March 21, 1901

CON
LIB

William Roche

Liberal

Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).

I may remark that if our exports diminish in one or two articles, the resources of this country are so large and so varied, and the employments of the people are also so various, that any temporary diminution in the export of any one article is compensated for by an excess of others. That this is the true state of the case was exemplified and proved by the general trade returns of the country, showing that for the period of five years the exports of the country have increased gradually and steadily, and that during the last year they have increased ; and. the same thing is true of the imports. Now, these are evidences to a statistical mind like that of the learned gentleman from West York, to prove that he must look further and search deeper for evidence to produce conviction in this House and in the country that the state of the country is a serious or alarming one. There was no such conclusion conveyed by the sentiments he produced ; and I am not so silly as to imagine that a gentleman of his character, reputation and experience in the House and the country would bring forward a mere bald opinion without fortifying it with some statistical evidence to justify the conclusions he formed.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

William Roche

Liberal

Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).

Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock, I was arguing that the hon. member for West York, instead of forming a judgment from a sufficient number of facts, had rather dipped into the returns for the purpose of making out a case against the government and their policy. The hon.

Mr. ROCHE (Halifax)

gentleman gave some statistics to show that his contention was borne out by a decline in the exports of fish and animals. I do not mean to insinuate that the hon. gentleman attempted in any way to mislead the House ; but I simply say that he arrived at that conclusion from insufficient data. We know that the fishing industry is a most variable one, that it does not depend at all upon tariffs and cannot be affected to any great extent by the policies of governments, but that it depends on the coming of the fish around the shores. Those who live in fishing constituencies know that during the past year the catch of fish was large and general, but that the price declined. From the figures of the official reports, it might be shown that there was a real decline in that industry, whereas the quantity sold and exported may have been equal to that of previous years. In the same way with animals, if the calculation be made merely from the value of the exports in dollars and cents, it may lead to a deceptive conclusion. You require to look carefully into the number of animals shipped and at the state of the market, to judge whether it paid the producers of animals to export them to foreign markets or to have them consumed in Canada. The hon. gentleman drew the deduction that our trade was suffering and that our finances were in a serious if not dangerous condition by stating that where we exported $188,000,000 and imported $199,000,000, the difference of $11,000,000 showed that we were in debt. An hon. gentleman the other day gave some statistics of the shipment of apples to the old country, going carefully into the details-and perhaps I might take that as an illustration. Y'ou may select from the whole list of shipments one or two articles of export that show a decline in value or in quantity, while the general aggregate shows that others have been substituted for them, and the whole volume of exports has not declined. For example, suppose a man ships 1,000 barrels of apples at $2 a barrel, and suppose he pays $1 a barrel for freight ; that is $3,000; and he obtains for those goods in the market to which they are despatched $4,000. You have a return of $4,000 which would be counted in the imports ; whereas if a man ships 1,000 barrels of apples, and they were badly packed or suffered from any of those accidents which sometimes happen to such articles, he might have to sell them in the market to which they were despatched for $2 a barrel; so that he would only obtain $2,000, and the returns would only show imports to the value of $2,000. In the one case we only imported $2,000, whereas in the other case we imported $4,000. Thus, while the statistics of imports and exports in general indicate whether the trade of the country has been

prosperous or the reverse, they are not an accurate criterion on all occasions. The balance of trade shown by contrasting the imports with the exports is sometimes a very delusive theory.

In this connection the hon. gentleman from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) gave some statistics, but they were culled and collected in the same way as these I refer to. He took, for instance, the exports of ham and cheese, and although those articles had largely increased in the four years preceding, yet when 1890 was contrasted with 1899 there was a small decrease. But that is not a comparison which can give a correct idea of the trade. You have to take a series of years and take the trade as a whole, and not select some particular articles in which there might be a decrease one year as compared with another.

Besides the amount in dollars and cents of our exports and imports may not represent the real value of the trade. The true value is the amount of profit derived from it, or the return from the material and labour used in producing or trading in the articles exported or imported, so that you cannot arrive at an exact estimate by the volume of statistics, although prirna facie and on general principles that is the only means of estimating the production of any country.

The argument is advanced by hon. gentlemen opposite that the 33J per cent preference has not accomplished the purpose intended, and has not come up to the expectations of those who inaugurated that policy. Well, I do not see how such a contention can be maintained, in view of the fact, which is unmistakable, that whereas previously our imports were declining, they have, since the preferential rate was established, recovered from that decline; and although the increase may not have come up to the full volume expected, nobody can say but that this preference has been effective in arresting the decline in our imports from Great Britain.

I fail to understand why hon. gentlemen opposite should lay such stress on the difference between British and American importations. Is it because they wish to encourage the introduction of articles of British manufacture to replace those of American manufacture ? But why should they wish to displace the articles of American production ? Is not $100,000 of profit derived from trade with our neighbour to the south just as good as if derived from our trade with the English manufacturers ? But there are other elements which must be considered besides the mere question of dollars and cents. What has been the cause of the decline of British imports and the increase of American imports? Certainly not the lessening of any affection on our part for Great Britain. Not because we have lost the desire of dealing with British merchants or

do not wish to encourage British trade, but because American producers are nearer to us and can give us articles at shorter notice. And there is this element further to be considered, namely, that the Americans have adapted themselves to the requirements of the times, and have taken advantage more promptly of the results of science and the latest achievements and discoveries in arts, and the application of new forces. They make better and lighter implements than the English. The English manufacturers adhere too much to the old style of cumbrous material, and do not consult to the same extent the requirements of consumers. Neither do they take so much pains to secure markets in the colonies and elsewhere as do their German and American competitors. They do not send out travelling agents with cuts of their instruments to solicit trade, as the Americans do. Owing to the rapidity with which his goods are produced and their adaptation to the circumstances of the country, the American manufacturer has to a great extent displaced the British manufacturer. That, however, is not going to continue. John Bull has no desire to see his exports declining. Although he exerts his material force in the acquisition of territory, he is quite as active in extending and securing by the arts of peace, markets for his manufactured products, and depend upon it he is still in the race. What science, skill, labour and capital can do to secure supremacy in the commercial world, he will be sure not to neglect. I have no fear for England.

To come back to a subject which was discussed this afternoon with a considerable decree of novelty and force, I would like to know if the hon. leader of the opposition coincides entirely in the sentiments expressed by the hon. gentleman from East York (Mr. Maclean). Is he prepared to go into a war of retaliation with the United States ? Is he prepared to give his endorsation to that propaganda of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ? I should like to know if the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) estimates, as the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) does, the value of American trade. In the locality from which I come, we attach a great deal of importance to the American trade, and I think the hon. leader of the opposition holds it in similar esteem. There is not merely the dollars and cents view to be considered. That trade has quite another value. We know that Great Britain values highly the friendship of America. We know that Great Britain depends upon the neutrality of the United States in carrying out her schemes of foreign policy. The other nations of Europe are antagonistic and ready to combine in order to limit the power and reduce the prestige of England, and Great Britain depends on the sympathy of our American neighbours. Is there anybody here then who would disturb that mutual good feeling ?

be maintained or increased on the one hand, and that on the other they are going to produce the beets which will keep out the article that constitutes the bulk of our trade with that great nation. Now, there was, about the year 1878, an election to be held in the city of Halifax, and two gentlemen, most excellent representatives of that city were seeking the suffrages of the electors. Both of these gentlemen have since been honoured with the title of lieutenant-governor. I allude to Sir M. B. Daly and the Hon. Mr. Ritchie, who were successively lieutenant-governors of Nova Scotia. I do not see any reason why there should be any fault found in such a succession. If all the members for Halifax have been honoured with high degrees and emoluments, I do not see any reason why the representatives of the city of Halifax should fail in the slightest degree in receiving these honours when their time as representatives in this parliament has passed. I do not object to hon. gentlemen opposite making them lieutenant-governors. But, in that election, in the cards which were sent out by the Liberal-Conservative party inviting support for these candidates who were most eligible and reputable gentlemen. there was the plank set forth that the national policy was to secure the protection and improvement of our languishing West Indian trade. What has become of that ? Where is that in this programme? The hon. member for East York is going to supply the whole consumption of beetroot sugar and reduce the duty on beetroot sugar, that comes from Germany. How does that allow our languishing West Indian trade to be restored ? There is no provision made for it. If the beets come into the consumption and displace the beetroot sugar imported it will also displace the cane sugar imported from the West Indies. The promises which were held out to us under the national policy in that respect have not been verified, because the trade has been diminishing until it has reached a very low point. It may be restored. I cannot say how it will be done, but I leave it to these gentlemen wrho are so much concerned about it to show us some feasible, plan by which these conflicting interests can be reconciled, and by which our unfortunate province and city will receive the benefits promised to us in 1878 from an increase in our trade with the West Indies. I know that in the explanation which was given of the decrease of our trade with the West Indies hon. gentlemen have not taken into account the fact that two of our principal markets have been wrested away from us, that the Islands of Porto Rico and Cuba are in the possession of the United States, while they were formerly possessions of Spain, and the trade which formerly went to them has now to pass through United States chan-Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).

nels. Are we going to antagonize the United States in regard to that trade? Are we going to have that trade shut out from us if we flaunt our tariff in the faces of the people of the United States, and if we do, may they not cut us off from the enjoyment of the trade with their islands ? This is of great importance to the fishermen of Nova Scotia and to the people of New Brunswick, and I would like to ask the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) how he would justify it before his constituents if, as the result of the adoption of his measure favouring such pronounced protection, that valuable trade should be cut off from the province of Nova Scotia, in order to carry out a theory which looks remarkably like a very utopian experiment. The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett), who spoke the other night, gave us similar reasons why our trade is in a very dangerous and languishing state, and why we should recognize the wisdom of calling a halt in our expenditures. He told us, that, in the year 1899, we exported $8,400,000 worth of hams, and that, in 1900, we only exported $2,700,000 worth. As in the case of cheese, I would attribute this to some local circumstances which do not indicate any permanent reduction in the volume of our exports. I think this does not indicate that we have lost any of our markets. It does not indicate that any neglect is chargeable to the government, it does not indicate a failure of transportation facilities, or of any of the conditions which are favourable to the reception of any of these articles in the market. It may be that the farmers have sold their hog products in other markets, or that more have been consumed here, or that they have found it profitable to raise other products. It may be that the decline in the export of cheese has been a decline in the quality of the cheese. It may be that the cheese is not up to the sample which was previously maintained.

I am informed by farmers that some of the producers and shippers of- cheese have been very negligent both as to the quality of the article and as to the way in which the packages have been sent to the old country. I have not derived my information from statistics, I have not taken my information second-hand, but I have inquired of the people who purchase these products in the market. 1 have inquired of the people in various employments about the reception which our cheese and dairy products have been given in England. The sentiment of regard for Canada has had a great effect because, throughout all classes of the population of Great Britain, amongst the merchants, the public men, the artisans, the ship men, the shipping merchants and the carriers, that sentiment is found to exist very strongly. So great is the regard for Canadian products that a great

many of the shop-keepers in England take inferior American products and label them ' Canadian.' But, that sentiment, to some extent, has been destroyed by the fact that some dealers have sent over articles that were not what they ought to be, and the consequence has been that people, who were disposed to favour Canadian products in recognition of the preference which Canada has given to British goods, have found the quality of some Canadian goods not what it should have been, have regarded these goods as being fraudulent, and have rejected them on that account. The hon. member for East Simcoe went on to argue that the policy of this government was defective because a quantity of goods consumed by the poor man was subject to high rates of duty, while the luxuries which are consumed by the rich, come in at reduced rates. He referred to the article of silk, which had come in to the value of $3,000.000, which has now risen to the value of $5,000,000, and he regarded this as a proof that the preferential tariff is injurious to the working classes. I do not think this is a proof at all.

What lady in the land does not wish to have a silk dress ? What sweetheart of any gentleman opposite would think herself ornamented without a silk dress, and so it is that that which was formerly an article of luxury for the rich is now an object of common desire, and even the sweetheart of a workingman would feel herself degraded if her best gown was not of silk. One gentleman on the other side of the House thought the Liberal policy was defective because the importation of diamonds had increased while the import of articles consumed by the poor had decreased. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is married or not, I hope he is ; but if he was going to bring a present to his wife at the close of this arduous session of parliament, and he selected a diamond, would he not be thankful that the duty was so low that he could afford to buy that diamond for the lady whom he loved. Now, Mr. Speaker, we must do something for the women ; we must do something for the ladies of the land ; for the working-women of the land. The diamonds which were formerly the luxury of the rich are now common property to the middle classes, and they try to save up money to buy things of that kind. The articles used by ladies for their ornamentation should be at least equally considered with the Corby's ' I.X.L.' or ' Seagram's White Wheat,' for instance, with which we regale ourselves and reinforce our energies.

Now. Mr. Speaker, I shall say a word about the racial cry. I regret that the racial cry should be raised by either political party. In my province in the amiable contest which took place between the leader of the opposition and myself to determine which was the more popular, because we

had no great difference otherwise, there was no racial cry raised. We never said a disrespectful word of each other so far as I know, and I hope we never will. I esteem the talent of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax). I hope he will render good service to his country and that honours will be bestowed on him in return. I wish him well. I wish every Nova Scotian well because the country is beginning to appreciate the merits of Nova Scotians, and I hope we will all come in for our appreciation in turn. The racial cry did not penetrate the province of Nova Scotia. No party in this country can afford to resurrect it, because it is dead and buried, and there let it rest. Mr. Speaker, I believe in the tariff policy of the government. I believe in the revenue system, and I believe that as a result of the Liberal policy the country is prospering in a steady and uniform way. I have confidence in the men who lead the Liberal party. I like their appearance since I saw them here ; I like their devotion to duty ;

I like the way they grasp the details of their departments. I venerate the esteemed leader of the Liberal party.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Hear, hear.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

William Roche

Liberal

Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).

I believe in the Liberal policy and I believe that that policy wisely administered along the lines of the natural resources of our country, will tend to great and lasting prosperity. I believe that our country under Liberal rule will go on in its career of progress and will become a valuable component of the British Empire. I believe that British statesmen and the British people will have confidence in our Canadian statesmen and in their policy, and that united hand in hand we will go forward in our great career of progress, peace and prosperity.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Rees Brock

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. R. BROCK (Centre Toronto).

Mr. Speaker, in entering public life as a representative of the people, I am very fortunate to be allied to a political party who have nothing to be ashamed of in their past, and who have no apologies to make for the present. The Conservative party of Canada do not require to announce their policy, or to say what changes they are going to make. The people of the Dominion know, as they have always known, what the Conservative policy is. The right hon. the leader of the government said in this debate, that in the streets of this city and in the corridors of the House there was great sensation and excitement at the rumour that something extraordinary was going to happen, for the Conservative party was going to spring something new upon the country, but he had found after all-and for my part I am happy he found it-that the policy we had to announce was the policy that had made this country prosperous for a quarter of a centurv. Sir. there was nothing to sneer at in that. The hon. gentleman from Hali-

fax (Mr. Roche) stated that the people of Canada were sick of the national policy. Most extraordinary that. If the people were sick of it why have the present government retained so much of it ? If the Liberals were sick of the national policy why have they made so few changes in it, as they themselves tell us ? If the national policy nauseated the Liberals, why is it that every canvasser for the Reform party found it necessary to go into every factory in this country and to assure every manufacturer that if the Liberals got into power there was going to be no change in that policy.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Hear, hear.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Rees Brock

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BROCK.

We know that a member of the Conservative party in the North-west took it upon himself to say that if he got into power he would reduce the duty on agricultural implements, and we know what a howl went up from the agricultural implement makers of Ontario, the friends of the present government. Yes, Mr. Speaker, these agricultural implement makers were friendly to the government and they have been rewarded for their friendship. By the appointment of a member of that great agricultural implement firm as a senator, the present government have done this country honour, because the gentleman they have appointed well deserves the office. We know how the Reform party repudiated the idea of adding anything to the burdens of the people of Manitoba and the North-west.

But I wish more particularly to address myself, as a business man, to a subject which I think I know something about, and in which I am largely interested, that is, the development of the industries of this country. I contend that when the right lion, leader of the government did himself so much honour and this country so much credit in representing Canada at the Diamond Jubilee, he made one of the great mistakes of his life, not only for himself, but for this country. An opportunity was then offered such as we never had before for making an arrangement, or approaching an arrangement, with the great empire to which we belong for obtaining a preference in their markets in return for the preference we were willing to give to them. I have noticed a good deal of jocularity on the other side of the House on this subject, and some argument that England would never do anything of the kind. Why, England is doing something of the kind every day. This country and other countries have preferences in the English market.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER.

How ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Rees Brock

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BROCK.

Great Britain bonuses steamship companies to help the postal system and the commercial interests of tins country. In speaking of an alliance with the Conservative party-because that is involved in the resolution which is before

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Rees Brock

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BROCK.

the House-I am pleased to be a member of a party which need not be ashamed of its consistency when the history of this country comes to be written. Can hon. gentlemen on the other side say the same ? Are they at one among themselves at the present time ? Did we not hear the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) speak out strongly in favour of complete free trade ? My hon. friend from South Brant (Mr. Heyd) told the government the other day that they had made a great mistake in taking the duty off binder twine ; and another hon. gentleman last night, in addressing the House, turned to the members on his own side and stated that they were not at one-that many of them were too much inclined to favour the national policy. Therefore, it gives me the greatest pleasure to know that we on this side of the House are at one in our policy. VVe are following our leader loyally.

The hon. Minister of Finance, in his admirable address, stated that amongst the items of income was a large increase of duty on manufactured goods coming into this country. The farmers, the manufacturers and every other interest in this country know what that means. It means the displacement to that extent of goods manufactured in this country by Canadian people. The gentlemen on the other side cannot be unaware of this fact. I think the hon. Minister of Finance and ocher members of the government have been waited upon by deputations representing some of the largest industries in Canada, who laid before them in the strongest possible light the serious position in which the government by their policy was placing them. When the government first announced the preference of 12+ per cent, I am free to acknowledge that it was hardly noticed. Many of us were so delighted with the idea of giving a preference to England that for the moment we were carried away largely by sentiment, and I must acknowledge feeling something of that sentiment myself; "for it was the first time that we had any indication from hon. gentlemen opposite that their inclinations did not run with that of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, who would rather be allied commercially with the country to the south of us. Instead of hon. gentlemen opposite being sick of the national policy, I can assure them that the people who are sick in this country at the present time are the manufacturers-not in one line alone, but in manv lines. Take the manufacturers of woollens, one of the largest industries in this country, having millions of dollars invested in plant, machinery and buildings, having educated thousands. I might sav hundreds of thousands, of the most 'respectable mechanics in this country, and having given employment to large numbers of people, women ns well as men. In injuring a large woollen mill in a town, you may say you

are only injuring that woollen mill, and you may care very little for it, but remember, you are injuring every other industry in that town and in the surrounding country. There is a great deal of talk about getting new markets ; but my experience in a business career of fifty years in this country is, that the best market is the market nearest to your door. At the present time we have deputations coming here in regard to clearing a passage down the St. Lawrence, and getting rid of the high rates for freight and insurance. All these things have to be paid for by the farmers of this country, and the way to avoid them is to avoid these enormous imports which the Finance Minister is priding himself on. I was very much surprised when the hon. minister declared plainly and simply, but very strongly, that there would be no change in the tariff. I almost fancied that I detected a smile of gratification on his face at being able to strike back at the manufacturers of this country. What object has the hon. gentleman in striking at any of these great industries ? The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright)-I am sorry he is not here-is well aware that, by the votes and influence of the manufacturers of this country, his party were kept in the cold shades of opposition for nearly twenty years, and they cannot forget it.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER.

Is it cold over there'.'

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Rees Brock

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BROCK.

Yes, you found it very cold This House knows very well that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has felt very sore at the action of the manufacturers of this country. We have his own express words, and he cannot get rid of them, that he would get back at the manufacturers, that he would do away with every vestige of protection. Is that not getting back at the manufacturers of this country ? The right hon. Prime Minister, in his address the other day, spoke of the manufacturers who were invading this House and this city as tariff tinkers. Well, Sir. I contend that this country should be governed on business principles ; and if it becomes necessary to deal with the tariff in the interest of the country, the tariff should be tinkered with. When gentlemen representing millions of capital and hundreds of thousands of people, come here and explain to the Minister of Finance how their industries are being injured, and when he has letters from the leading bankers of the country supporting their cause, the hon. minister passes them all by with a wave of his hand and sends them back home. I can assure this House that there is a very critical state of affairs in the manufacturing industries of this country. You know what credit means : you know that it requires money to carry on almost any business : and there is no class of business people who require more capital

than the manufacturers of woollen, cotton and other goods.

Once the banks and the financial institutions lose confidence in them, these industries are injured to a greater extent than can be repaired by any tinkering with our tariff. There is surely some way out of the difficulty, hon. gentlemen will say, for I think even the Finance Minister will acknowledge that there is a difficulty. I think these hon. gentlemen have acknowledged that there is at any rate some measure of injustice, and I suppose they would ask a practical man what is the way out of the difficulty. There are several ways out of it. The worst way is to shut up the factories, but it is far better to have a factory shut than to run it at a loss. Another way would be to run the factories on half time, but everybody knows what it means to run on half time a factory fully equipped with machinery. If we cannot compete with the manufacturers of Yorkshire now, we could not compete with them if we adopt that course. There is another way and that is the one which will have to be taken. To begin with, we will have to reduce the wages of every employee, at any rate one-third. There is no escape from that. I have been in communication with some of the keenest manufacturers, some of whom, I am sorry to say, have been, for the last eighteen years, strong supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not know exactly where their political sympathies may be now, but when asked why they supported this government, they replied that it was because the party opposite promised them a market of 70,000,000 people. It was because they were promised unrestricted reciprocity. Support us, said these hon. gentlemen opposite, and you need not care so much for your Canadian market, as we will open to you a market of 70,000,000 people. Therefore many honest Reformers supported the government on this consideration. But I was saying that we will have to reduce the wages of our workingmen, and that is something which a really first-class workingman will not put up with. Botchers may, but first-class workers will not allow their wages to be reduced, and will go to the neighbouring republic, which enjoys the highest protection in the world, and holds out the largest ipducements to workingmen. And I say that this government, in adopting the brutal measure they have, are driving these men out of the country, ruining thousands of manufacturers, and bringing desolation to many homes. I want you to understand, Sir, that in all the factory centres of the country, the leading men have their cottages and houses quite close to the factories. Take the town of Waterloo, there the workingmen have their houses in the town, some partly and some altogether paid for, and they are thus tied to the locality. These men will have to suffer considerably if forced to sell their

property, because in most cases these properties will be absolutely unsaleable. You know what a closed factory means. Take one of these factories that is mortgaged to the extent of one-half its value, should that factory be closed the mortgagee could not realize the amount of his hypothec if he were to sell it.

No one who knows me for the last quarter of a century will say that I am inclined to be pessimistic. My ambition has always been to hold up the best interests of Canada. In all my business I have endeavoured to assent the Interests of Canada in preference to those of any other country, and it is very poor encouragement to those who are trying to build up our manufacturing interests to find the government adopting a policy calculated to nullify all their efforts. What we are trying to do is to make Canada, not a cheap, but a good country to live in. Before 1896, hon. gentlemen on the other side preached the doctrine in every corner of the land that the duty of the government was to make this a cheap country to live in. Well, Mr. Speaker, prosperous countries are not cheap countries to live in. Just as soon as Germany became prosperous, living in it became more expensive, but you could not induce any German to go back to twenty-five years ago when that country was a cheap one to Live in.

I -cannot understand how any one representing a manufacturing constituency, or in fact auy constituency, can justify himself in giving his support to the gentlemen on the other side, if h-e is really a Canadian at heart. The preference which the right hon. leader of this House has given to England in the markets of this country is no preference to Great Britain or the British Empire-it is no Imperial preference at all. As my hon. friend from East York has pointed out, are we not a part of the empire. Why, then, should we give the manufacturers in Yorkshire an advantage over the manufacturers in this country, and it is seriously to the detriment of manufacturers in this country that this preference is given. But it is not only a preference to the Yorkshire manufacturers. I know of cases where hundreds of pieces of goods have been brought into Yorkshire from Germany, partly manufactured. They were then run through a machine, weighted up a few ounces to the yard, finished and sent out to this country, and 75 per cent of the preference went to Germany. In many cases German manufacturers at present are sending many fancy goods to London, Eng., with a small machine -to do a little finishing, after which they are sent out to Canada as British manufactures. It is impossible to get at all the details of the ways in which this thing is being done, but the door is wide open for that sort of practice. I know of one case where a large quantity of granite supposed to have come from Aberdeen, really came from Norway, and was then Mr. BROCK.

sent to Aberdeen, where a little work was done on it, after which it was exported to this country to the detriment of the granite industry of New Brunswick and the eastern townships of the province of Quebec. That is another industry which is being injured, and in which the establishments in many cases will have to be closed and a number of workingmen discharged. And all this is due to this preference for which hon. gentlemen opposite take so much credit.

These hon. gentlemen throw across the House the rather cheva-p question : Why do you not move a vote of want of confidence? Why do you not move to cancel the preference ? Well, if my individual opinion is asked, I would assuredly, inasmuch- as I think it is an injury, consider It my duty to do away with it. You will not get any cheap popularity through Ontario by preaching that you are giving a great preference to England. In Ontario, the people who read and who have made what money they have by hard work and industry, will understand the pettiness of that pretended preference.

The difference, to my mind, between the two sides of this House-for there are really but two panties in this country, and I think everybody who wants to have any influence should belong to either one or the other-the difference seems to be that the Liberal members of this House say that our tariff at present is only a revenue tariff. The Finance Minister knows that that is not the case. If it be only a revenue tariff, why raise millions of revenue over your expenditure ? If these hon. gentlemen are free traders, why do they not practice free trade ? I know that they found great fault with the Conservative government some years ago for having given to every one in Canada a free breakfast table. You may call them free traders in that ; but the Conservative party had consideration for the people, for the manufacturer, for every industry in this country-most of all had they consideration for the farmers of this country. We hear a good deal of the differences of opinion amongst the lumbermen here, and I think that the Finance Minister has had his hands full arguing with all those different people who have come to see him and give him reasons why he should give them a preference tariff. I think the reason for the Finance Minister's position is that hon. gentlemen opposite, after years of inconsistency, are endeavouring now, if possible, at the expense of the manufacturers-as my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) says, making a scapegoat of the manufacturers-to cover themselves with a mantle of consistency. Exit it is too late ; they are too well known. When the history of the last ten or fifteen years comes to be written, and the people judge dispassionately between the parties, I would rather sit on this side of the House for twenty-five years than to

take the place of lion, gentlemen opposite with their record. I would not like to hand down to my successors a reputation for making promises in order to get into power and neglecting to carry them out after attaining power ; a reputation for having advocated any number of principles and discarded every one of them. I say here, as a business man, that these hon. gentlemen sit on the Treasury benches without one particle of principle, except that principle of opportunism, which is the meanest kind of principle.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking up the time of the House except to put before the House, as I have said, my views as a business man ; views, that, I believe, are entertained by many business men whose sympathies in other respects, are with hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. I believe that these hon. gentlemen are going to find a great deal of difficulty in explaining their opposition to the amendment resolutions now before the House, for many of them have supported these principles not only privately but publicly for the last twenty years. But we. know what politics are, we know the influence that is brought to bear when men come to this House. I can respect a man who comes here stating: I have been a supporter of the national policy as it was; I shall be a supporter of the national policy as it is. In taking that position, a man will have the respect of his own constituents, even if he has been elected as a Reformer.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Bernhard Heyd

Liberal

Mr. HEYD.

Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) allow me to ask him a question ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Charles Bernhard Heyd

Liberal

Mr. HEYD.

How would a preference in Britain on certain Canadian products lessen the competition that the manufacturers are now subjected to in consequence of the British preference ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Rees Brock

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BROCK.

Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) just consider the matter for a moment ? I have contended that the best market in any country, not only in Canada, a country, of immense extent, but even in a section of a country-is the market immediately at one's own doors. If we have fair competition to deal with, the Canadian manufacturers are not afraid of it. Put us on a level with the British manufacturers. The class of people they employ is different from ours, and the wages are about half what we pay. They have other great advantages. Take, for instance, the article of coal-they get coal more cheaply than we can get it, which is most important considering the great

quantity that a factory uses. and. owing to the coldness of our climate we require more than they do. The manufacturers in

Yorkshire-and any one who has lived there knows that I am stating the case accurate-59

ly- pays for his money very seldom more than 2i per cent-they get it at even less than the bank rate. I am happy to say that the paper of the merchants of this country is so good that the manufacturers can take it to London and have it discounted at one per cent below the market rate. Take the manufacturer here, particularly if he is hard up and wants the money, what will money cost him ? I suppose that the cheapest he can get it will be 8 per cent. If he does not want it very badly, I suppose he can get it a little cheaper. So, you will see that in advocating the case of the manufacturers I am doing it upon grounds of absolute justice apart from politics. And I do appeal to the Minister of Finance, who, according to the feeling throughout the country is himself the chief stumbling-block in the way. I do not know whether it is parliamentary to make an assertion of that kind, but that is the situation. The look on the hon. gentleman's face when he turned to this side of the House and said there would be no change in the duties, made me feel that he was the power in the cabinet that fought against the poor manufacturers. I would appeal to him to remember that they are Canadians and his fellow-countrymen, that he should represent them here and in every way endeavour to prevent injury coming to them. Even yet it may not be too late, even yet he may give us some measure of relief ; and I think I may appeal to him, not as from this side of the House, because the strongest appeal comes from hon. gentlemen on the other side-to forget his free trade theories for a time and practice a little of that protection which the leader of the opposition has put into these resolutions.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

William Ross

Liberal

Mr. WM. ROSS (South Ontario).

Mr. Speaker, I know that I have no apology to make for standing here, but I crave your consideration and the indulgence of hon. members while, for a few minutes, I discuss the questions which are so vital to the interests of us all. I am extremely sorry that I cannot agree with the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). We do agree on everything else but politics. I have the pleasure of buying his dry goods, and he sells good dry goods ; I have the pleasure of knowing him as a gentleman and a friend, and he is a good friend and a gentleman. But I must confess that I do not admire his politics, and in that we agree to disagree. When he says that this government have been faithless, that they have not kept their promises, that the party they represent is not worthy the consideration of this country, I disagree from him entirely. He tells about the Conservative party having the same old policy. It is the same old policy-and considering the wonderful development of the country for the last four years, that party is likely to

have the same old policy for many years to come. The hon. gentleman tells about the methods adopted in the last election in canvassing for votes in Ontario-that we went to the factories and promised that if the Liberal party was returned to power, there would be Increased protection, or something of that kind.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON
LIB

William Ross

Liberal

Mr. ROSS (Ontario).

Very well, I am glad to be corrected. During the election 1 went into several factories in my constituency. I had the pleasure of going through the largest carriage factory in Canada, and one of the largest in the world. I had the pleasure of being permitted to speak to those workingmen and to ask them for their votes, and I am sure the question of a tariff change never came up at all. I addressed those men in that town and talked upon the public questions of the day, and in doing so the question of preferential trade came up. I supported preferential trade with all my might and main, conscientiously believing that it has been a good thing for this country, and that what was good for the Reformers was good ror the Conservatives as well. Now, I know the hon. member for Centre Toronto is largely interested in manufactures. I know that he feels keenly upon this question, and I imagine that in his utterances with regard to it the instinct of self-preservation has, perhaps, come to the top. Are there no other classes in this country besides manufacturers ? Are there no farmers ? Are there no merchants ? Are there no labourers ? Are there no consumers in this country ? I say there are, and I mean to say that those classes of people need protection just as well as the manufacturers, and a great deal more. The member for Centre Toronto must have been thinking of his factories while he was advocating the principle of protection. I am sure he would be quite right looking at it from his view-point, but there are other view-points from which we may look at these matters.

He referred also to the presence of the Prime Minister at the Diamond Jubilee. We all know what took place there. We know that the first great advertisement that Canada ever received came from the visit of our premier to the Diamond Jubilee in London. We were proud of him. everybody was proud of him. The premier of Canada at that time stood foremost of all the foreign visitors at that jubilee-so we read in the newspapers. The hon. gentleman asked the question : Are gentlemen on the other side proud of the government and proud of their party ? 1 answer : We are proud of the government, we are proud of the party, and I propose shortly to give you some figures showing why we can stand up and face anybody, and say we are proud of our party, proud of our government, and proud Mr. ROSS (South Ontario).

of our policy. The preference, he says, means the displacement of a corresponding amount of goods in Canada. Now, that need not necessarily follow. It may follow to some extent, but not of necessity. He speaks of woollen goods. So far as I can understand, the objections to the tariff refer mainly to two or three items ; one is woollen goods, and the other is the item of oatmeal, and there are one or two other items in connection with the tariff which seem to be a little out of joint. Now, I do not think this whole country should be taxed in order that two or three trades should be benefited. That is not a fair policy to lay down. He says that If it becomes necessary to tinker the tariff it should be tinkered. We all know how the tariff was tinkered in days gone by. We know how, under the old policy of protection, manufacturers were here every session. Talk about railway promoters coming here ! I am told, and have read in the public journals, that scores and scores of manufacturers used to be down here every session asking the Finance Minister to tinker with the tariff. W'e know how uncertain the public was. One of the difficulties we had in buying goods was that we were never sure whether the duty was going on or off sugar, whether it was going on or off tea. whether it was going on or off tobacco, and all the leading staples. The tariff was not permanent. This constant tinkering is a menace to trade, and if by any means a staple tariff can be had in this country, it is an eminently desirable thing. The hon. gentleman says there is a critical state of affairs in the manufacturing interests of this country. Now, I do not understand it so. I have yet to learn that there is a general complaint by the manufacturers of this country. We have witnessed during the past four years probably the most wonderful development that any country has ever witnessed under similar circumstances. This development is still going on, we hope it will continue, and we expect it will continue for a long time.

The hon. member for Centre Toronto tells us that goods partially made in Germany are taken into England, and that 75 per cent of those goods are German and 25 per cent of thorn are English. Now, I think that is a matter that might be looked into. I understood the Finance Minister to say that the intention was to benefit British goods only. If it can be proved that these goods are coming in as the member for Centre Toronto says they are. that is a matter that ought to be inquired into, it is a matter in which we are all interested, it is a matter which I am sure should be attended to. I am sorry that the member for Centre Toronto takes such a gloomy view of affairs-ruined factories, towns ail cone, workingmen's families ruined, and all that sort of thing. I apprehend such a state of things may come, because we know that

there are cycles in commerce ancl industry, that good times are often followed by hard times. We know that these changes take place independently of tariffs, but let us remember the old adage : Never cross the bridge till you come to it. And I am prepared to-day to uphold the preferential tariff so far as we are yet acquainted with its results.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House about six weeks, and I have had the pleasure of sitting alongside of hon. members of the opposition. I have had the pleasure of making the personal acquaintance of most of them, and X assure you that they are a genial, fine lot of gentlemen. During these six weeks I have had occasion to admire the freedom which these hon. gentlemen enjoy. They put numberless questions, they are constantly rising in their seats and do most of the talking, and do not seem to have any trouble. None of their constituents are bothering them, and asking them to secure patronage-although I call this a trouble it may oftentimes be a pleasure. In fact, I was almost feeling a little jealous of their freedom from care. But, Mr. Speaker, from the day I heard the Finance Minister make his budget speech, when I realized the import of that budget, when I realized how this country had been going forward by leaps and bounds, I began to feel more satisfied, and even proud of my position. I was proud that the Finance Minister was able to make such a state-< rnent, I was proud of the government which could give such an account of their administration, I was proud of our party, and the result is that all the envy and jealousy has departed from me.

Mr. Speaker, X represent a county which has some manufactures, notwithstanding that the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) says that we have a summer resort. So we have, at Whitby. The county town of Whitby is beautifully situated, as the hon. member for East Simcoe knows well. We have a salubrious climate, an excellent position, a fine water coast, where some of the people from the neighbouring city of Toronto come down and build residences. Whitby is destined to be one of the greatest summer resorts on that whole coast.

I presume that I may speak for one of the towns in my native county, the same as the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) spoke for the town of Midland, the great gateway to the wonderful summer resort of this country. I have the honour of representing a county that has some important manufacturing industries, though it is largely of a rural character. The district which I represent is composed of four townships and three towns. One of these towns is the town in which I live, and there is fio better town in the world, and that is spying a great deal. Another is the one jyhjch I have just mentioned, a large summer re-594

sort, and destined to be a still greater summer resort. The third town is the town of Oshawa, which we call Little Birmingham. It is one of the finest and smartest towns between Toronto and Montreal. I say this honestly, not jokingly, and I mean exactly what I say. There are manufacturing industries in Oshawa of which we are justly proud. I have spoken of the McLaughlin works, which employ 300 men, which cover a floor space of four or five acres and which expect to manufacture this year 10,000 buggies. That does not look much like as if the country were going to ruin. We have the malleable iron works at Oshawa, owned by the Malleable Iron Company. This industry is as busy as it can be and employs between 400 and 500 men. We have, besides that, the knitting factory, which, at the time of the election, was running night and day, and which could not turn out the knitted goods fast enough. We have the agricultural implement factory, the manager of which is an old school-mate of mine. During last summer he told me that business had never been so good. We have the canning factory, which turns out goods of an excellent quality and which is a most successful industry. We have numerous other factories which are incidental to these large enterprises. I might go on and mention them all, but I have mentioned the ones which I have named to show that the town of Oshawa was prosperous at the time of the election, that it is prosperous at the present moment and I hope that this prosperity will continue for years to come. In my riding we have a large farming community, and I want to tell the House that South Ontario turns out the best Shorthorn Durkams in Canada. I want to tell hon. gentlemen that I am going to boast a little now about my native place. If I cannot boast about that it seems to me a strange thing. Last fall at the Fat Stock show at Guelph our county carried off a great many prizes and won the sweepstakes for fat animals. I represent my county, I speak for it, and in speaking for it I think I voice the sentiment of a majority of my constituents when I say that the British preference is all right. I must confess that there may be occasions when the tariff should be changed. The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) declared that he was a born protectionist. On the contrary, I was born a free trader ; I was reared a free trader, but I do not know that I am what you would call an out-and-out free trader myself. I have not departed from the principles of free trade, but, as I engage in the business of the country, I try to find out the necessities of the country and see what is best for the country, and, under the circumstances, I have come to the conclusion, that, if this tariff should be changed at all, it should be changed in the direction of lowering the duties. Now, the tax which each Individual

is bound to pay should be certain and it should not be arbitrary. A man should know exactly what he has to pay upon commodities which he consumes and these rates should run along for a series of years, it may be for three, four or five years. The tariff should be able to accommodate itself to the conditions as they exist. I do not mean by that altogether, a changing policy. That seems to be a contradiction, but, it seems to me, that, in looking at the tariff and in studying it, the English tariff is the ideal one. It is a certain tariff, continuing for several years, and it is only for revenue. A tariff should be productive and economical, and if these two considerations are kept in view, I think we would have an ideal tariff for the times in conjunction with the preferential tariff. I do not say that the preferential tariff is perfect. Far from it. In my1 own constituency my attention was called lately to one matter which seems to indicate that there is something wrong about it, but I think that can be arranged by the readjustment of the duties on the raw material and the finished product. A rearrangement of that kind might be very well effected, the country would derive a revenue and there would be some permanence and stability about the tariff. Now, it is claimed that the preference is one-sided and unjust. I think we can safely say that such is not the case. There are some complaints which have been mentioned, amongst them that of the woollen men which was brought to our attention by the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). I do not propose to prolong my speech, this being my first one in the House, but, I would like to call attention to the imports into this country, especially to the imports from Great Britain. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) referred to the imports from Great Britain. He said :

In view of the discussions which have occasionally taken place in the House with regard to the increase of imports from Great Britain for home consumption, I have placed together the figures for a series of years :

1895 $31,131,737

1896 32,979,742

1897 29,412,188

1898 32,500,917

1899 37,060,123

1900 44,789,730

There is no doubt that there has been a large increase in our trade with the old country under the preferential tariff, which, I think, is a desirable thing. Hon. members will say that it is all very well to bring articles into the country and to displace goods which are produced in the country, but, I say, that,, if there is any country under -the ysum with which we should trade, that country is Great Britain, Great. Britain; which? has fostered our trade, which has cared for; us, and does care for us now. which' cop- [DOT] tributes to our safety ibjr her navy and her) Mr. ROSS (South Ontario).

armies. We should be grateful to her and if in any way we can bind ourselves to her we should do so.

Now, take the question of exports from this country. A striking feature of the development of Canadian commerce is the growth of our export trade. The bearing of the tariff of 1897 upon the general promotion of trade has been in great measure for the common good. Let us look at some of the figures. In 1896 we exported products of the mines to the value of $8,059,050, and in 1900 to the value of $24,580,286, showing a total increase of $16,520,016. There are two very important items which contributed to that increase. The first important item is that of coal. In 1896 we exported $3,249,069 worth of coal, and in 1900, $4,599,002 worth, showing an increase in four years of $1,350,533.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink

March 21, 1901