March 21, 1901

LIB

Charles Marcil

Liberal

Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).

There is another point to which I wish to refer. The hon. member for East Sirncoe spoke of a pledge that I made on the Manitoba school ^question. Well, I did not return to the

county of East Simcoe for the very good reason that I was engaged elsewhere during the lasit election. Since visiting the division of East Simcoe, I was given the opportunity of visiting the province of Manitoba and participating in the local provincial elections there. I went into the houses of the half-breeds, I went into their schools at St. Boniface, St. Vital and the other places in the three French counties of LaVerandry, St. Boniface and Carillon, and I am glad to be able to declare to-day that the French Metis and the French Catholic population of that province never had as efficient schools as they now enjoy. If I am not mistaken, the hon. member for West York visited Manitoba at the same time. He probably went up there to support the Greenway government, which had done away with the Catholic schools, or something else. But what happened was this, that the people who were interested in the Catholic schools of Manitoba, the people whom the Conservative party had sought to hold up to this country as victims, voted almost to a man in favour of the Liberal candidates and the men who had opposed the Remedial Bill in this House and out of this House, voted to bring about the downfall of the Greenway administration. There is my answer to the challenge concerning my pledge on the Manitoba school question.

Further than that I have nothing to say. I hope that an early opportunity will be given me to return to East Simcoe.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Humphrey Bennett

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT.

You are very welcome, I can assure you.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Marcil

Liberal

Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).

And I will not only speak to the French of East Simcoe, but I hope an opportunity will be given me to speak to the Orangemen. We have Orangemen in the province of Quebec and some of them-the majority of them I must say-are, as a rule, peaceful, law-abiding citizens. They hold different views from ours on matters of religion and as to loyalty and the maintenance of the empire, and so on, but this is a free country, and I hope that as long as the hon. member for West York remains at the head of that distinguished order, he will inculcate among its members a love for this country.

Glancing the other day over Leggo's ' Administration of Lord Duff or in in Canada,' my attention was attracted to an address, which was presented, some thirty years ago, almost, by the then warden of the county of York, who now represents West York in this House. About that time Lord Duf-ferin, who was without exception the most illustrious Irishman Great Britain ever sent to Canada, made an appeal, subsequently to this address, to the Irish Protestant Society of Toronto. In that appeal he asked his countrymen not to bring to this country what has caused the misfortunes of Ireland for many centuries. I am sorry to say that

the words of Lord Dufferin have had no effect upon the hon. member for West York.

Some days later, Lord Dufferin, on leaving these shores, on leaving the old city of Quebec, where he had been welcomed as French Canadians have always welcomed the representative of British authority in this country-Lord Dufferin, in parting, uttered these words at Laval University, and I shall conclude with his remarks. We should follow his advice and try to lay aside our racial antipathies, our racial divisions, and to bring about a better understanding among all classes of the community. I adhere to the declaration I made in this House when first I had the honour of addressing it-I desire that what little I may do in public life in Canada, what little I may do in this House, shall have the result of bringing about, if possible, a better understanding among all classes of the Canadian people. These were the words that Lord Dufferin uttered :

At this moment the French Canadian race to which you belong is engaged in a generous struggle with their English fellow-subjects to see which shall contribute most to the advancement of the moral, material and political welfare of this country. There is not a student, a man of business or of science, a politician or an author of either origin who does not feel the inspiration of this noble rivalry. Upon the success of your exertions, upon the efficacy of your discipline and training, upon the character of the mental and moral atmosphere you create within your walls, will, in a great measure, depend the issue of the conflict. In that conflict I can heartily wish you success without compromising my impartiality, for it is a struggle wherein the defeated reap laurels as untarnished-benefits as universal-as those which crown the winners, since it is round the brow of Canada the wreath of victory will be twined, and into the lap of Canada the prizes of the contest poured.

Sir, there was the parting advice tendered to this country by one of the most illustrious men whom Great Britain ever sent here. And, as I have said to our friends from Ontario, men of another race, and another nationality-no, we are all the same, we are all Canadians, but of another origin-I would remind them that when they come in contact with the people they should try to bring about a better understanding, and inspire themselves with what we see in the province of Quebec down on the Plains of Abraham, where the fate of this continent was settled. There, Sir, beneath the protection of the British guns, stands a pillar of stone, and upon that pillar are graven two names, Wolfe and Montcalm-Wolfe, the victorious British general; Montcalm, who died in the arms of defeat. Let us, in our efforts towards building up this country bear in mind that silent witness of the understanding which was brought about by our forefathers, so that we may perpetuate that understanding among the present generation of Canadians

and transmit it to those who shall come after us.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I cannot take up the gauntlet thrown down by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and discuss the amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) from the point of race and creed from which he has discussed it to-day. Nor can I, even in discussing so important a question as this, take advantage of this opportunity to tell the hon. leader of this House (Bt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) what the echo from North Bruce was which he wished so much to hear when he discussed this question the other day.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER.

My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) may tell me the echo from Prince Edward Island, perhaps.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN.

The right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) expressed a desire the other day to hear from North Bruce. But I can tell him that something is happening on his side of the House that is a surprise to us and a surprise to the country ; and if his followers continue to make protectionist speeches, such as that delivered by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) the other evening, that of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) yesterday, and that of the hon. member for Bonaventure to-day. when he was discussing the question on its merits, he will soon have no free traders behind him at all, but all will be on the protectionist, that is to say, on the Conservative, platform. In discussing this question, 1 wish to keep to the view of protection and free trade laid down by the Prime Minister. As he has challenged the relative merits of protection and free trade, just lor a tew moments I intend to discuss the principle underlying these two ideas. After that, I purpose discussing the attitude of the Liberals towards protection, the attitude of the Liberals towards mutual trade, and this new question of reciprocity of tariffs. Now. I have no hesitation in telling the House that I am a protectionist, and that, on that subject, I am, as the right hon. gentleman calls me. a stalwart. I have always believed in the principle of protection, and never in the principle of free trade. And when it comes down to a discussion of the two principles, we can say this-that protection has been vindicated, while free trade to-day is questioned in every quarter of the world. Now, what is the principle underlying protection ? Is it not this-that protectionists recognize the fact that life is a struggle, not only between individuals, but between nations ? The free traders tell us that underlying the principle of their theory is the brotherhood of man. Sir. there is no prospect of the principle of the brotherhood of man being accepted : on

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Marcil

Liberal

Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).

the contrary, the nations, from one end of the world to the other, recognize that a struggle goes on among them, and that it is incumbent upon a nation to protect and maintain itself in that struggle as against other nations. Another principle that free traders go on is, that there ought to be competition, and that competition will settle all difficulties in connection with trade and commerce. As a protectionist, I say that the underlying principle ought to be a regulated production-it is this that will give the greatest value to industry, and not competition. Another thing that we protectionists say is, that the great object of a nation ought to be to keep its own work for its own people, and its own markets for its own products. The free traders tell us that the proper rule is to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest. We take issue with them on that point also. And how would we who are protectionists say that a nation should attain the end to be sought ? By what we call national policy. We recognize that there is a struggle among nations, and that it is possible for a nation, through its fiscal policy and its legislation, to make itself strong so as to be able to hold its own and build itself up in that struggle. How does it do that ? That is a point upon which I wish to lay considerable stress. How does a nation, through its fiscal policy, make itself strong and build itself up ? In a number of ways. It seeks to transfer industries from other nations ; it seeks to develop the industries that it has at home, and it seeks to give diversity of employment to its people-am! in that way it adopts what Sir .Tohn A. Macdonald called (and it is a good name for it) a national policy. The tools, the engines of that national policy, as directed to this end. are many, and I wish to enumerate them here to-day.

In the first place, the great engines or means used in a protectionist policy is a customs tariff composed of specific and ad valorem duties. The next thing is a tariff with a free entrance of specific raw materials, or a rebate of duties on foreign raw products not manufactured within the country importing them. Another thing that protection resorts to is drawbacks : another thing is bounties on productions and bounties on exports ; another thing it resorts to is putting larger duties on raw products exported ; another thing is treaties of reciprocity, or reciprocity in preference ; another thing is maximum and minimum tariffs with friendly and unfriendly nations ; another thing is countervailing duties ; another thing is subsidies to railways and steamship lines, or giving low freights and cold storage to exports, and low freights for essentially raw products when imported. Still another thing adopted by every protectionist government to-day is the policy of promotion, or taking part in exhibitions, exhibiting in foreign countries its own pro-

ductions, resorting to a consular service, appointing trade agents ito build up trade, and in a hundred other directions making use of a promotion system. There are many other ways in which a national policy employs whatever measures will effect the end of building up the country.

Now, free traders pretend to ignore all these things. They say they do not believe in them, they say that the least government is the best-that is one of their great principles. They say a legislature can do very little to promote trade, and that the proper policy of a government is to do as little as possible in the way of promoting the industries of the country. On the other hand, we who are protectionists contend that it is the duty of a.government to do everything possible, and to interfere, if necessary, as much as possible on behalf of manufactures with a view to building up the country. The national policy of interfering through legislation by parliament has proved a success. A national policy has proved a success, not only in Canada but throughout the world wherever It has been tried. Free trade is questioned to-day, and is almost a failure in the one or two countries that have adopted it. Now, what are the countries that have adopted the principle of protection ? Let me name some of them. There is the United States, the greatest country in the world to-day in the matter of production and export of its own productions. There is Germany, there is Russia, there is France, there is Italy, there is Canada, Australia is coming to it, South Africa will come to it, and every nation that is emerging or hopes to emerge and to take its place among the nations, is adopting a national policy and recognizing the principle of protection. All these countries employ these engines that are said to be paternal, that are said to be protectionist. But they are effective and accomplish the thing designed, they do build up a country, and every one of these countries that I have named has employed them, and is employing them, and intends to employ them hereafter to a much larger extent.

Now, England is the typical free trade country, and to-day I would like to ask lion, gentlemen opposite who declare themselves free traders, whether England has not employed many of these protectionist measures in the past ? She has employed them in the past, she may 'have disowned them for a time, but I believe she will employ a great many of .them in the future. Englishmen are getting tired of this doctrine of this brotherhood of man. that the least government is the best, and they are casting about for ways in which they can help themselves. The Manchester school is dead. .Tohn Stuart Mill and all his free trade theories are nothing but ghosts. The little Englander party has disappeared from English politics. Many principles that Cobdenite free traders have advocated in the past are very much

questioned to-day, and there are a great many people now who are ashamed to wear Cobden medals, even though the medals are bestowed upon them by the Cobden Society. The people of England see how things are going; and one of the most significant things we have seen in our day is the fact that the iron and steel industry is passing from free trade England to the protectionist United States. That is a most significant fact in regard to England's fiscal policy, it is a thing that is coming home to Englishmen, that is being discussed in all their boards of trade and chambers of commerce, that is being discussed in their papers and by their public men. It is a question to which they cannot at the present time find an answer. Perhaps we protectionists in Canada will yet be able 'to tell them where a remedy may be found. No protectionist to-day needs to apologize for his belief ; but the free trader finds all his former theories questioned to-day by his own supporters. Therefore, I say that protectionists have seen their principles vindicated, while free traders have seen every principle they have advocated disowned by other nations and questioned by those who heretofore have supported them.

Now, a national policy, or a principle of protection, is the policy adopted by nations who are rivals for the world's trade and have to struggle for theiir part of it. The principle of the brotherhood of men is for people who are brothers, but for those who are not brothers the principle does not apply. It may apply when the poet's dream is realized of ' the brotherhood of man, the federation of the world.' When the federation of the world takes place, that principle will be all right; but so long as nation has to struggle with nation, the principle of protection has to be resorted to by every nation which wishes to hold its own.

Now, having laid down these general principles, I wish to discuss the attitude of the Liberal party on the question of protection. To find out where the Liberal party stands on this question, I must take the speech of the Prime Minister, made in this House on this very question ; and to ascertain his position I shall have to read a few sentences from hds remarks. In the first place I will quote what he said about the Conservative party and the national policy :

The same old national policy, with a few adornments which, instead of taking from Its native deformity, only add to It.

And one or two of these adornments of the national policy the Reformers of this country are supporting to-day. He went on to say :

There is nothing new in the Conservative policy to-day.

Well, there is something new, there is this new at least, that it is sticking to its principles and maintaining them on every occa-

sion. It is also enlarging the principle of protection as applied to Canada, and enlarging it, as I will show later on, to the whole empire. Now, what does the hon. gentleman say, speaking for his party, in regard to protection ? He says that they are free traders, they are for a revenue tariff, while we on this side are protectionists. Here are his own words :

There is this difference between us, that while they would levy those duties only for the benefit of individuals, we levy them for the benefit of the revenue first and foremost.

Then he admits there is no doubt that protection is an incident of the tariff.

Still further on he says :

It will be many years before we can have free trade as they have it in England.

Now, we have these four statements, and I hope I have the attention of the right hon. leader of the government, because 1 do not wish to misquote him, I wish to put in one sentence what he says is his attitude and the attitude of his party in regard to the fiscal policy of this country. I take it to be this: The Liberals are against protection; they believe in free trade as a theory, they are for a revenue tariff which of necessity implies incidental protection, but, of such incidental protection the less there is of it the more is such a tariff desirable; and also, they regret that it will be many years before we can have free trade as it is in England, but that is the goal. Now, I think that is the platform of the Liberal party; that certainly is the statement which the right hon. leader of the government made, and this side of the House and the country will hold him and his party to it. On that platform we take direct issue with them. We say we believe in protection, we say we do not believe in a revenue tariff, but that we believe in a tariff that will protect Canadian industries, we do not want free trade as they have it in England. Eree trade as they have it in England is not the goal of the party sitting on this side of the House. Not only does he justify the national policy in that statement, but he is perforce made to justify all those instruments of protection which I have already outlined. But is his practice on the lines of these precepts which he has laid down ? Let us take some of the means that I have enumerated in connection with the national policy and of protection and see where he and his party are. Specific duties are one of the great instruments of protection. Does he use them ? Having condemned them, has he removed them from the statutes of this country ? They are protectionist instruments pure and simple. Take other instruments of protection, take rebates and drawbacks, bounties on production, bounties on exports, rebates on exports, the prohibition of exports a policy which the right hon. gentleman's

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN.

friends in Ontario have adopted in regard to the exportation of logs and which the lion. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) proposes to adopt in connection with logs cut on Indian reserves, reciprocity treaties, steamship subsidies and cold storage on steamships, trade agents purchase of products aud selling them abroad. Has he not employed every one of these engines of protection under this so-called revenue tariff ? He is either a bogus free trader or a protectionist who is ashamed to admit that he is a protectionist. Where is he V He has not employed all of them ? There is reciprocity of tariffs, which is to come, there are countervailing duties, there the system of the maximum and the minimum tariffs which is to.come, and there may be some other instruments of paternal government as it is called and he may have to come to them. But, all of the others he has employed up to date, and yet he says he is a revenue tariff man. Now, what is the difference in degree between this so-called revenue tariff that he says he upholds and a protectionist tariff which we claim it was in former days and which specifically it is to-day What is the difference in degree between the tariff which he upholds to-day and the one which he denounced when it was introduced into this country ? How are they going to get over that difficulty ? The late Minister of Finance told us that the difference between the old and the new tariff was 79-10Qths of 1 per cent or something less than that. The right hon. gentleman claims that there is a marked distinction between the two policies, but will any one tell what the difference in degree, as to the incidence between the two tariffs, is ? Now, I want to make some reply to the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and the right hon. leader of the government. Of this revenue tariff of which the right hon. gentleman says he is the champion, he states :

The result of the policy adopted in 1897 is that the country has never been so prosperous.

And then, he said :

Under our new tariff, our revenue tariff, the trade of the country increased in the four years from 1896 to 1900, $142,000,000. Under the national policy the increase under the same head was $36,000,000 for sixteen years.

On this statement of the results he left the people and the House to judge of the merits of the two policies. Why did the country boom when hon. gentlemen came into power ? Why did trade increase in volumeV It must be for one reason aud one alone, that hon. gentlemen declined to put into practice the policy which they announced they would adopt of wiping the national policy off the face of the earth. That is why the country has boomed. Up to that time capital had been frightened and labour intimidated. Men were of limited means

and they were afraid to put their money into manufacturing enterprises, because they were led to believe that if the Liberal party came into power the national policy, as they said in East York when I contested that riding, would be wiped off the face of the earth. It is because they did not wipe the national policy off the face of the earth and because they adopted the policy of Sir John Macdonald, because the whole country was so united in supporting the policy of protection that no one in a responsible position dared to get up in his place and propose to remove it, that the country prospered. What would have been the state of the country if lion, gentlemen had carried out their pledges and had wiped the national policy off the face of the earth ? Instead of smoking chimneys we would have had smokeless chimneys, we would have sent our labour abroad and driven our capital out of the country. There would have been no increase in trade. The glory of hon. gentlemen to-day is that they did not do what they promised, and because they did not do what they promised the country has prospered. What was the conclusion of the apology of the right hon. gentleman for being a protectionist ? It was this :

It will be. many years before we can have free trade as they have It in England.

And hfs Finance Minister, in 1897, as has been quoted already in the House, said :

So far as protecting the industries of the country is concerned, eternal vigilance must be the price of protection.

This is a nice statement to come from two hon. members of the government. One says that free trade as they have it in England is far away and the other tells the people that if they have protection it will only be by the exercise of continual vigilance. The national policy has vindicated itself in the minds of the men who first promoted it and supported it. It has vindicated -itself in the minds of all, because the Liberal party have had to adopt it, have had to support it, have had to maintain it, notwithstanding that they would destroy it, and if John A. Macdonald lives today in this country, he lives not only in the principles of his own party, which we are maintaining to-day, but he lives as a present force, in this country, to-day, because the men who decried him and decried his principle of protection are claiming, as the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) have done, that the Liberal party are trying to maintain it in their own way. This is Sir John Macdonald's glory; it is a living glory and he is a most living force in the affairs in Canada to-day. Now, I want to discuss the question of the preference. The right hon. Prime Minister, said in dealing with that preference ;

How are you going to secure mutuality of preference where you have protection in Canada and free trade in England?

Further on he said :

Canada will be protectionist and so will Great Britain, and what mutual preference could you have under such conditions?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

Might I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) if the policy, as enunciated in the amendment of the leader of the opposition, is what he described it just now ; reciprocity in preferences ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
IND
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

The hon gentleman (Mr. Maclean) has already stated that that is the policy of the opposition.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN.

I have been dealing with the record of the Liberal party on protection ; I am going to deal with mutual preference now, and I am coming to the preference of reciprocity, and I will tell you exactly where we are as to that.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER.

I thought we knew it.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN.

The Minister of Customs has asked for information, and I am glad to give it to him. Now, the Prime Minister asked us : How free trade England and protectionist Canada could have a mutuality of preference, and he said : If

England became protectionist and Canada remained protectionist there could be mutuality of preference. Well, there are numbers of instances on record which will answer the right hon. gentleman's question. Does he not know that the protectionist United States has, under its fiscal system, given a preference to free trade, or semifree trade, nations, and that free trade England has given a preference to protected nations. It is all very well for the First Minister to make a fine rhetorical phrase in the House, but in cammon practice the thing is being done every day. The protectionist United States is making treaties with the South American republics and with Germany, and has sent her commissioners to France to establish some kind of mutual preference. There is an answer to the Prime Minister's question. It is possible to have this mutuality of protection between free trade and protectionist nations, but what we criticise the government for is the one-sided character of the preference they have given, and which I do not believe in, especially as towards England.

But what is the record of the Liberals when in opposition ? They were in favour of giving a preference to the United States and against the mother land. They were in favour of unrestricted reciprocity, which its author, Mr. Erastus Wiman, defined it to be :

Free trade between Canada and the United States and the rest of the world, and involving discrimination against the mother country.

And Sir Richard Cartwright, speaking at Pembroke, October 21, 1890, admitted this was so, and said :

Some men, whose opinions I respect, enter objections to this unrestricted reciprocity proposition. They argue, and argue with force, that it will be necessary for us if we enter into such an arrangement to admit the goods of the United States on more favourable terms than those of the mother country; nor do I deny that this is an objection, and not a light one.

The present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) is on record as being prepared to give the United States a preference as against England, and he and his party now charge us because we do not believe in a mutual preference as between us and England, because it is a one-sided preference. Let us look for a moment at the eiforts of the Liberal party in this country to establish unrestricted reciprocity between Canada and the United States. I shall tell the House what was the real origin of that unrestricted reciprocity movement in Canada fifteen years ago. There was then in the United States a very able, a very clever, man, and at that time, a very wealthy man. That man saw the rise of his friend and acquaintance, Grover Cleveland, from an unimportant position, to be president of the United States. This man, who lived in New York, became very ambitious, and he said to himself : If Grover Cleveland can be president of the United States, why should not I, who am as able a man as he is, be president. But when he looked into the matter he found that there was one obstacle in the way, and that was that he was not native-born of the United States. He was a Canadian-born, and so he started out to qualify himself to become president of the United States, as Grover Cleveland had become president. I am telling no fiction to the House now. Erastus Wiman saw that the only way in which he could qualify for the presidency was to become native-born, and the only way he could become native-born, was to lead his native Canada into annexation with the United States. He came over here on that expressed mission, and he captured the Liberal party and the Liberal newspapers, and for years he engaged them to gratify his ambition to become president of the United States. That is the real story of the unrestricted reciprocity movement in Canada from 1886 to 1894. And it was the present Prime Minister, the United States senator from Canada, as he was called in the United States, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who went up and down this country preaching in favour of unrestricted reciprocity, which really meant annexation. And these are the men who are chiding us to-day because we do not believe in a one-Mr. MACLEAN.

sided preference. I am stating an historical fact, and when the memoirs of Erastus Wiman are written, and when the archives of the New York Sun are laid bare, as they will be laid bare before the people, the Liberal party of Canada will be on record as favouring unrestricted reciprocity, which really meant annexation, and which, to Erastus Wiman, meant nothing else but annexation so that he could qualify himself to be come president of the United States. That being the record of the Liberal party, what happened ? They got into power, and they had to find an excuse to get out of the trouble they were in, and to illustrate their predicament, I shall refer to the ancient history of the children of Israel and the law of the scapegoat, and I want to direct the attention of hon. gentlemen to what that law is. I am glad to see my hon. friend from the west (Hon. Mr. Sifton) in the House so that he may hear it for once : The Scapegoat.

(Leviticus XIV.)

5. And he (Aaron) shall take of the children of Israel two kids of the goats as a sin offering.

7. And he shall take the two goats and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

8. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for the Lord, and the other for the scapegoat.

9. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord's lot fell and offer him for a sin offering.

10. But the goat on which the lot fell to be a scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

21. And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in ail their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send him away by a fit man into the wilderness.

22. And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

26. And he that let go the goat for a scapegoat shall wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water, and afterwards come into the camp.

Who was the scapegoat for bon. gentlemen opposite ? The Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was Aaron the high priest; the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) was the son of Aaron, and the fit man who was to lead the goat into the wilderness was the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), and he never washed his flesh or put off his clothes and had them made clean in that respect, until that night when in the basement of this building that celebrated panegyric was passed upon him which was read in this House the other day. The scapegoat which these gentlemen employed, as an atonement for their sins in being ready to give a preference to the United States instead of to England, was the industries of this country, which they turned loose in the wilderness ; and the industry which

most of all was made the scapegoat for their political sins was the woollen industry. That is their record on preferences. They are on record as being in favour of giving a preference to the United States. They are on record as sacrificing Canadian industries in order to give a bogus preference to the mother country-a bogus preference which I do not believe in. I would sooner take the word of Sir John A. Macdonald in regard to the views of the Canadian people in the matter of a preference to England ; and here are his views on that subject, contained in a letter written by him on April 6, 1891 :

While Canada cannot promise a reduction of duties, she will be quite ready to give British goods a preference in our markets if our products receive a corresponding preference in England.

We hold that view to-day ; the people of Canada believe in it; and the people of Canada will have no other preference than one which is mutual, as laid down in this statement of Sir John A. Macdonald. Sir John A. Macdonald never needed to sacrifice the interests of Canada ; he had no record which compelled him to do so ; and when it came to an issue between the rights and interests of Canada and the desires of England, he always put the interests of Canada first. If any hon. gentleman doubts that, let him read Pope's history of his life, as I have been reading it in the last few days, especially in connection with the Washington Treaty. He was besought day after day by the English members of the commission to sacrifice the Canadian fisheries ; but he said, ' I will not sacrifice them unless there is proper compensation,' and he stuck to that position to the last, and it is the position of every Conservative in Canada to-day, even in regard to England. We are ready to give concession for concession ; but we do not believe in a one-sided preference such as obtains to-day, which sacrifices Canadian industries and Canadian workmen, and which when analysed is not a tribute to the mother country, but only a tribute of Canadian mills and Canadian workmen to the mills and workmen of Lancashire. Surely, the woollen mill is as good an asset of the empire in Canada as in Lancashire. If it is, it should be kept here, and not transferred to Lancashire. That, I take it, is the feeling of the people of Canada; that, I know, is the feeling of gentlemen on this side of the House ; and the day will come when the people of Canada will rise almost en masse to have the wrong put right, and to have a preference based on the principle of true mutuality, the principle of giving something for something in return. That is the record of hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to a preference ; and, in contrast to that, I have stated what I think are the views of Con-58

servatives-that we believe in a mutual and not a one-sided preference, and we believe that a woollen mill is of as much value to the empire located in Canada as it is transferred to Lancashire.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

If not, what ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN.

If it continues to injure Canadian industries, I am prepared to repeal that law any day ; and my vote can be had for its repeal to-morrow.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

That is the policy of the party ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

Mr. MACLEAN .@

mat is my view of it. I am speaking for myself, and the hon. gentleman will find a great many gentlemen here who will express the same view before this debate is over.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

Is it expressed in the amendment ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
IND

William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative

Mr. MACLEAN.

And this so-called preference to the English manufacturers is not, as a matter of fact, given to them exclusively. The Germans are getting the best of our woollen mills, because on the woollen goods imported into this country 25 per cent of the work is done in England and 75 per cent in Germany; and the thanks we get from Germany is that they are turning Canadian wheat and other food products out of their markets.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink

March 21, 1901