March 26, 1901

?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

Then I have done the hon. gentleman unintentionally an injustice, for I did not suppose, judging by the policy of lying low which he had advocated, that he could have been present when the policy of his party was being crystallized into a resolution.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

James Joseph Hughes

Liberal

Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria).

Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Customs, as usual, was absent.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

I think that the Minister of Customs is generally found in his seat. If then there is a differ-lence on the other side with regard to the policy to be followed by the opposition, how can these hon. gentlemen expect that on this side of the House we should be perfectly agreed concerning every individual item in the tariff. Surely, it is not to be expected that any political party can be one in opinion on every one of the three hundred or four hundred dutiable articles in the tariff. Nor can it be expected from hon. gentlemen on the other side. I have not the slightest doubt that some gentlemen on that side believe that the duty on kerosene should be removed, that others think it should only be reduced, and that still others are opposed to any reduction, but believe, being true protectionists at heart, in making the duty high enough to enable the article to be produced in this country. Mr. Speaker, we have to act on general principles, and when these gentlemen ask what is our policy they ought to know it. It is the same policy which has prevailed during the past three years-the same policy which was in operation when parliament last dissolved and we went to the country.

What is the policy they offer ? We were told that the amendment declared it, and that thus declared it was to be accepted.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

William Paterson (Minister of Customs)

Liberal

Mr. PATERSON.

When it was offered, it was interpreted by the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite to be the same old policy that was adopted in 1876-twenty-five years ago. Here is a party, in this progressive country, this country that is going forward by leaps and bounds, that finds the height of its ambition, finds its course for the future in a policy that was adopted twenty-five years ago, but was since discarded and cast out by the people. I am glad they brought it forward. During the last election contest, I was on many platforms. The ablest financial exponent on the opposition side, Hon. George E. Foster declared their policy to be what the hon. gentlemen have formulated in the first part of their resolution-a reversion to the old policy- the national policy, and the old condition of things that existed in 1878. He gloried in the position. To illustrate it he told a story -he told it on platform after platform- about how the Conservative wigwam stood where it had always stood ; the same winds sighed around it, and the same tunes were played in it as long ago ; and he declared in the fulness of his heart, that he had come out into the country to take the Liberals who, he said, had been deserted by those who formulated the Liberal policy, to take them by the hand and lead them into the old Tory wigwam that had never changed. For my part, I asked every Liberal in this country who, for any cause, felt dissatisfied with his party and its conduct in the past, if he wished to march back into the old Tory wigwam of 1878. No. The Liberal party have moved forward, and the country has moved forward with them. Let these gentlemen who wish to go into their old wigwam go back twenty-five years and dwell there. This country will not go with them, nor will this government or party. Our motto is ' Onward.' Progress is what is wanted in this country. The hon. gentleman taunts us because we on this side of the House do not agree. He longs to see his party in power, that there may be unanimity of sentiment in tne government. We have had some indications of the harmony that prevails, so far as views of public questions are concerned, among hon. gentlemen opposite in their speeches. Their chief financial critic, whose task it was to reply to the Finance Minister, and whose words, therefore, are considered as carrying great weight, made part of his utterance on that occasion-and words spoken on such an occasion are likely to be spoken with care-to the effect that the policy of the party opposite was, that these bonuses to railway lines should cease. But, we have heard from one or two hon. gentlemen opposite-yes, and from more-a most excited declaration, that it was this government's bounden duty to go on bonusing railways- especially in the province of Nova Scotia, said one hon. gentleman from that province. Here is harmony. Where are they in re-

ference to this question ? Where are they in reference to the preferential tariff ? Are they not at sixes and sevens in this respect ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink
CON

George Taylor (Chief Opposition Whip; Whip of the Conservative Party (1867-1942))

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR.

No.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

The hon. gentleman cannot have heard the speech of the leader of the opposition, when he declared he was not prepared to declare for the repeal of the preference, that it was an ungracious thing to do, and Conservatives were not hound to do so. Yet the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) declared that he is in favour of repealing it. And I take it that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) who has just addressed the House, and whose policy is to lie low, comes sufficiently out of his cover to indicate, especially by the sentences in which he speaks of our losing $2,000,000 through the preference, that he is prepared to do away with the preferential tariff. But, they have not the courage to declare themselves. They do not take a stand which is worthy of a great Canadian party, that as a party they are in favour of the repeal of the preference. They ask what our policy is. Our policy is a revenue tariff policy, and coupled with that is a preference to Great Britain. And where do they stand in reference to these matters ? They dare not tell us. And, that being the case, they might well be excused from taunting members on this side of the House because on every little item of the tariff they do not happen to hold views absolutely alike. Let us contrast the two policies. We are happily in a position where we can institute comparisons. For eighteen years we had their policy, this policy they have laid down as a policy for the future. And we know its results. And you have had the policy of the Liberal party, as plainly declared, and as maintained in practice under this government, a policy of a revenue tariff, with a preference for Great Britain. You have had that policy for four years, and the people and parliament of Canada are in excellent position to say which policy they should choose. What have been the results of our policy ? The foreign trade of the country in four years increased $140,000,000. That is, our foreign trade increased in these four years by $30,000,000 more than it increased in all the years from confederation down to 1890. Last year alone, the increase in the foreign trade was within a few millions of being as great as in the whole eighteen years of their policy. In these whole eighteen years the trade only increased $60,000,000, while in one year, last year, it increased by $59.000.000. The exports of Canadian products, from 1898 to 1900, exceeded the exports for the previous four years by $155,000,000. The exports of the produce of the farm, from 1896 to 1900, exceeded the exports for the previous four years by $83,000,000. And these hon. gentlemen opposite wish to tui'n back the hand upon the dial of time, to go

back to a policy that was tried for eighteen years, and the result of which was almost complete stagnation in this country, and ask the people of this country to approve that policy. One hon. gentleman asked me, what had the government to do with all this. I reply that the Liberal party have never claimed, nor have the government in any way claimed, that this government was entitled to the credit. These hon. gentlemen say : You may thank Providence for that, and not the government.

Humbly and reverently we recognize the hand of Providence in our national affairs and in blessing this country as it has blessed it among the nations of the earth, and we ask not that credit shall be given to us for the benefits conferred upon us by Providence. But I ask the gentleman who interrupted me by saying, What have you to do with that?-I ask if, during the eighteen years when they bore rule in this country, they were all years of stringency and of famine ? Was that the result of Tory rule in this country for eighteen years ? Will you take that position ? Did not Providence smile on this land ? You j know it smiled upon it under Conservative rule as it does under Liberal rule. Did not I the sun shine and the rain fall then just as it does under the present administration ? What, then, makes the difference ?

1 Surely the conclusion is inevitable that the men and the party who are controlling affairs now know better how to use the blessings that Providence confers upon this country, and in a manner better fitted to the interests of this country. That is what i we claim for the government, we claim nothing more. What means this great increase of exports of farm produce ? The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) gave 1 us one of the reasons, namely, that under this progressive government steps have been taken for filling up the North-west Territories. During the four years the Liberals have been in power that country has been filling up to a greater extent than during the eighteen years the Conservatives were in power. And you are finding the benefits. Mining regulations, liberal in their nature, facilities given for developing that portion of the wealth of this country, the Minister of Agriculture coming to this House and boldly asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars to perfect a cold storage system by which the products of this country are carried to the old country and there marketed at higher prices than they were under hon. gentlemen-these things account in part for it. and all other measures that have been taken by a government and a party alive to the interests of this country have contributed to these results. The member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), in the course of his speech, said :

While a great deal of time is taken up both in the House and in the country discussing the

extent of our foreign trade, little or nothing is said with regard to our interprovincial trade, and I think the Minister of Finance might very well have dealt with that feature of our commerce in his budget speech. I speak of our interprovincial trade which moves from east to west and vice versa, which our railways and transportation companies are designed to accommodate, and which is the chief reason for the existence of our manufacturing industries. That interprovincial trade has been built up enormously within the last twenty-five years, and in connection with it I would quote to the House an extract from a speech delivered by the Hon. George Brown.

And lie quoted from a speech of the Hon. George Brown, remarking upon the great increase In iaterpro vinci al trade after confederation, and laying down the rule that where you have a large interprovincial trade you have a large export trade. The hon. member for Bast Toronto, whom X recognize as an authority on commercial matters, commented upon it in this way :

The Hon. George Brown in these words refers to the importance of our interprovincial traffic, and he also indicates that when we have prosperous interprovincial traffic we have also large exports and imports. This much we may be sure of, namely, that if we are prosperous within ourselves, we will also be prosperous in our trade to and from foreign countries.

That is the sentiment of the hon. member for East Toronto. Now I am going to reason backwards, and by a parity of reasoning. He says when you have good trade at home, interprovincial trade and domestic trade flourishing, you will have large exports and imports, you will have a large foreign trade. We have not the means of measuring our home and domestic trade, the advances it has made. But I apply the test the member for East Toronto gave us himself to ascertain how we are in that respect, and when I say that there has been an increase in foreign trade of .$140,000,000 in four years, the logical conclusion follows, according to that hon. gentleman's reasoning, that if an enormous increase took place in our foreign trade, how great must have been the increase that took place in our domestic trade. Now, I put this argument to that hon. gentleman, who is recognized as an authority on commercial matters. Reasoning backwards, I think every one will admit that what I have said bears out the conclusion that I have arrived at, that instead of the industries of this country being languishing and dying, while this foreign trade was going on by leaps and bounds as shown in the figures I have given you, the factories and machine shops throughout the towns and cities of this Dominion were working many of them long through the hours of the night, with double staffs in order to keep up with the orders that were lying upon their desks ; and I am gazing into the countenance of a member of the oppo-

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

William Paterson (Minister of Customs)

Liberal

Mr. PATERSON.

sition who knows that what I am saying is true, as they do all.

The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), whom it is always a pleasure to hear, who lays down propositions with great force, said that he could not find out exactly where we stood on the tariff question, because, he said, some of the members declared that we had a protective tariff, others declared that it was a free trade tariff, and he was at a loss to describe what kind of a tariff it was. Some hon. gentlemen on the other side declare that we have kept their old national policy, and that it has given the prosperity we enjoy to-day. Others tell us that we have destroyed that tariff, and that we are ruining the industries of the country ; and so the hon, member for East York, listening to the utterances of those around him, became bewildered and unable to decide what our policy was. He told this House what statesmanship was :

Now, in what does statesmanship consist? X wish to direct the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to this matter.

He was directing attention to this side of the House.

Statesmanship consists in compromising in some way antagonistic principles. There is a principle of free trade, and there is a principle of protection, and each is advocated by certain doctrinaires. But the statesman finds some way of compromising these principles and of doing something for his country by that compromise.

And I expected him to add : When some of my friends tell me that this is a protective tariff the Liberals have, and others tell me it is a free trade tariff, I am forced to the conclusion that it is one of those happy compromises that may be described as statesmanship. Our friends opposite say, when you quote the figures of the exports : Well, that is very true,

there has been a great increase in the foreign commerce of Canada, but that is world-wide, it exists in the United States as well as in Canada. I admit that the United States is a mighty country, but when we institute comparisons between this land and the United States we institute a comparison with a country which, perhaps, taken all in all, has the greatest natural facilities and riches of any country in the world. But we do not shrink from the comparison. If you look up the figures you will find that the exports of domestic produce from the United States, exclusive of coin and bullion, increased last year over the previous year by 14 per cent. Similar exports from Canada increased at the rate of 23 per cent. That is comparing Canada with the United States greatly to [DOT]the advantage of Canada. The grand aggregate trade of the United States for last year increased over the previous year by 13* percent. The same trade in Canada increased by 19 per cent. On the basis of a population of 76,000.000 the foreign trade of the United

States last year was $32 per head, while for Canada on the basis of a population of 6,000,000 it was $63 per head. The grand aggregate trade of Canada increased in 1900 oyer 1896 by 60 per cent, while that of the United States for the same period increased by only 2S per cent. So, I give that as an answer to hon. gentlemen opposite when they think that they can wipe away the effect and force of these figures by declaring that the United States have equally prospered. If the two countries were equal it would be a grand thing for us to be able to say, which we were not able to say, under hon. gentlemen opposite, but, when we have passed them as we have, then, I am glad that we have had pointed to us that country so that we might institute the comparison that we have done.

Now let us look at the preference tariff and ascertain whether it is any benefit to us. Mr. Clancy, or the hon. member for Bothwell-I beg his pardon, for I desire to speak with respect of him as he endeavours to discuss a question of this kind on its merits-in discussing this matter made a statement, which, unfortunately, in the way in which it is phrased in the ' Hansard,' leaves an impression that I am sure, the hon. gentleman does not wish it should leave at all. Speaking of the increased trade with Great Britain under the preference tariff, he proceeded by making a comparison of the increase of our foreign trade with different countries, testing it by percentages and making out that the percentage of increased trade with Great Britain was much less than the percentage of increase with other countries, showing, that, therefore, we had not done so very much in the way of increasing our trade with Great Britain. I might point out that percentages are valuable as means of comparison when circumstances are somewhat nearly similar, while at other times you may institute percentage comparisons that are absolutely misleading and are of no value at all. If the hon. gentleman will pardon me, I am forced to say that I consider this one of the cases in which the remark I last made will apply. He quotes the increase of our foreign trade with Belgium, Italy, Australia, Portugal, France, Germany, other countries not classified, Great Britain, United States, South America, Holland and Newfoundland. He says that our trade increased with these countries to the following extent :

Per cent.

Belgium 1,121

Italy 359

Australia 214

Portugal 176

France 136

Germany 126

Other countries not classified... 71

Great Britain 61

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink
?

United States ....

[DOT] 54

South America 43

Holland 34

Newfoundland 20

He comments upon that in the following words :

That shows conclusively that the sentiment in our favour, of which these hon. gentlemen are boasting

That is the sentiment in our favour as a result of the preferential tariff granted by Canada to Great Britain.

-has had such little effect that Great Britain, as a consumer of Canadian products, stands only eighth upon the list.

I am sure the hon. gentleman did not want the country to infer that in the consumption of goods exported by this country, Great Britain stood eighth on the list of all other countries. That would be too patent a mistake for any one to make. He says that the percentage-he does not say that, but I suppose that is what he means-is eighth on the list. What are the facts, and you cannot go into that question of percentages without seeing that they are utterly valueless.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink
CON

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

Are they not quite as apt and valuable as the percentages the hon. gentleman states himself in regard to the United States ? While the percentage is low in the United States, the hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that the quantity exported is vastly greater than the quantity exported from Canada.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

No, I think the hon. gentleman's point is not well taken, when there is the enormous trade that there is between Canada and Great Britain and the United States and Great Britain. While the aggregate trade of Canada is more nearly double per head of what it is in the United States, then, the percentage being applied, is a fair test and in fact it would be against Canada if it were anything, but when you take a case like this in which the hon. gentleman says that we increased our trade with Belgium by 1,121 per cent, and with Great Britain only 61 per cent, the comparison is utterly valueless, because the fact is that the total increase of trade with Belgium of 1,121 per cent was $764,387, while the increase of trade with Great Britain, with this less percentage, was $33,843,000. So, these figures are not to be used to establish the contention of hon. gentlemen opposite.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Nathaniel Clarke Wallace

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WALLACE.

Will the hon. Minister of Customs give us the figures of the increased imports from the United States and from Great Britain along with the percentages ? Just give us the figures of the increased trade with each country.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

I have not that with me, but the hon. gentleman will be able to get it.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Nathaniel Clarke Wallace

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WALLACE.

I think it would be opportune just now.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

I think the hon. gentleman will find that when he

gets these figures that the increase has been most satisfactory as far as Canada is concerned, and that they will bear out what 1 have said in relation to it. X have pointed out that these figures which have been quoted by the hon. member for Bothwell do not give a correct idea of the facts. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem now to be getting a little bolder in their attacks upon this preference. They will not say that they are in favour of repealing it. They fear the force of public opinion against them, but they seek to minimize the benefits that flow to us from it. An hon. gentleman the other night, while making a long speech, enumerated a great many articles in regard to which he said the preference was of no use to us at all, that we got no benefit from it, that there was no advantage even on goods coming from Great Britain, because the duties in some cases were made higher than they had been before in the general tariff and that, therefore, any benefit there was had been neutralized. In illustrating that a personal allusion was made to the Minister of Customs. I do not allude to it for that reason, because an insinuation cast out against any hon. gentlemen in this House is something that can be accomplished by anybody whose tastes run in that direction, and who are not too careful as to whether the statements they make are accurate or not. I simply use it for the purposes of illustration. That hon. gentleman said :

Let us take the item ol biscuits, $19,781. The duty was raised by 2J per cent. I do not know whether it was done in the interest of the Minister of Customs, who has a large biscuit manufactory in Brantford, but certainly in that respect we do not get any benefit from the preferential tariff.

1 leave the personal matter alone, but I use this as an illustration of inaccurate statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite. He says that we raised the duty on biscuits- he apparently means sweetened biscuits-to 274 per cent under the general tariff, adding 21 per cent to the duty which he says was done in my interests. If he will get an hon. gentleman who sits near him to figure it out for him, and it is a very simple problem, if he will take the total amount of duty paid on sweetened biscuits last year and divide it by the value that was entered, he will find the duty actually paid on these sweetened biscuits was 254 per cent, instead of 274 per cent, as it was under the old tariff of the national policy. There was

2 per cent less actual duty paid than there would have been paid under the old tariff in force.

But the point I want to make is : that it was not only biscuits that came from Great Britain, but there was a large quantity , coming from the United States and other j places, as well, and the whole quantity coming in under the higher rate from countries not under the operation of a preferen-Mr. PATERSON.

tial tariff, was reduced 2 per cent. If that is a sample of how gentlemen opposite make statements that are absolutely devoid of fact, and if these are to be read by the people and not inquired into, no wonder that certain sections of the people may sometimes be misled. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) made a speech in this debate, and we find that he does not take the same view as some of his political friends, who say that the preferential tariff has not reduced the cost of goods to the people of Canada. I may state here that when we introduced the preferential tariff it was not entirely out of love to Great Britain, and losing sight of every other consideration, because one of the main reasons why we proposed it was that it would lessen the taxation of the people. Now, while some of the gentlemen opposite say the preferential tariff has not reduced the cost of certain articles which you get from Great Britain, the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Haggart) told us that woollen goods were coming in from England to such an extent that there is danger that the large woollen industry of Canada will be wiped out of existence. I am bound to say that I have great sympathy with every legitimate industry in this country. I would be very sorry indeed if the effect of the preferential tariff would be the cause of gentlemen who have their money invested in the woollen industry having their fears realized in that respect ; but I hope and trust, and I have reason to believe, that with the energies of the people engaged in that industry, and with the capital at their command, they will rise to the occasion and fully maintain their position. I may say that one of the benefits that was derived by the reduction of the tariff by this government to a revenue basis in many lines of industry, was what it must inevitably always be, that it stimulated the energies of those who are engaged in different industries so that they brought their best brains to bear on their work ; bought the very best machinery to be obtained, and notably in this woollen industry they produced an article that is a credit to Canada. I know there is a feeling in the breast of some people that goods that come from a distant place must be better than those we get at home, but I hope the time will come that when Canadians go to purchase clothes they will ask to be shown Canadian manufactured goods, and I think they will admit with me that we have arrived at a point of perfection in this product which is a credit to the men who are engaged in the industry. In view of the energy and enterprise which the woollen manufacturers of Canada have displayed in their industry, I do not believe that it will be crushed out. It is certainly not the desire of any Liberal that a single one of the great industries of this country shall come to loss or suffer harm. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart), I think, grossly exaggerated

the extent of the Imports of woollens from the old country. There is no doubt that in this line Great Britain benefited by the preferential tariff, and perhaps to a greater extent than in many other lines, but while they have benefited in Great Britain, it, of course, has caused a reduction in the taxes paid by the people of Canada. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) said :

What we contend is that the policy of the present government, by raising so large a revenue from customs duties, is having the effect of shutting up the factories of this country, notably the woollen factories. Look at the great increase in the importations of woollen goods, $13,000,000 worth, or more than double what was imported in 1897. .

The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is wrong in these figures. I have the Trade and Commerce figures here, and the Imports in 1S97 of dutiable woollens-and that is all we are concerned with-amounted to $7,125,748, while last year the amount was $9,801,565. There is an increase since 1897, but in 1896, under the old policy, the dutiable woollens imported amounted to $8,670,691. I grant there has been an increase, but it is an increase not as great in. proportion as the increase in the total imports of goods from foreign countries. If there are gentlemen present who are interested in the woollen industry by having invested in it, I would ask them not to be too hopeless in the matter, not to be discouraged, but to continue to display the energy they have shown in the past and I have no doubt that with the excellence of their goods they will find that the preferential tariff-which 1 grant presses more closely on them than on others-they will find that it is to the general benefit of the people of Canada, and that it has not been to their detriment either.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Nathaniel Clarke Wallace

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WALLACE.

What did the minister say the woollen imports for last year were ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

According to the Trade and Commerce table, the value of dutiable goods for 1900 was $9,801,565. [DOT]

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Nathaniel Clarke Wallace

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WALLACE.

It is more than that in your own report.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

This is the table of the trade and commerce, in which it is more condensed, but it will agree, I think, with the Trade and Navigation Returns.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Nathaniel Clarke Wallace

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WALLACE.

The Trade and Navigation Returns give more than that.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken, but I will not speak positively on that point. They should agree, because the trade and commerce is a compilation of the trade and navigation returns, and although not made in my department, I have no doubt they are made correctly. Now, Mr. Speaker, allusion 674

has been made to the iron bounties and we have been taunted by gentlemen opposite that we have carried out in this what they say is the very essence of protection. That was a policy adopted by the late government and maintained by the present government, the distinction being that while almost no progress was made under the old government, great strides have taken place under the system that was adopted by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) when he brought in his bounty resolutions in 1897. In the course of his speech he (Hon. Mr. Fielding) alluded to the fact that in the payment of these bounties, after the 1st of July, he intended to make them a charge upon capital account or on a special account which will go to capital account, thus placing these bounties in the same category as subsidies to railways, and should not be charged against the revenue of any one particular year, for the reason that you should not charge a railway subsidy to ordinary expenditure, because that railway subsidy once paid you get the benefit of it for all time to come without further payment. So with the iron bounties. For five years, under a diminishing sliding scale, you are paying out moneys in order to develop an enterprise. At the end of five years you have the interest developed, and you have the resulting benefit for all time to come, without anything more being paid by the country. Therefore, it is not fair to charge against any one year the expenditure for a benefit which you are to have during all future years. I think, therefore, the proposition of the Finance Minister is one that will commend itself to the House. Under the system pursued by hon. gentlemen opposite-and it is a system we have followed in the department over which I have the honour to preside for the time being-these bounties have been paid out of customs revenue. That is, the customs revenue has been diminished by the amount of the bounty we paid to the iron manufacturers, which should never have come out of the customs revenue. We pay refunds out of the customs revenue ; that is, we have taken into the revenue moneys which we have afterwards discovered should not have been paid, and we have refunded them. That is right enough. But, these bounties are paid out of money that never came into the customs or consolidated revenue at all. They are absolutely grants out of the public treasury, and, therefore, should not form part of the current expenditure. What the Finance Minister proposes is, that these iron bounties shall appear in the open light of day ; that men shall not have to take up the Auditor General's Report and search through the revenue and refunds to find out what bounties have been paid; but, that they will appear in one sum, so that, whether they amount to millions or hundreds of thousands, the people of this country will know what they have paid. This

government does not seek to hide any of its transactions, but wants them all to appear in tiie open light of day.

I want to speak briefly about the average rate of duty, and the percentage of reduction made by this tariff. I will not argue the question ; it is not necessary to argue with bon. gentlemen opposite ; the time is lost in doing so. You can take the Trade and Navigation Returns, and find out for yourself. It is figured out in one of the tables on one of the early pages of the report, by clerks who have no object in making it appear other than it should be. If you take the total imports of dutiable and free goods, and divide them by the total amount of duty paid, you will find that in 1900 the percentage of duty was less than 16 per cent on the average on all the goods, dutiable and free, which came into this country, while, under the old tariff, in 1896, the percentage was 18'28 per cent. That is a reduction of about 2j per cent, not from 100, but from 18i, which is equal to 12J per cent reduction in the tariff. I give this as a rough test. I do not mean to say that it is an exact test. You may import more of one class of goods in one year than in another ; and if these goods have a higher rate of duty, your calculation may be somewhat upset; but, as a rough test, this is of value. But, hon. gentlemen opposite, in criticising the tariff, say : Now that you have made corn free, there are some millions of bushels of corn brought in, and they are in the consumption column, while they have gone out to foreign countries ; you should take out these. In some cases they say, you should also take out coin and bullion. Well, that is fairly to be argued ; but, I must tell these hon. gentlemen that when millions of bushels of corn come into this country, to pass through our highways of commerce, enriching our shippers and railways, giving employment to the men handling it, I hold that they are valuable to this country. What are we sinking canals and building railways for ? Not only to carry the goods of our own country, but in the expectation of carrying a great portion of the traffic of the north-western states. Then, my hon. friend from Both-well (Mr. Clancy) wanted to know why the Finance Minister did not take out coin and bullion. Well, if you 1a>

In making his comparison this year he includes coin and bullion for all the years covered by his comparison. And why does he do so? Because to do so tells in favour of his own position, for the quantity of coin and bullion imported into Canada in 1900 was larger than in Mr. PATERSON.

any previous year, and the effect of including them is to show a reduced percentage of taxation.

The hon. gentleman had not the proper faith in the honesty and fairness of the Finance Minister, or he would not have made that statement. The hon. member fell into this mistake. He looked hurriedly at the statement, and he saw that there was more coin and bullion imported this year than usual, and the Finance Minister, not having taken that out, he jumped to the conclusion that it should be out ; but, if the hon. gentleman will work out the proposition for himself, he will find that if coin and bullion had been omitted by the Finance Minister, the reduction would have been greater by TO of 1 per cent. The hon. member for Bothwell lost sight of the fact that the other goods which were included increased far more in proportion than the coin and bullion, and if you put them together, and make the reduction, the reduction would have- been greater with the coin and bullion out than it was with it in. The hon. gentleman still shakes his head. I want to prove it to him, and I am going to give himself as an authority ; he will not deny that. To prove the accuracy of his calculation, I will quote the hon. member for Bothwell. In the statement made by him on page 1562, unrevised ' Hansard,' he gives the rates for 1893 and 1900. exclusive of coin and bullion, and Indian corn not remaining in the country, as 19-19 for 1896, and 17.-21 for 1900. The Minister of Finance took credit for a saving of duty amounting to $3,292,230, after making due allowance for Indian corn. If he had deducted coin and bullion in making his calculations, he could have shown a saving of $3,300,977. Now, I think I have convinced the hon. member for Bothwell, for I have given himself as an authority on this matter, and he can work it out for himself.

If the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) were here, I would just like to make one observation by way of answer to an argument which is unworthy of the intelligence of hon. gentlemen opposite. But, time and again it is used. They say : You took $23,000,000 in your custom-houses last year, whereas we took only $19,000,000 when we were in ; so. you have wrung nine or ten million dollars more taxation out of the people than we did.

Hon. gentlemen opposite know that governments do not make the prices of goods in foreign countries. If the opposition got into power they could not rule the prices of yarn in the United States, or woollen goods in England, or wines in France or Germany. The law of supply and demand is what" governs this matter. Should these hon. gentlemen get into power, they could not compel any man or woman in this country to go into a store and buy a dollar's worth or $10 worth of goods. People go into stores to buy goods to satisfy them-

selves and not to carry out any government policy. Therefore, what blame can be attached to the government If $28,000,000 went into the treasury this last year as compared with $19,000,000 the previous year. There is only one thing for which the government can be held responsible and that is the imposing of customs duties. And according as the government lower or raise the duties, they may be blamed or praised by the people. And I have pointed out that we have lowered the duties, and that if we have received a revenue this year of $28,000,000 instead of $19,000,000, we have received it under a reduced rate of taxation.

On page 1520 of the ' Hansard,' I find that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) is reported as having said :

Sir Leonard Tilley in 1882 reduced taxation by one and a quarter million dollars, and in 1883 by a like amount.

That is correct. But turn back to these years, and you will find that Sir Leonard Tilley also reduced the rate of taxation, but that while the average rate of duty was slightly decreased, the revenue increased. In 1882 the revenue exceeded that of 1881 by over $3,000,000. Will these hon. gentlemen opposite then say that Sir Leonard Tilley wrung $3,000,000 of taxation out of the people ?

The hon. member for Pictou says that Sir Leonard Tilley reduced the taxation. So he did, but none the less he collected $3,000.000 more revenue in 1882 as compared with 1881, and in 1883 there was an excess of revenue over 1882 of nearly one million and a half dollars. Will hon. gentlemen opposite argue that in those two years Sir Leonard Tilley wrung four and a half million dollars of taxes more out of the people because that much more went into the treasury, and that despite the fact that he had reduced the rate of taxation ? If they will not, then they have no right to bring a similar charge against this government. We have reduced the rate of taxation, but still the revenue has increased by millions of dollars, and that increase was not wrung out of the people, but was the free will gift of a prosperous commun-'ity, augmenting in numbers as in wealth.

The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden), of whom I desire to speak with the greatest respect, for I think it will be admitted on all hands that he has imparted added dignity into the conduct of public affairs-that hon. gentleman, in introducing his resolution, spoke of the duty upon tobacco and the duty on sugar. With reference to the duty on tobacco, I need only point to the speech made by the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Cowan) last year, and also to that made by the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) this session, in which are pointed out the great progress

made by this industry under the present tariff.

With reference to sugar, I think the hon. the leader of the opposition fell into a mistake. Of course he cannot be expected, owing to the multiplicity of his duties, to make a very close study of all these matters, but he made the statement that we had greatly increased the duty on sugar. Let me point out the mistake into which he fell, and into which he was led to some extent by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace), who ought to have known better. The hon. the leader of the opposition made this remark :

I desire, in passing, to mention to the Minister of Finance that his taxes on sugar were considerably increased in 1898. In that year he took from the people $1,324,329, and in 1900 $2,286,123.

That statement would lead one to believe that we had taken nearly a million dollars more out of the pockets of the people by the tax on sugar, and my hon. friend was rather led to that conclusion by the hon. member for West York. Now, there was in 1900 more duty to the extent of $961,724 paid on sugar, raw and refined, than in 1898. That is quite true. But we only imported 239,127,300 pounds in 1898, while in 1900 we imported 304,460,448 pounds, and you could not have an increase of 64,000,000 pounds of imports without getting more money into the treasury. But that does not mean that the increased revenue was due to any increase in the taxation.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   '2103 COMMONS
Permalink

March 26, 1901