June 1, 1922 (14th Parliament, 1st Session)


William Gawtress Raymond



I listened to a most interesting argument that was delivered by one of the witnesses who testified before the Committee on Agriculture. He said that the Wheat Board would increase the purchasing power of the farmer of the West, and if the purchasing power of that farmer were increased it would benefit all the rest of the provinces. The farmer of the West would want more fruit, fish and lumber from British Columbia, more manufactured goods from (Ontario, and from the maritime provinces he would want, for instance, more steel from Nova Scotia. I daresay hon. gentlemen all recall the argument; it was a very interesting one and I listened quite attentively to it. The witness said that every man who farmed a half-section had from 12,000 to 15,000 pounds of steel and iron in use, the average life of the implements being twelve years. So that every man on every 320 acres in the West would be a consumer of no less than 1,000 pounds of iron and steel per annum; and that was cited as one reason why the Wheat Board would benefit Nova Scotia. Now, if that is the case, I should like to ask hon. gentlemen, if these goods were purchased in the United States, having been manufactured in Milwaukee, Chicago and other centres, how would Nova Scotia be benefited at all?
We should aim at producing a rounded out nation; and if hon. gentlemen think that the three prairie provinces constitute the whole of Canada, their ideas are just as erroneous as mine would be if I suggested that my constituency represented the Dominion. The best policy for Canada is to look to the future and build up a nation that will develop an attractive place for people to come to-a country that will not be devoted exclusively to any industry, or any particular line of business, and, especially, one that will not be merely a producer of raw material for shipment to other countries. We should have a country in which skilled labour

The Budget-Mr. Raymond
can produce the things that are needed by the people, thus adding to the wealth of the nation. In the little town of Paisley, in Scotland, there are 12,000 operatives employed in the manufacture of ordinary cotton yarn used by ladies in sewing. Think of the conditions that exist in those places from which the raw material is secured. Think of the conditions in the southern states and in Egypt, where the raw cotton is produced, and you will see that wherever there is wealth and advancement in civilization it is because of the existence of skilled labour and an economic system that protects that labour until it is fully developed and becomes an asset to the country, and becoming so produces such other things as a mercantile marine, and a great banking system by which capital is invested all over the world. We have been told that Great Britain has $2,500,000,000 invested in Canada. Well, that money did not originate in agriculture, or lumbering, or fisheries, or mining, but in the manufacturing industries. And if Canada is to prosper as she should, the Canadian people must, in their wisdom, adopt such a policy. If it is to be a protectionist to hold such a view*, I am one, whether the term is meant as one of compliment or of opprobrium. If it is a protectionist to hold the view that we should have a revenue tariff giving incidental protection to manufacturers, I am certainly a protectionist; and as to being a Liberal protectionist, sitting on this side of the House, holding such a view, and supporting the Government that has removed from the manufacturers 21 per cent of the protection they have enjoyed, there are strong reasons that are as deep as my very being why I could not be anything else.

Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Full View