June 7, 1922 (14th Parliament, 1st Session)


James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)


Of course tea comes
from the land and so does coffee. My hon. friends have also grabbed tobacco, cigarettes and cigars because they naturally come from the farm. Such an article as macaroni, was also purloined, likewise corn starch, potato starch, oil cake, linseed oil and vegetable oils; all were put into farm product. Last, but by no means least, to the astonishment of myself, and no doubt to the astonishment of all the members within the sound of my voice, they grabbed all the whisky, gin and beer that there was and incorporated them in "farm products of Canada." Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit first of all that the items that I have read, which amount to the not inconsiderable sum of over $70,000,000, when taken off the figure as given by the hon. member for Marquette, will make a very decided difference in the aggregate of the export of farm products' and will cause a very great difference in the argument.
There is another feature I want to call attention to. I have made no mention of articles that might more properly be said to be articles which are no longer made on the farm but are made from materials produced from the farm. I refer especially to such things as butter, cheese, milk powder, condensed milk, milk products, and oils such as neatsfoot oil. My hon. friends have even got codliver oil, whale oil and seal oil added to their list. I want [Mr. Chaplin.!
to say this also that in respect to the articles that I have just read and that I will repeat-bran and shorts, oatmeal, wheat flour, cereal foods, biscuits, vegetable oils, cheese, butter, condensed milk, and other oils-although I readily admit that they are products from the farm their value is considerably enhanced when they leave the farm and go through manufacturing processes. Now I ask in all reason and common sense why the total amount should be put to the credit of farm products when at least 50 per cent must be credited to factories. The total amount of such articles as I am referring to would reach the not inconsiderable sum of another $100,000,000; and if it is reasonable to say that one-half of that amount ought to be credited to manufactures, as it should be, then those farm products that have been exported are further reduced by another $50,000,000. That again spoils the argument of my hon. friend from Marquette, and also spoils the argument of other hon. gentlemen who have dilated at such length on the tremendous amount of our farm exports.
The truth of the matter is just as the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Low) said the other day that 73 per cent -I claim 80 per cent-of the total products of the farms of Canada are consumed at home. Therefore I ask hon. members if it is the intention to do something to destroy the valuable home market that the farmers of this country enjoy? I will make this statement which I can amply prove, that more than 85 per cent of the farm products of the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec are consumed in this country; and yet what did the hon. member from Marquette say here the other night when the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) asked him a question about it? Oh, he said, that does not count. Does it not count, Mr. Speaker, that 75 or 80 per cent of the products of the farms of this country are consumed in Canada? If it does not I think the Canadian people would like to be informed. Now, I noticed the other night a statement made by the member from Macdonald (Mr. Lovie) as follows:
We find that implements are sold to the Canadian farmer by the Canadian manufacturer at a profit on the cost of production and then the customs duty added to that, while at the same time the Canadian manufacturer goes to other countries and sells tlhat same machine far

The Budget-Mr. Chaplin
cheaper than he sells it to his home consumer. In proof of this I will give you a concrete example.
I have gone through my hon. friend's speech in Hansard and failed to discover the concrete example to which he alluded. I want to submit a statement from the late Mr. Findley of the Massey Harris Company, in reference to a matter concerning their foreign trade, and, irrespective of what any man in the country v/ho does not know the circumstances would say, I am prepared to accept Mr. Findley's statement. He prepared this statement and sent it to the board who were examining him on the question of prices. It was delivered to the board in 1920 and reads:
My company have exported machines to practically every grain-growing country In the world for well over 30 years, and we have never during that time sold machines in foreign countries at as low prices as in Canada.
Then he gives full details as to the prices in England, France, Germany and every other country in which they are selling, and in every case it shows that the price in Canada is less than in any other country in the world, and, for my part, I am prepared to accept his word. The company of which I have the honour to be president does an export trade; we sell goods based on the cost at the factory, and it is just possible, when I relate the circumstances, that some goods may be sold at less, by the man who buys them in Liverpool, than they would be sold for in Saskatoon. That can be very well understood when I explain that I can ship three carloads of goods to Liverpool at the same price that I can send one carload to Saskatoon. I can send two carloads of goods of the same class to Liverpool at the same price that I can send one to Winnipeg, and if those goods, after they get away from me, are sold for less money, it would not be surprising, but we sell our goods at the factory at a certain price, irrespective of who buys them.

Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Full View