March 9, 1953

?

An hon. Member:

More than double.

Topic:   FREIGHT RATES
Permalink
SC

Charles Edward Johnston

Social Credit

Mr. Johnston:

It is almost double. Then let us take the rate on farm implements -I am skipping a great many-such as binders, harvesters, mowers and so on. For less than carload lots, to Edmonton the rate was $3.76 in 1945; in 1950 it was $4.91 and in 1953 it is $6.74. In carload lots, minimum weight 24,000 pounds, to Edmonton the rate in 1945 was $1,634; in 1950 it was $2.14 and in 1953 it is $3.17. Then let us look at the rate on passenger automobiles. For less than carload lots actual weight subject to a minimum of 5,000 pounds each, to Edmonton the rate in 1945 was $4.53; in 1950 it was $5.92 and in 1953 it is $8.12. For carload lots, minimum weight 10,000 pounds, to Edmonton the rate in 1945 was $4.53; in 1950 it was $5.92 and in 1953 it is $6.17.

This clearly shows that these rates are going up in such proportions that we in western Canada, and those in the maritimes as well, are greatly concerned over this continual increase in freight rates.

The minister, when he was speaking a moment ago, said that some of these rates were not affected, that there had been some endeavour to alleviate this condition in western Canada, and he spoke of agreed charges. But, Mr. Speaker, the railways, under their agreed charges on petroleum products, are now hauling that stuff at what is generally considered to be away below cost. What for? To gain revenue? Not at all. They are doing that under the agreed charges in order to eliminate competition from the trucking industry. I do not profess to be a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, but if I am not mistaken that procedure is illegal. I think it is against the law for the railways to haul any commodity at a loss. Yet they are hauling petroleum at ridiculously low rates in order to eliminate the only effective competition that we have out in western Canada.

As the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) said a moment ago, possibly the alternative is subsidization. I do not know; but I would say that if something has to be done, it should be subsidization rather than discrimination. The way the government's policy is working now is this. It is making those of us in the outlying areas, those any distance from central Ontario and Quebec, pay the shot. I think the government should halt this increase. I do not know what the legal procedure would be, or whether it could be done at the moment; but certainly the government should take some steps to

see to it that there is greater equality for the people of Canada in bearing this tremendous burden of increased freight rates.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson in the chair.

Topic:   FREIGHT RATES
Permalink

DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


57. Departmental administration, $280,729. Item stands. DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES General services- 131. Departmental administration, $298,800.


LIB

Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

Stand.

Item stands.

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE General administration-

426. Departmental administration, $588,333.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
LIB

Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

Stand.

Item stands.

Progress reported.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink

THE BUDGET

ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE


The house resumed, from Friday, March 6, consideration of the motion of Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonneil (Greenwood), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.


LIB

Robert James Wood

Liberal

Mr. R. J. Wood (Norquay):

Mr. Speaker, on Friday night at ten o'clock I was giving a summary of the conclusions and recommendations of a special committee that was set up in this house in 1936 to investigate farm implement prices. On January 1, 1936, the tariffs on imports of all agricultural machinery were reduced to 12J per cent; on May 1 of the same year, under the United States trade agreement, they were reduced to 7) per cent, and on June 26, 1944, all tariff rates, including the general rate, were cancelled on agricultural implements. I consider that the reduction and the wiping out of these tariffs were entirely the result

The Budget-Mr. Wood of the conclusions and recommendations of the committee that was set up in this house in 1936.

There are people who say that the tariff and trade policies of the Liberal party and the Conservative party are the same. I consider there is no element of truth in this statement. I have before me a statement which I received on March 4 from the commissioner of tariffs in the Department of Finance, showing the Canadian tariff structure on farm implements from various countries during the years 1921, 1924, 1930, 1931 and 1933. The tariff rates on all classes of implements were increased in the budgets of 1930, 1931 and 1933, but the British preferential remained free on all articles.

Probably hon. members do not care to have me read this statement in detail, and it would save the time of the house if I were permitted to have it placed in Hansard.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

William Alfred Robinson (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):

Has the hon. member leave to have this document printed in Hansard?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
PC

William Joseph Browne

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):

The other night we had a discussion along similar lines and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) was not permitted to have his statement included. We do not know what this statement contains. The hon. member might give us some idea of what is in it.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Robert James Wood

Liberal

Mr. Wood:

If I am permitted to place it in Hansard you will see what it contains. It contains the rate structure on farm implements. I will give you a list of them. They are: plows and complete parts; seed drills and complete parts; horse rakes and complete parts; harvesters, self-binding or not, and complete parts; reapers and complete parts. I can give you the list of farm implements. It shows the tariff rates since 1921.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

William Alfred Robinson (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):

Agreed.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Robert James Wood

Liberal

Mr. Wood:

The table follows:

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

CANADIAN TARIFF CHANGES ON AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY


July 28, 1930 RATES December 29, 1921 Changes April 11, 1924 RATES August 7, 1930 Changes September 17, 1930 Changes June 2, 1931 RATES September 8, 1933 B.P. Int. Gen. B.P. Int. Gen. B.P. Int. Gen. B.P. Int. Gen. B.P. Int. Gen. B.P. Int. Gen.12!% 17!% 17!% 5%* 10% 10% Free 10% 10% Free 15% 25% Free 15% 25%Free 10% 10% Free 10% 10%10% 15% 15% Free 7!% 7i% Free 7!% 7i% Free 15% 25% Free 15% 25%Free 71% 71% Free 71% 71%10% 15% 15% Free 7!% 7!% Free 71% 7!% Free 15% 25% Free 15% 25%Free 71% 71% Free 71% 71%Harvesters, self binding or not, and complete 12!% 12!% 12!% 12!% 12!% 12!% Free 6% 6% Free 6% 6% Free 15% 25% Free 15% 25%Free 6% 6% Free 6% 6%12!% 12!% 12!% 12!% 12!% 12!% Free 6% 6% Free 6% 0% Free 15% 25% Free 15% 25%Free 6% 6% Free 6% 6%12!% 12!% 12!% 12!% 12!% 12!% Free 6% 6% Free 6% 6% Free 15% 25% Free 15% 25%Free 0% 6% Free 6% 6%10% 15% 15% Free 7!% 7!% Free 71% 71% Free 15% 25% Free 15% 25%Free 71% 71% Free 71% 71%10% 15% 15% Free 7!% 7!% Free 7!% 7!% Free 15% 25% Free 15% 25%Free 71% 71% Free 71% 71%10% 15% 15% Free 7!% 7!% Free 7!% 7!% Free 15% 25% Free 15% 25%Complete parts for repairs Free 71% 71% Free 71% 71%2760 HOUSE OF COMMONS The Budget-Mr. Wood f9il-80189 Farm wagons and complete parts 15% 20% 20% March 25, 1925 5%| 10%| 10% 5% 10% 10% Free 15% 25% Free Free 15% 10% 25% 10%Complete parts for repairs 10% 10% April 16, 926 Hay loaders and complete parts 12J% 20% 20% 5% 10% 10% 5% 10% 10% 15% 25% 15% 25%Complete parts for repairs 10% 10% 10% 10%Potato diggers and complete parts 121% 20% 20% 5% 10% 10% 5% 10% 10% 15% 25% 15% 25%Complete parts for repairs Free 10% 10% Free 10% 10% * Reduced to free May 2. 1930. B.P. means British Preferential Tariff. Int. means Intermediate Tariff. Gen. means General Tariff. The Budget-Mr. Wood



The Budget Mr. Wood I might say that the general tariff rate is the highest in this list of goods and the rates charged against the United States goods were under the general tariff. They remained in effect against the United States until January 1, 1936, at which time the mostfavoured-nation treatment was extended to the United States. I should like to give a summary of the tariff structure on farm tractors that is not included in the list. On February 7, 1919 an order in council was passed granting authority for remission and refund on gas and gasoline traction engines for farm purposes valued at more than $1,400 each, and repairs for same. On April 11, 1924 the tariff was amended to give permanent status to the order in council referred to above. This situation remained unchanged until the special session on September 17, 1930. You will remember that the Bennett government was elected on July 28, 1930. At this special session a proviso was added to the free item on tractors authorizing the governor in council to impose a duty of 10 per cent on the British preferential, 15 per cent on the most-favoured-nation and 25 per cent on the general tariff. Not until the Liberal budget of May 1, 1936, was duty-free entry for internal combustion traction engines from other countries allowed. The situation is the same today, and we still have a Liberal government. I might also mention that during that period the duty-free rate was still continued on British empire products. I just draw your attention to these tariff changes to show how ridiculous it is to say that the tariff policies of the two old parties are the same. There are approximately 850 articles that enjoy our customs tariff, and in nearly every case the price charged here in Canada is a price that provides a reasonable profit plus an amount very close to the amount of the tariff. Industry shows no sense of gratitude for the protected, sheltered market in which they sell their goods. I wish to give you an example of one of the articles that are so protected. I will take the Canadian automobile. In the Winnipeg Free Press of February 14 there appears a list of 21 automobiles of various makes, showing the selling price in the United States and in Canada. These prices cover a four-door sedan with no extra equipment. It shows the price of a Chevrolet car in the United States at $1,670; in Canada, $2,179. That is a difference1 of $509. It shows the price of the Ford V-8 in the United States at $1,751; in Canada, $2,257. That is a spread of $506. It shows the Plymouth car with the


March 9, 1953