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

CON

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

It is refreshing to know that there are some people who live up to what they formerly preached. Now, hon. members to my left are reasonable men and I want to discuss this matter with them. Before I proceed I want to refer to a slight error in this book. Whoever edited it gave the customs revenue of Canada for 1916-the figures are as at the 31st of March of that year-as $133,000,000. Now, I am used to figuring myself, and I carefully checked this up. I find that there is a mistake of only $30,000,000 in this statement. Thirty million dollars, that is all! With all the editing to which the book has been subjected, and the endorsa-tion it has received at the hands of the various bodies I have cited who are responsible for !it, there is1 a mistake of $30,000,000. Of course, that is not much, but it is multiplied by four, and I think that hon. gentlemen will admit that that makes no inconsiderable sum.
If the claim is correct that under a protective tariff, all the articles that pass through the customs pay duty, and as well on similar goods produced within the country, the purchasers pay four times as much as they should to some one else, then I want hon. gentlemen to give me their judgment on some of the articles I shall mention : The first article I find in the customs schedule under (a), is "animals", the duty collected being $110,000. Now I want to know from hon. gentlemen in this House whether the duty has been plundered on all the cattle raised in this country. If so, who got the money? You will see from the very first line in this list how foolish is the argument that is put forth. It is not only foolish but false as well. I took the year 1916 because it was the year in which the revenue is given by this book as $133,000,000, when it should be only $103,000,000. Now, item 3 in this list is $4,000,000 collected on coal. Do hon. gentlemen from the West mean to tell the people of Nova Scotia and of Alberta that because we collected a duty on coal coming into Canada, therefore, on every ton of coal consumed in Canada there was a duty collected? That is the argument that is used. Let me give another item. Let us take hay. How much do hon. members think was plundered on hay?-because "plunder" is the word that is used.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Full View