminution of present customs barriers between nations was adopted at the closing session of the inter-parliamentary union here to-day. The resolution, which was introduced by Adolph Braun of the German delegation, calls for the appointment of subcommittee to draw up a plan. It was passed without opposition.

In that resolution we can see the trend of the nations of the world in regard to the tariff question, and I believe instead

of a gradual increase in tariff duties, the time is not far distant when the countries of the world will realize that it is to the benefit of all concerned to have freer trade and will attempt to abolish or to reduce to a certain extent some of those tariffs which at the present time are certainly heavy obstacles in the way of trade. In discussing the reduction in the duty on agricultural implements, hon. gentlemen opposite have been quoting comparative prices of 1921 and 1925 respectively. That, I submit, is absolutely unfair. Everyone knows that there was no reduction in the duty either in 1921 or 1922. The reduction

IMr. A. E. MacLean.]

did not take place until 1924 and it was not effective until the beginning of the implement season of 1924. So that the only fair comparison that can be drawn in discussing prices is between the seasons of 1924 and 1925. There is no doubt in the world that prices increased between the years 1921 and 1924 and they might have gone on increasing still had the duty not been reduced; for the manufacturers of agricultural implements will continue to take every advantage of the tariff so long as that privilege remains open to them. And they had that privilege until the year 1924.

I have here a report of an industrial commission appointed by the provincial government of Ontario, a government which nobody will think of accusing of having shown any Liberal tendencies. The members of the commission were asked to investigate all phases of the subject, not confining their attention to agricultural implements but taking into consideration industry generally throughout the province. Their report shows a substantial reduction in the prices of implements between 1924 and 1925. The list is of considerable length, covering every article of use to the farmer. It shows-to mention one or

two examples-a reduction of $23 on binders, $23 on com binders, $21 on double disc harrows, and so forth, right down the column.

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

Robert James Manion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

When were the reductions made on implements?

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

Alfred Edgar MacLean

Liberal

Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):

They became

effective in 1924.

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

Robert James Manion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

They were made in 1923.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL 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:

No, 1924.

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

Alfred Edgar MacLean

Liberal

Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):

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

Robert James Manion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

Mr. Speaker, the hon.

gentleman has made that statement two or three times. I should like to point out that my amendment is distinctly a criticism of the government for not making a thorough examination before changing the tariff, and for that alone.

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

May 17, 1926