March 20, 1902

CON

William Humphrey Bennett

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT.

He is the cheapest and best.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Permalink
CON

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

Yes, and I find that H. Bourassa, M.P., secretary, drew $2,200. I need not enumerate these expenses further only to say that they had tips to servants during this good-time commission amounting to $407; they had rooms rented at Washington and at Quebec for which they paid $1,314, and they had entertainments,

banquets, fishing trips, &c., which cost $2,656.58. Now, Mr. Speaker, if I am not correct in this statement, hon. gentlemen on the other side can very easily rise and correct me. So far as 1 can gather that was the only record that the commission presented to the people of Canada, and that is all the people of Canada get from the promises which the Liberals made that they would secure reciprocity for us.

And now what about the preferential tariff. In so far as I am concerned, I wish to say that the preferential tariff is not at all satisfactory to the people. The Minister of Finance, after the preferential tariff was placed on the statute-book stated in parliament, I quote from ' Hansard,' page 2469, year 1899 :

Let us not for a mommt suppose that our new tariff has not been of substantial advantage to the British manufacturer which he understands and appreciates the imports

of British goods have not been so large as we had hoped for.

These are two statements made by the present Finance Minister, and I wish to say that I do not accord with these statements. I would rather have a Finance Minister of this country place on our statute-book a tariff, that instead of being of substantial advantage to the British manufacturer which he understands and appreciates, would be of substantial advantage to the people of Canada which they would understand and appreciate. That is the policy the people of Canada desire, as against the preferential tariff.

Now, it is said that some of the manufacturing establishments in Canada are prosperous, even under this tariff.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Hear, hear.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Permalink
CON

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

Some hon. gentlemen say ' Hear, hear,' and that undoubtedly is true; but there are living examples of the injury this tariff has wrought at different points in Canada. We know that in the town of Cornwall two of Canada's leading gentlemen, Lord Strathcona and Lord Mountstephen, who have great means at their disposal, invested large amounts of money in a woollen manufacturing establishment. Why is that establishment closed up to-day ? Is it for the want of capital ? Not at all; because these gentlemen have given of their means to many other institutions in Canada. Is it because they have lost interest and faith in Canada ? Not a bit of it, because they are proud of Canada's present position and hopeful for its future. But they believe that it is of no use continuing to operate an establishment of that kind so long as the government of Canada keep on the statute-book a tariff that gives a preference to the British workman over the Canadian workman. That is the reason these gentlemen have discontinued operations in connection with that mill, for it cannot now be operated to pay.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Permalink
LIB

Mahlon K. Cowan

Liberal

Mr. COWAN.

How do you account for the fact that the woollen mill at Kingsville, which closed down under the old tariff, is now running night and day ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Permalink
CON

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

I am not at all familiar with that factory.

Mr.. COWAN. The Wigle-Brown factory.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Permalink
CON

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

But I venture to say that if that institution is running to-day, it is because of the principles that have been imbedded in the history of Canada by the Liberal-Conservative party, and it may be that it will continue for a little while. But we have the testimony of the best business men of Canada, on both sides of politics, who have come to this government on deputations, session after session, and, although they have not made much impression on that government, even though the present Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has said that he is a protectionist up to the hilt, I understand that they have made some impression on some of their followers, if we may judge from statements which we have heard in this debate.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Permalink
L-C

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

The Kingsville factory is a gas machine.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Permalink
CON

William Humphrey Bennett

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT.

It is shut down while the member is away.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Permalink
CON

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

Mr. Speaker, in the county of Peel we have three manufacturing establishments which are directly interested in the tariff as it now stands. One is a woollen manufacturing establishment that employs fifty hands. Almost every pound of the raw material which Mr. McMurchy, of Huttonville, uses in his factory, comes from the old country. Here is a sample of the raw material from New Zealand; here is another from Great Britain. In the main this raw material comes from 3,000 miles away. I ask this House, how can they expect that gentleman to continue his business when he is compelled to bring his raw material 3,000 miles across the water, and pay freight upon it, and when he is compelled to pay 25 per cent more for his labour than the manufacturer in the United Kingdom or in Germany ? When he has to bring all his machinery from Great Britain, and when the equipment of his factory costs almost double the equipment of a similar factory in Liverpool or Glasgow, how can it be expected that a man like Mr. McMurchy can develop his business under this tariff, which gives a preference to the British and German manufacturer ? We have also a tweed factory in the county of Peel, at Streetsville, owned and managed by Mr. Brodie, and the preferential tariff is altogether detrimental to that institution. If the preference in the tariff were done away with, that institution could enlarge and develop its business by supplying more of the goods used by the Canadian

people. We have a large boot and shoe establishment in the town of Brampton, the Williams Boot and Shoe Company, and I do not think it is fair to the proprietors of that establishment that in every town in Canada where they sell their goods, they are confronted with boots and shoes made in the United States by people who do not contribute one dollar to the [DOT] taxes of the Dominion of Canada. X hold that the tariff should be so arranged that every institution in this country which is manufacturing goods to be consumed by the Canadian people should have sufficient protection to keep out the same class of goods made in any foreign country; and I have no hesitation in saying that if that country should be England, the policy of Canada should be framed in the interest of the Canadian taxpayer as against people who are producing the same class of goods even in the old country under the same flag.

Now, I wish to refer to some other statements which have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. the . Deputy Speaker (Sir. Macdonald, Iluron), in 1898, as reported in ' Hansard ' at page 3399, said, speaking about the Intercolonial Railway :

We shall earn a much larger proportion ot money than before ; so much so that not only will we he able to pay $210,000 annually, but there will he a respectable surplus to place to the credit of the country.

Mr. Paterson, the present Minister of Customs, said in 1899, as reported in ' Hansard,' page 2G70 :

Here was a railway that cost this country over $50,000,000, and the policy of the Minister of Railways and Canals has succeeded in making this railway of greater use to the country, and has put it in a position to pay its own way. These are statements which these hon. gentlemen have made on the floor of this House. I shall now take up the record in order to see whether these predictions have turned out to be true or not. I find that last year this great railway, which was so extended by this government that it was going to pay its own way, had a deficit of .$488,180.77 on the running expenses, and there is also charged to capital account $3,652,313.40. That is the way these hon. gentlemen suppose that this railway is paying its way. At the investigation which is now going on before the Public Accounts Committee, it appeared that they have opened a new kind of account, which this House has never heard tell of before-a suspense account; and in that suspense account we find a large sum that ought to have been-charged up against the railway last year, so that it does not appear in last year's report as having been charged up at all. Therefore, I say that the predictions of our hon. friends in respect to the running of this railway have not been true predictions, and are not verified by the statement of the Minister of Railways and Canals.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Thomas Barnard Flint

Liberal

Mr. FLINT.

I would like to ask a question. Was the hon. gentleman not present in the Public Accounts Committee when the manager of the Intercolonial Railway said, under oath, that the suspense account was an old account and had been used on every occasion during the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Permalink
LIB

Lawrence Geoffrey Power (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

It is not permitted to refer to anything that has occurred in a committee.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Permalink
CON

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

Then we had a statement from the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) that if his party were returned to power they would so reduce the public expenditure as to effect a saving to the extent of $5,000,000 per annum. I am delighted to know that the hon. gentleman has undergone some conversion with respect to the tariff, and the people of Canada will still more rejoice if he will stand up like a man in the House and condemn this government for having increased our national expenditui'e and our national debt. I am quite sure that when he recalls the debate to which I have just referred, he must feel strongly impelled to condemn the extravagant expenditure of this government which had promised to be so economic.

Coming to the record of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) I find this statement made by him, as reported in ' Hansard ' page 1,333, in 1S82 :

Now it is quite true so long as we continue having this prosperity the mischief of this may not be so apparent, but even the hon. Minister of Finance will hardly venture to say, in view of cur own experience and the experience of the United States, in view of the experience in England, and every country that raises money at all in the rame way as we do ourselves, that he has any patent which will enable him to secure

a continuance of this prosperity for ever,-

That was the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) when in opposition, and when the Hon. Geo. E. Foster was Finance Minister. He went on to say.

Bradford, Oat., April 17, 1901. Hon. Sydney Fisher,

Ottawa.

Have received such document ; am making every effort to have it stamped out.

(Sgd.) CHARLES ELLIOT. Here is one from Algoma :

Fort William, Ont., April 16, 1901. Hon. Sydney Fisher,

Ottawa.

Have received schedules but did not give them to enumerators. No authority to do so.

(Sgd.) E. A. MORTON. The next one is from North Bruce :

Chesley, Ont., April 16, 1901. Hon. Sydney Fisher,

Ottawa.

1 have received the schedule you inquire about ; have made no use of them.

Here is a letter addressed to Mr. Bine, special commissioner of census, from Camp-bellford, and dated 17th April, 1901 :

Your telegram of to-day's date reached me too late to wire answer and I accordingly now write you. I have seen the schedule in the hands of some of the enumerators.

And here is one addressed to the commissioner of census from Bancroft, dated 22nd April, 1901 :

I way away when your telegram of 17th inst. came to Marmora asking if I had seen or- heard of alleged fraudulent schedule. I at once followed up the enumerators and found some of them had blank papers to fill in the names of males 16 years and upwards.

It was discovered by inquiry on the floor of this House that these documents were sent out by some person to the men in charge of the work of the census. I do not think that it will be alleged that the opposition in this House or the Liberal-Conservative party in Ontario caused these schedules to be sent to the officers, considering that these enumerators were asked to fill in the names of all male persons over sixteen years of age and return the schedules to the Reform nominee. 1 am of opinion that this government should have investigated that case ; they should have taken pains to find out who it was who sought to make use of the enumerators and of information gained by them in their official capacity to assist one political party against the other in connection with the revision of the voters' list.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up the time of the House with the discussion of other questions. X desire to say that I am heartily in accord with the resolution moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). We have a leader that the Liberal-Conservative party in this House and in this country are proud of. On this side of the House, you find no division. This government have the advantage of being criticised by an opposition that is not talking

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Permalink
CON

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

blue ruin, but is endeavouring to investigate public questions, and is giving its united influence for the promotion of wise legislation in this House. We are standing behind a leader selected by the party who is not only a credit to the members here but is a credit to the Conservative party in this country ; and I predict that in the very near future, he will cross over to the other side and be the Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada. .

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Permalink
LIB

Aulay MacAulay Morrison

Liberal

Mr. AULAY MORRISON (New Westminster).

Mr. Speaker, I shall not attempt to follow the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) in his arguments. If I were disposed to criticise his remarks, I should find it difficult indeed, considering his very gracious tribute to all of us yesterday in the distribution of the beautiful rose of Brampton. However, should I find it in my heart to criticise him, I should have ample opportunity. The first point on which he laid himself open was in having the temerity to begin with statistics of the census returns of 1891. If there was one topic which the hon. gentleman ought to have avoided this was that one. Admitting his premises in his reference to the speech of the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright), of course his conclusion would be inevitable. But the hon. member (Mr. Blain) began by assuming that the Statistical Year-book was a proper source to which to go to prove that the remarks made by the hon. member for South Oxford was misleading. Because, forsooth, a reference made by the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) was corroborated by the Year-book, therefore the reference made by the hon. member for South Oxford was erroneous. The hon. gentleman mis-tates the position of the hon. member for South Oxford-whose cause, however, I do not wish to champion. What that hon. gentleman said was that the Year-book was not a correct criterion, inasmuch as the census returns of 1891 were not correct. It is not evidence that the statement made by the hon. member for South Oxford was incorrect, that the Year-book is in accord with the statement made by the Minister of Finance. However, as I stated, I shall not attempt to follow the hon. member for Peel. I do not see what he or any gentleman on the other side has to complain about in regard to the condition of affairs in Canada to-day. I am sure that the prosperity which we now have and which we have had for the last five years does not require statistical demonstration. I do not think that the spectacle of the hon. member for Peel with the Year-book in one hand and ' Hansard ' in the other is enough to shut out from view the general prosperity of the country. The hon. gentleman may search all the statistical year-books in existence, and may read the speeches made by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House from the time of confederation, yet he will not succeed in

satisfying himself or the people that the country is not prosperous, or that, if the country is prosperous, the present administration is not to have some credit for that prosperity.

I am not one of those who think that the fiscal policy of any country is perfect, or that the tariff of any country is not subject to improvement. I will go so far as to say that there are some features in the present tariff which are not satisfactory to the people of the province from which I come, though the tariff is on the whole the most satisfactory the Dominion of Canada has ever had. But we are confident, in view of the history of the Liberal party since they have been in power, that they will go on from year to year improving the tariff; and we are confident that, upon the administration being satisfied that grievances exist, they will remedy those grievances. There is no use in frivolous criticism, or in harking back to what occurred ten, fifteen or twenty years ago. Let us face present conditions. I think if hon. gentlemen on both sides were to bear in mind that the administration of the country must be regarded as we would regard the administration of any large business concern, if they would bear in mind that the affairs of the country must be conducted upon sound business principles, a great deal of misunderstanding that appears to exist would be cleared away. I think the chief difference between the present administration and the one it succeeded lies in their business methods. We may, for campaign purposes and political effect, raise before the electorate the cry of Liberals and Conservatives, of free trade and protection; but at the same time, underlying free trade or protection, incidental protection or revenue protection, must be found sound business principles, call them by whatever name you please; and a government that departs from sound business principles is bound to mismanage the affairs of the country.

Now, X consider that tne great measure of prosperity that we enjoy, the fact that the present administration have taken advantage of an era of good times, is a proof that we have at the head of the administration men of business capacity, men who adhere to sound business principles, and who never lose sight of them. So long as we have men of that kind conducting the affairs of the country, we may be sure they will take all possible advantage of good times. In prosperous times they will make the most of the prosperity, and in times that are not prosperous, a judicious business administration will foster and husband the resources of the country, will adopt a policy of economy and frugality, will keep down expenditure, and will only construct those public works which are necessary and construct them as economically as possible. In times of great 48

prosperity such as we have now, I think it is quite proper for an administration to make large expenditures so long; as they can show some equivalent for such expenditures. It is no argument against any administration to say that the debt is very large, that the expenditure is growing, that it is much greater to-day than it was five years ago, or ten years ago. The question is : Have we anything to show

in return ? That is the test, and I think the present administration have no fear of the application of such a test.

Now, I think that the first consideration of any administration is the welfare of the people. There is a very true expression in one of the letters of Junius, with which you doubtless are all familiar. He says that the ruin or prosperity of a state depends so much upon the administration of the government, that to be acquainted with the character of a ministry we have only to look to the condition of the people. If we find them obedient to the laws, prosperous in their industries, united at home and respected abroad, we may reasonably conclude that the affairs of the country are being conducted by men of experience, ability and virtue. That statement, I think, is as applicable to-day to the present administration as it could be applicable to the administration of any country. That Canadians are obedient to the laws goes without saying ; gentlemen on both sides of the House will cordially agree with that statement. Tnat the people of Canada are prosperous in their industries, we have abundance of evidence. That they have been prosperous in their industries since 1896, there is the most cogent evidence. We have only to refer to tne budget of the hon. Minister of Finance every year from 1897 down to the present time. The characteristic of that deliverance has been a display of surpluses, in striking contrast with the budget speeches delivered prior to 1896. We have this year, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance, a surplus of $5,800,000. What does that mean ? It's elementary meaning is that our revenue has exceeded our expenditure by that amount; and applying the test as you would to any ordinary business concern, is that not a most satisfactory showing ? All the people of Canada require to know, I think is that the current revenue for the fiscal year ending June, was $56,800,000, and that the estimated expenditure for the same time was $51,000,000, in round numbers, leaving, as I said, a surplus of $5,800,000. That is evidence of prosperity, it is evidence of a proper handling of the affairs of the country during that year.

As a further evidence of the prosperity of the country, we find its various resources make a satisfactory showing. The products of the mines, the fisheries, the forest, the farm, amount to a very large figure

indeed. We find that the value of the fisheries in Canada to-day exceeds $24,000,000; we find that the value of the minerals tills last fiscal year leaped up to the enormous sum of over $69,000,000; we find that the lumber and forest industries exceeded in value $80,000,000 ; while that great industry, that great source of wealth to the people of Canada, the agricultural industry, exceeded the almost incalculable sum of $600,000,000. Now those are some of the assets of the country with which the present administration has been dealing since 1896, and in the handling of which they have made the very satisfactory showing to which the Minister of Finance referred in his address.

Now I do not wish to dwell at any length upon the general fiscal policy of the country. It is indeed a difficult matter foy one to deal with that subject after the able addresses we have had from the Minister of Finance, the leader of the opposition, the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and the member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier); and in view of their exhaustive treatment of the subject, it is scarcely necessary for me to go into a general discussion of the trade question.

I shall presume, for a short time, to say something in reference to the province from which X come, the western province of British Columbia, and refer to one or two aspects of the tariff which are not satisfactory to the people of that province. As has often been said to the public and to this administration as well as to preceding ones, the province of British Columbia contributes three times as much per capita in the way of customs and other revenue as do the "people of the rest of the Dominion of Canada. The people of British Columbia have to pay a great deal more than this to their fellow-citizens in the east in the way of the increased cost of staple goods, which except for the tariff, the people of British Columbia would be able to get very much cheaper from the American side. Now, hon. gentlemen opposite can get no consolation from any criticism by any lion, gentleman on this side of the House of the tariff as it is applicable to British Columbia. These grievances existed under the old regime as they exist today. We have, for instance, merchants in British Columbia, and lion, gentlemen on the other side of the House will be able to corroborate what I say, who have reason to complain of some of the existing tariff rates in regard to staple articles. Merchants there complain, we will say, of the tariff in regard to the staple article of preserves. There is a specific duty of 24 cents a pound imposed upon canned fruit, and 31 cents per pound on jellies, jams and preserves. which amounts, in some instances, to 100 per cent upon the value of California goods of the same quality. We find in the matter of lumber, one of the great indus-

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Permalink
LIB

Aulay MacAulay Morrison

Liberal

Mr. MORRISON.

mnlly runs back to tlie time of Confederation. These gentlemen opposite are satisfied with the present tariff apparently, because they say it is theirs, and we seem to be quite satisfied because we have made little or no alteration, and particularly none at all this year.

Now, Sir, we in British Columbia have loyally accepted the tariff as we find it. I am drawing attention to these features of it in a friendly way and as a culmination of the many overtures made to the government in respect thereto by delegations and by private representations. "We in British Columbia have submitted to this tariff which imposes very substantial taxation upon us in respect to what we consider staple articles, and which taxation is a burden upon us for the advantages of our fellow citizens in the east. I refer to the high percentage per capita which we in British Columbia are contributing in the way of customs and revenue duties. Whether intentionally ox-otherwise, the people of British Columbia are made to contribute very substantially by having themselves taxed in this way for the advantage of the people in Eastern Canada, and it is nothing but reasonable that we should ask that in respect to those items of production in British Columbia which are susceptible of being benefited by a tariff rearrangement, it is nothing but reasonable that we should ask that these productions of British Columbia should at least be put on an equal footing in the tariff, with those articles which we are obliged to buy in the east. Put us on an equal footing in the tariff, with, at all events, the people on the American side of the line. For instance, if the duty upon bricks is to remain at twenty per cent and upon grindstones at twenty-five per cent, and upon drain pipes at thirty-five per cent, and upon plumbago and asbestos at twenty-five per cent; there is no reason why the duty upon pig lead should not be twenty pr twenty-five per cent. If the duty upon ochers which are mere earth dug out of the ground, is to stand at twenty per cent ; if the duty upon oxides and siennas is to be twenty-five per cent; if the duty upon fire proof paint dry, wlxiclx is an iron paint, is to stand at twenty-five per cent, and if the duty on linseed oil with which the paint is mixed is to stand at twenty-five per cent; then we can see no reason why the duty on dry white lead should remain at five per cent, and should not be raised to twenty-five or thirty per cent. Is there anything unreasonable in making this demand ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Permalink
CON

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

The reason is, if the hon. gentleman will permit me-

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Permalink
LIB

Aulay MacAulay Morrison

Liberal

Mr. MORRISON.

I do not want my hon. friend's explanation at the present moment. No doubt it is very interesting.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Permalink
CON

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

I suppose you know what it is.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Permalink

March 20, 1902