John HUBBS

HUBBS, John

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Prince Edward--Lennox (Ontario)
Birth Date
November 20, 1874
Deceased Date
June 1, 1952
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hubbs
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=d2b6bc8c-64ad-485c-9138-2e83f8a47ada&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
canner, manufacturer

Parliamentary Career

December 6, 1921 - September 5, 1925
CON
  Prince Edward (Ontario)
October 29, 1925 - July 2, 1926
CON
  Prince Edward--Lennox (Ontario)
September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
CON
  Prince Edward--Lennox (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 4 of 6)


June 1, 1925

1. Is another suite of rooms being fitted up in the Chateau Laurier hotel, or renovations being made in any suite, by the Canadian National Railways for the use of Sir Henry Thornton?

2. If so, what has been or will be the cost of this work?

3. Was the cost of refitting the bath $900?

4. Is Sir Henry paying this expense personally?

5. If not, who is?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-CHATEAU LAURIER SUITE
Full View Permalink

May 15, 1924

1. What was the total expenditure in connection with the Mowat Hospital Kingston, during the year 1923?

2. What was the average cost per patient in the said Hospital during the year 1923, exclusive of pay or allowances to patients?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MOWAT HOSPITAL, KINGSTON
Full View Permalink

May 12, 1924

Mr. HUBBS:

True, Mr. Speaker. We get a certain amount of that back, but I hate to think that our money is not just as good as United States money, and if the people of this country would quit buying stuff from the United States and buy Canadian stuff-

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Full View Permalink

May 12, 1924

Mr. JOHN HUBBS (Prince Edward):

Mr. Speaker, I see very little in the budget proposals that will be of much interest or advantage to the people; on the contrary, I think in the main they will be detrimental to the best interests of the nation. It is true

The Budget-Mr. Hubbs

the elimination of the sales tax on farm implements and its reduction on boots and shoes will be of some benefit to the people. But if the exorbitant sales tax has been found detrimental to business-and I do not think this will be denied-why did not the government take it off altogether? The sales tax is a nuisance. It is hard to handle, and is evaded in certain quarters.

Why should the sales tax be taken off farm implements and retained on canning machinery? A canning factory is certainly associated with the activities of farmers. Yet the man who equips such a factory has to pay 35 per cent duty plus 5 per cent sales tax on his machinery. Is it fair that this tax should be taken off farm implements and the duties lowered on those implements, while canning and other machinery are not given similar relief? Is it fair that the sales tax should be taken off mining machinery, and yet left on canned goods, boots and shoes and clothing that the miner has to buy? I might ask the same question with respect to logging machinery. It is purchased by large companies, yet the retail buyer of lumber has to pay the sales tax, and lumber is an absolute necessity in the building of our homes. To my mind a reduction of the duty on farm implements and on mining and logging machinery is where the trouble will arise. It will be remembered that two years ago when the British preference on woollen goods was increased by 2J per cent no one thought it of much importance. A year ago the British preference was further increased by 10 per cent. It was strenuously opposed from this corner of the House, but. no one expected that it would be so disastrous to our woollen industry, yet it has resulted in half of our woollen factories closing their doors or going into liquidation. I am afraid that a lot of our implement manufacturers will be in a similar position within the next two years. Recently I saw a letter addressed by a manufacturing firm in Toronto to their agent in my home town, instructing him to dispose of his samples and return his sample cases because the budget proposals had forced them to close their doors.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Full View Permalink

May 12, 1924

Mr. HUBBS:

I did not take it down, but I can get it for the minister. Naturally one would have thought the government with its knowledge of the unsatisfactory results following the French treaty, which has reduced our revenue within the last year by nearly

two million dollars-practically all on luxuries as pointed out by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin)-and the disastrous results following the increase of the British preference would have tried to rectify those errors instead of proposing the tariff reductions contained in the budget. The hon. minister tells us that by lowering the tariff and allowing the Americans to flood our markets he will bring prosperity to Canada. Has that been our experience in the past? If reducing the tariff is such a good thing, why not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) and make everything free-why not hand Canada over to the United States in a lump instead of piecemeal, and be done with it?

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Full View Permalink