Th$ hon. member for Victoria says that Ontario butter is forced on the market of Nova Scotia. Well, if so, they get a good article. Such a cry is a sectional one, unworthy of any member of this parliament. We are one people in Canada. Prom the Atlantic to the Pacific we form one people of Canadians, the products of one province are sold in another, and it is a very small and antiquated cry to pretend that the goods of one province are being slaughtered in the markets of another.
I want to say another word with respect to this fruit question. I do not know if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) is in his seat, but let me tell the House that we are able to produce good fruit in Prince Edward Island. We have in that province facilities for growing good apples, pears and small fruits of all kinds. Some years ago an association was formed, composed of men holding different views on politics, called the Fruit Growers' Association of Prince Edward Island. This association was formed particularly to promote the apple industry, and those gentlemen were enabled to send to the markets of Great Britain apples that not only commanded the highest price, but were recommended by the English fruit dealers as very choice fruit. It was supposed that this government, in which the Island is represented by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies), would do something for the promotion of that great industry in that province. It was asked to send down there some one who thoroughly understood
the industry of horticulture, and who would instruct the people in pruning and grafting. It did send a man, concerning whom I asked a question the oilier day. I asked the Minister of Agriculture :
1. Who recommended a Mr. Kinsman as a scientific horticulturist to work in Prince Edward Island during the summer of 1899?
2. What amount did his mission cost?
3. Was the minister satisfied with the result of his work?
The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) replied :
1. Mr. Kinsman was recommended by gentlemen whose acquaintance with him .was sufficient to justify their recommendation and in whose judgment I have confidence.
2. His work cost $563.43 for expenses and $304 for salary.
3. The report which he gave of his work was
You will notice, Sir, that the expenses are very large in proportion to the salary, and you will notice also that this was a very evasive reply. The minister did not say that he was pleased with the work done by Mr. Kinsman, but that Mr. Kinsman's report was satisfactory. Evidently any report Mr. Kinsman might write out would be satisfactory to the hon. gentleman. But in the annual report of the Fruit Growers' Association of Prince Edward Island for 1899, what do we find ? This Mr. Kinsman, who was a camp follower of the Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Mr. Borden), for whom that hon. minister wanted to get a job at the expense of the people, was sent by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to his friend the leader of the government in Prince Edward Island ; instead of sending him to the president and the directors of the Fruit Growers' Association, the hon. minister sent him down to Mr. Farquhar-1 son, the leader of the government, intend! ing thereby to advance not only his own political interests but those of Mr. Far-quharson. Well, what did the Fruit Growers' Association say. They said :
Mr. Kinsman went over the stations several times, without eliciting any interest anywhere. And this was not remarkable; for, on his own admission, he knew little or nothing about grafting and very little about pruning. As might he expected, no enthusiasm at all was aroused in the work, the most important needs, those of pruning and grafting, being entirely abandoned; and the mission which should have benefited the province so considerably, was thus quickly turned into absolute failure by political contact.
I want the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to mark this :
Representing all shades of politics in private life we deprecate as strongly as words can express the mixing up of politics with horticulture in even the remotest degree. As an association the F. CJ. A. knows no party, its aims being wholly and solely to advance the interests of horticulture for this whole province, without regard to any outside concern.
The failure of Mr. Kinsman's mission can therefore in no wise be put upon this association. The F. G. A. could, without doubt, had it been permitted, have turned it to some good account for horticulture, and thus have saved the large amount of money thrown away-money so very much needed for the fostering of horticultural interests in the province.
We feel, however, that at least one>
good end has been served by this complete failure;-politics and politicians can make no capital out of an invasion of the proper rights of agricultural associations.
A large amount of money was thus thrown away which might well have been spent to some good purpose. We can grow fruit in Prince Edward Island just as well as they can in the far-famed Annapolis Valley. All our people require is some instruction with regard to grafting and pruning, but instead of sending a competent man, tbe government send down a camp follower of tbe Minister of Militia to assist in promoting tbe political interests of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and those of his friend Mr. Farquharson.
I desire to turn for a moment to the budget speech made a few days ago. Tbe bon. the Minister of Finance found bis lines cast in very pleasant places, and as he was reading over the yearly surpluses, I could see the Minister of Trade and Commerce turning green with envy. For that hon. gentleman could not but remember that when he was Finance Minister he had no surplus to boast of, although be had increased tbe taxes, and was obliged to tell tbe people that be saw no means of increasing the revenue except by direct taxation. The prosperous condition of the country can, however, be easily accounted for. It is due no doubt to the fact that this government have retained tbe national policy. But the hon. gentleman made-I do not know whether wittingly or not-this statement:
When I remind this House that the increase in the whole eighteen years of the national policy was only $66,000,000, and when I show that in one year only of the present administration the increase was over $59,000,000, and' nearly $60,000,000, hon. gentlemen will be able to measure the vast progress that has been made in tbe trade of the country.
That is an unfair comparison. As my bon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. Ross) said the other evening, we have cycles of depression and cycles of prosperity. If hon. gentlemen opposite had looked up the public accounts during the last fifteen years, they would have seen that there have been as great increases in the trade of the country as during the last few years. I find that the total trade of the country in 1873 amounted to $217,104,516. In 1870, it had declined, under the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite, the Finance Minister of that administration being at present hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), from $217,000,000 to $151,000,-Mr. HACKETT.
000. Would hon. gentlemen opposite say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was responsible for that, because he was Finance Minister at the time ? Then it was that the people of the country, feeling that something should be done to restore confidence and to place the business of the country on a sound footing decided, in 1878, to inaugurate the national policy as proposed by Sir John A. Macdonald. Under the national policy, we find that from 1879 to 1882, the trade of the country increased to $224,000,000, an increase of over $70,000,000 during those years. Hon. gentlemen opposite may say that this was owing to the great prosperity of the country, but it was owing also to the national policy stimulating tlie interests of the country, restoring confidence and re-establishing in the minds of our people the belief that we could build up a great nation on this northern half of the North American continent. After that, we had a period of depression. From 1882 to 1S86, trade fell from $221,000,000 to $189,000,000. About 1893, we had a period of prosperity, and our trade rose to $241,000,000. All this shows that we have these cycles, these periods of prosperity and periods of depression. The hon. gentleman who says that under this government the trade increased by $60,00Q,000 owing to.the action of this government is speaking in a manner which is far from justifiable for one addressing an intelligent body of gentlemen such as we have in this House. Why do we have this prosperity ? We have here a great heritage won by the energy of our fathers, and, through the statesmanship of Sir John A. Macdonald, assisted by able lieutenants, means have been afforded for tlie development of our resources. These men built the Canadian Pacific Railway, they built the Intercolonial Railway, they built the Sault Ste. Marie canal, they improved the St. Lawrence canals, and thus and in other ways afforded the people of this great country means to transact their business and enabled us to stand on a par with our neighbours to the south of us. And hon. gentlemen opposite, coming into power, found these great public works completed and all this accommodation provided; and now they find it an easy thing to claim credit for the prosperity which has come to us. I challenge any hon. gentleman on the. other side to show where they ever obtained a market for the people for the sale of a pound of bacon, a pound of butter, or a bushel of wheat, oats or peas. The prosperity of the country is not due to the government but is due to the policy and administration of their predecessors, coupled with the energy and industry of the Canadian people.
Turning from that for a moment, we find that this government, like some other people, use prosperity as an excuse for extravagance. Last year this government collected $51,029,994 of revenue, against
2065 MARCH 26,1901 2066
$36,618,590 in 1S96, an increase of $14,411,404. And they boast a surplus of $8,000,000. Having this great amount of money at their disposal, what are they doing to reduce the burdens of the people ? The hon. member from King's (Mr. Hughes) last night echoed the Finance Minister, who said that they had reduced the taxes of the people by $2,000,000. The Minister of Finance philosophizing on that subject, but speaking without facts and figures, said that if you apply the old tariff to the present imports, the people would have paid $2,000,000 more than they did. But there are no facts to substantiate this statement, nor is there any fair comparison. But we find, looking at the blue-book compiled under the supervision of the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson)-that is where you find the plain statement of the taxes per head paid by the people. According to that table, we find it plainly stated that the amount of customs duties per head of population in 1896 was $3.94, while the amount collected in 1900 was $5.37-an increase of $1.43. Assuming that each family contains live people-and that is only a moderate family in this country-you will find that the taxes of the average family has increased between $7 and $8 under the. present government. No hon. gentleman can deny it, for there are the figures plainly set forth in the book compiled by themselves. They boast of their surplus, but that surplus they have taken from the pockets of the people. They are taking money from the man who toils from morning till night for his family, in order that they may spend it in extravagance. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) will remember that, in the province of Prince Edward Island before this government came into power he used to talk to the people a great deal about the taxes on cottons and to declare that we were building uj>
monopolies and enriching great cotton lords, and that out of the pockets of the people of that province came much of the money for these wealthy men. But when the hon. gentleman came into power did he reduce the taxation ? I find that the duties paid last year on cotton goods amounted to $1,665,293.38. The people whom the hon. gentleman represents, mostly farmers and fishermen, had to pay a large proportion of those duties. There are no manufacturers of those goods they have to be imported from Great Britain and the United States, or from the older provinces of Canada where those manufactures are established. But, the hon. gentleman has done nothing to relieve the people of that tax. He has increased the tax on brown cotton used mostly by workingmen from 30 per cent to 35 per cent; he has increased the tax on printed cotton from 30 per cent to 35 per cent; he has increased the tax on other grades of those goods by 24 per cent. He has done this for the purpose, as the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) said, of keeping alive the cotton mills of Valleyfield, to protect them to such an extent that they will not have to shut up. Hon. gentlemen opposite speak of a revenue tariff. Where does a revenue tariff come in in respect of these goods ? Have they any desire, as they pretend, to reduce the taxes ? We remember that when Sir Leonard Tilley and the Hon. Geo. E. Foster had surpluses, as these gentlemen now boast of, they commenced to reduce the taxes of the people; they did not take from them millions of money that were not required for carrying on the public service. We were told in those days that a surplus was a very bad thing, that it was wrong, that it showed inefficiency, incompetence, inability on the part of the Finance Minister when he took from the people more money than was required to carry on the affairs of the country. Yet the hon. gentleman boasts of a surplus of $8,000,000. Not one thing has been done to reduce the taxation of the people in connection with cotton goods. I do not know whether my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) is in his seat or not, I believe he is. He spoke to us the other evening about what a great thing it was to have a preferential tariff in favour of silks coming into this country. I presume that hon. gentleman is not a benedict, I take it for granted that he is a married man, because he says there is no greater present you can take home to your wife than a silk dress; therefore, you should be able to buy it cheaply. The hon. gentleman is a man of wealth, I believe he is possessed of considerable means, and there is no doubt that his wife is the possessor of many fine silk dresses. While I approve of his sentiment, while it is quite right for him to buy a silk dress for his wife if he can afford it, what will the poor workingman do who has to pay an increased tax of 5 per cent on the printed cotton that is required to clothe his wife and daughters 1 Sir, the hon. gentleman may be right, let him buy silk dresses for his wife; but let me remind him that the labouring man, the farmer, when he wants to buy a piece of cotton to make a dress for his wife, has to pay an increased tax of 5 per cent; and if he wants to buy a piece of shirting for his sons he is unable to do so without paying this increased tax; and very 'often these men have all or more than they can do to provide their families with food and fuel. Then the hon. gentleman went on to talk about coal oil. When hon. gentlemen opposite were on this side of the House they dwelt at great length on the enormity of the tax on coal oil. They said : Coal oil is used by the workingmen, and you have taxed it 5 cents a gallon for purely protective purposes. Put us in power and we will repeal that tax. Now, Mr. Speaker,
what have they done ? The hou. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), speaking on this subject the other evening, said that the duty on coal oil in 1896 was 7 cents a gallon, and they reduced it to 5 cents. Now that hon. gentleman, with his means of information, ought to have known that he was making a mistake; it was 6 cents a gallon instead of 7 cents. This reminds me of a story that I heard told about two men who went out shooting. When they came back they were giving an account of their afternoon's sport, and one man said he had shot ninety-nine snipe. The other man said : ' Why didn't you say one hundred and make it an even number ? ' ' Why,' replied the other, ' 1
did not want to tell a lie for one snipe.' But the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce is not so conscientious. He was willing to do the trick for one cent. He said the duty iu 1S96 was 7 cents a gallon, when the fact is that it was only 6 cents a gallon. The present government reduced that duty 1 cent a gallon, and iu doing so, they allowed privileges to the Standard Oil Company, that octopus that is not only bleeding the people of Canada, but has its fangs in the throat of the people of the United States, and is sucking their blood. The government allowed that company the privilege of bringing their oil into this country in tank ships, and as a consequence the Canadian industry became of no importance, and it passed into the hands of Rockefeller and his associates. Whether the duty is 5 cents a gallon or 10 cents, the government have put the Canadian people into the clutches of that monopoly, and the Rockefellers are taking out of this country, through the connivance of the present government, over $2,000,000 a year of the hard earned money of our people.
Now, I want to turn to another question, one that seriously affects the people of Canada. What I am about to say I shall say in all sincerity, because I represent a people who are not a manufacturing people, who have to depend on their farms and on the products of the waters for their living. Those people are great consumers of tobacco. We know that when the workingman comes home at night there is nothing gives him so much pleasure .as to take down his pipe and sit with his family at the fireside and have a smoke. But what have these gentlemen done ? I find that the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) put this question to the government :
1. What was the total amount of duty collected on tobacco for the year ended June 30, 1900?
2. How much of this amount was due to the additional duty imposed In the session of 1897?