March 20, 1902

LIB
LIB

Aulay MacAulay Morrison

Liberal

Mr. MORRISON.

I do not see why the government of the present day, and the Conservative government of the past as well, did not di-op on to that apparent injustice to an industry which shoxxld-be a very important industry in this country. I, in the best spirit, insist on the government taking this matter into consideration. I know that with such a vast country as we have, and in view of the multiplicity of things which the administration has to consider, the chances are that a matter of this kind which might be looked upon as somewhat insignificant, may be overlooked. But Sir, to the people of the Kootenays this is a vei-y serious matter indeed.

Take for instance the condition of silver mining in British Columbia. We have in the Slocan and in the East Kootenay, a silver deposit district that is unparalleled in the world. During the short time that this minex-al has been developed and exploited, we have a mine which has only been exceeded in its output on the whole American continent by another mine in Idaho. That is saying a good deal. That Canadian mine is idle to-day. What is the reason ? Do you blame the people out there for saying that it is in consequence of this tariff discx-imination. Take for instance the other mines such as the North Star and the Sullivan mines, and notwithstanding that they have at their doors smelters like those at Nelson and Traill, yet they are lying idle. The only mines that are working are the high-grade mines, and they have great difficulty indeed in keeping going, owing to the present very low price of silver something like fifty-five cents per ounce. I think this is a matter to which the government should give its immediate and most serious consideration. I must admit that there has been no want of representation on the part of the people who are most interested ih this matter ; and I trust that at this time next year, when the hon. Minister of Finance makes his budget speech, it will be as satisfactox-y in respect to other matters as it has been this year, and that, in respect to the matter I have referred to, it will be eminently satisfactory to the people of British Columbia.

To further illustrate the humiliation that must be felt by every Canadian when he looks ixxto this aspect of the tariff, I may say that notwithstanding the fact that the smelters at Nelson and Tx-ail have given to their customers a rate of fi-eight and treatment more favourable by from $2 to $6 per ton than is given to the Coeur d'AlSne miners by the Institutions on the American side, yet the mines to which I have referred are px-actically idle-it is hard to say what the reason may be. Bxxt the American Lead Tx-ust ignores the British Columbia ore. It will show you the discrepancy there is between the rates on the two sides, to show you that although it would pay the Americans to take the Can-

adian ore, yet they will not do it, and are succeeding in stifling a great industry in British Columbia ; and the government seem to shut their eyes to the fact. Take some of the items in the taritt' of the United States, and compare them with similar items in our tariff. Pig lead we tax at 15 per cent ; in the United States it pays 2J cents per pound, or something like 60 per cent. Bar and sheet lead pays 25 per cent in Canada ; in the United states it pays 21 cents per pound, or about 70 per cent. Dry white lead in Canada pays 5 per cent; in the United States it pays 2J cents per pound, or 60 per cent. Mixed paint in Canada pays 25 per cent ; in the United States it pays 5 cents per pound. Lead ore comes into Canada free ; in the United States it pays 11 cents per pound. Under the operation of this tariff the American Lead Trust are able to pay and are at the present time paying their miners in the Coeur d'Alene camps something like $3.50 per 100 pounds for the lead contents of their ore, and they maintain the price in the New York market uniformly at something like $4.15 per 10p pounds. That is to say, the Slocan miner only gets $1.46 per 100 pounds for his lead, as against $3.50 which the American miner gets. So great is the discrepancy that the American Lead Trust could afford to pay the duty of 11 cents per pound, and yet pay to the British Columbia miner more than he is getting at the present time. Whether it is from loyalty to the United States or hatred to Canada, the American Lead Trust ignore the British Columbia ore, and refuse even to give quotations. They say : ' We do not want to treat with you or deal with you in any way.' In other words, they are absolutely stifling that important industry in British Columbia.

Now, 1 do not say that the full control of our own market would absolutely remedy this evil ; but 1 do say that of the 28,000 tons which were produced last year, if even half had been treated in this country, and the money spent here instead of sending it abroad to England, Germany and other countries, the condition would be eminently more satisfactory than it is. We have satisfactory railway and smelting facilities ; but the people of British Columbia think that owing to this defect in the tariff, this industry has suffered'to the extent I have pointed out. On the other hand, owing to the action of the government in granting a very substantial bounty last year, a refinery is now being built at Trail, and before the present year is over, refined lead will be there treated, it is estimated, at the rate of 18,000 tons per annum. Before this bounty was paid, it was the custom to ship abroad the bullion for treatment at American refineries. This question of lead is a very serious one indeed, and I hope the government will give it their immediate attention.

We have in British Columbia another grievance ; and the remarks I now make

have reference to the prosperity of the people of Canada as a whole. During the last 5 or 6 years our people have been particularly prosperous in many industries. That they are united in sentiment is as palpable as that they are obedient to the laws. I need only refer to the settlement of the Manitoba school question. If there is one thing that tended to unite the people of Canada, it was the settlement of that matter by the present administration. There are other directions in which the government might go to give an earnest of their desire to have the people of different portions of this country still further united. There is a danger on the Pacific coast of a difficulty arising in respect to Chinese and Japanese immigration, and I think that danger is menacing and imminent. In fact, the government considered the matter of such importance that last year at the instigation of my hon. friend from Burrard (Mr. Maxwell), myself, and other members from British Columbia, a commission was appointed to investigate the question of Chinese and Japanese immigration into Canada. That commission was appointed early in the year, and very shortly afterwards it proceeded to take evidence on the Pacific coast. That commission visited California, and only the other day made their report. That report is very voluminous, but unfortunately has not yet been published. It has, however, been handed in to the government, and I have had the opportunity of glancing through it. Of course, until it is published and distributed hon. gentlemen will not have that opportunity of discussing it, which I trust they will have this session, and which will be necessary in order to do the matter full justice. However, I may say that sufficient is known by the government and the people most immediately interested to justify the administration in taking immediate steps to cary out the findings of that commission. As far as I could see, there is not one word of information within the covers of that report, which every member, who has ever been returned to this House from the province of British Columbia, has not put before the government at one time or another. The report is simply a reiteration of the old story, and, unlike that made by hon. gentlemen opposite, decides emphatically and unmistakably against the continuance of Oriental immigration. The commissioners have reported that a tax of at least $500 per head should be imposed on every Mongolian coming into this country.

Some 131 witnesses were called. Out of that number 77 were for exclusion and restriction. Only 6 were in favour of unrestricted immigration. The balance were distributed between those in favour of the status quo, in favour of not allowing any more in but not interfering with those who are here, and those in favour of ridding this country of that immigration altogether.

Every line of tlie evidence, with the exception of the six witnesses I have referred to, goes to justify the administration in bringing down legislation in accord with recommendations made in that report.

The commissioners have the advantage of evidence taken on the American side as well, and there the same story is told. In fact I cannot conceive what argument can be presented against the findings of that report. Some gentlemen will "say that there is a trade argument to be considered. They will plead that inasmuch as Canada bonuses* steamships, such as the splendid ' Empress ' boats, to develop trade between Canada and the Orient, we ought not to embroil ourselves with China by this policy of exclusion. But I would ask those gentlemen to remember that the United States passed an exclusion Act and that this year they have extended the scope of that Act, and yet in spite of that hostile legislation, their trade with China has increased. On the other hand, while Chinese immigration is comparatively unrestricted in Canada, while we have no Exclusion Act, our trade with China has decreased. In the United States the Increase of trade with China amounted to $22,000,000 from 1891 to 1900, whereas in the same period the trade of Canada witli China decreased from $1,9)0,000 in 1890 to $800,000 in 1900. So that there is really nothing in that trade argument.

It may be said, however, that it is necessary to have Chinamen in Canada and British Columbia, because there are large trncts of waste land which must be reclaimed, and in the reclaiming of which these Chinamen will do the same good service that they did in California. But there is no analogy in that respect between California and British Columbia. In California there were vast swamps of uncultivated land known as tule lands, and owing to the rush of the whites to the mines and the consequent scarcity of white labour, these Chinamen were serviceable in reclaiming these swamp lands. But no conditions of the kind exist in British Columbia. That province comprises some 300,000,000 acres of land. True many of those acres are mountains, but out of that quantity there must be, at the very lowest estimate, 10,000,000 to 20,000,000 acres of arable land, which we want to keep for white people, and not for Chinamen or Japanese. We do not require coolie labour to make these lands fit for the plough, because there is no better soil under the sun. Although not as extensive as the prairies of Manitoba and the North-west, let me tell you that our arable lands per acre can grow a much larger quantity of wheat than can the soil of Manitoba or the territories. These lands of British Columbia will produce something like 62 bushels to the acre. They will give 99 bushels of oats per acre, and 3i to five tons of hay. That is a showing which no other Mr. MORRISON.

lands in the Dominion can make, and we have 10,000,000 or 20,000,000, acres of such lands waiting for people to come in and cultivate them. For such lands as these, we have no need for coolie labour, but desire to preserve that earthly paradise for the people of our own race and blood. Statisticians tell us that an individual can sustain life upon three acres, without the proverbial cow, so that we have space enough for the sustenance of a prosperous community of 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 white people ; and we want our government to assist us in bringing those people in and in excluding yellow labour. I do not see why the government will not exert themselves, as they have exerted themselves on behalf of Manitoba and the North-west, in bringing proper immigrants into British Columbia. We have a salubrious climate, and we have fruitful soil. Then-another condition to be considered- we have an advantageous position in regard to exports. To show how productive and prosperous that province is notwithstanding the small population, and notwithstanding what might be called adverse circumstances, I may say that we stand as the third province in our volume of exports; in the Dominion. Our exports for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1901, were $21,648,000. Our imports amounted to $11,137,000. Our entries for consumption amounted to about $10,000,000. Of course, this does not represent all the imports for consumption into British Columbia, because great quantities of goods are consumed there that are imported from other provinces. The amount of duty collected on imports into British Columbia direct was $2,358,842. The other Dominion revenues from British Columbia make the total Dominion revenue from that province $2,530,000. Thus we are not only third in exports, but we are third in the amount of duty paid in imports and third in the amount of revenue. That is some ground for our coming here and asking this government to give us assistance in every way in which we can reasonably ask for assistance.

I trust that, when the report to which I have referred is distributed amongst hon. members, they will weigh carefully the evidence that appears there. And if, at present, they have any deep-rooted opinion that Oriental labour is necessary in British Columbia and in Canada, I am sure that that evidence will show them their mistake, and will convince them that steps should be taken at once to remedy evil under which that province exists. As I have said, I regret very much that I have not had time or opportunity to go through the report in order that I might present such an account of its contents as I should like to do, that I might convince hon. members of the truth of my statement that the finding of that commission is one upon which action, should be taken by the government. In

that commission's report, there is some very valuable material collected from reports made by United States commissions to investigate this question of Chinese immigration. There is one report, that of the commission which was appointed in 1878, which puts the ease in favour of the exclusion of the Chinese in very succinct and unmistakable and incontestable form indeed. I crave leave to refer to it and read a few extracts. It is a very ably prepared report, and I wish to spread out part of it on ' Hansard ' so that those who take an interest in this matter may read it:

1. That the presence of the Chinese has had a tendency to degrade and dishonour labour.

2. Their personal habits, peculiar institutions, and lax morals render them undesirable members of society.

3. They cannot and will not assimilate with our people, but remain unalterably aliens in habits, morals, politics and aspirations.

The principal facts upon which these three propositions rest will be briefly considered :

1. The Chinese labourer, in some respects is desirable. He is frugal, thrifty, patient, cheerful and obedient. He readily learns his trade and expertly performs any species of light work. Chinese cheap labour has worked great national benefit to California in its early history, digging its canals, delving in its mines, reclaiming its tule-lands, building its railroads, and in various other ways contributing to the rapid development of its wonderful natural resources. If, therefore, money-making were the only question involved in this contest between the American and Chinese races, it would, in its industrial or labour phase, be promptly decided in favour of the latter. The material advantages of this kind of labour, however, sink into insignificance when compared with the personal considerations at stake-the comfort, the self-respect and decent, honourable living of the labourer himself.

The Chinese labourer does not come up to the American standard of industry. The central idea of our system is that the labourer shall possess courage, self-respect and independence. To do this he must have a home. Home is the mold in which society is cast. There the habits are formed which give character. There the zest and wakeful interest of living center. There the fires of patriotism are kindled. There free institutions And their source and inspiration.

The Chinese who come to this country have no homes. They have neither home feelings nor home interests in any true acceptation of the words. With the conditions of their mode of life they never can have homes. They are willing to work for less wages than will secure homes or comfortably support white labour. In their own country they work patiently and obediently during twelve or thirteen hours for less than one-tenth of what the poorest class of white workingmen receive. In the Pacific states they are willing to work for about one-half the price paid to American operatives. They are able to live upon rice, tea and dried fish, costing upon an average from 20 to SO cents a day. Underclothing is a luxury almost unknown to them. What clothing they wear is of the cheapest, simplest and coarsest character. They bring with them neither wives, families nor children. One hundred Chinese will

occupy a room which, if subdivided, would not accommodate five American workingmen with their families. In such a small space they are packed like sardines in a box, and here they both sleep, eat and cook. Such a place does not deserve the name of home. No tender and loving interests cluster around it, and dull habit alone endears it to them. As enlightened statesmanship would suggest that no material advantages, however great, arising from Chinese frugality and industry, can compensate for the loss of the homes, the comforts and the appliances of personal civilization which have always been enjoyed by the labouring classes of America, and from which springs that spirit of self-respect and manly independence which is the highest result and best security of our political system.

2. Another and more serious objection urged against the Chinese is that their personal and moral habits make them undesirable members of society. The crowded condition in which they live renders the observance of hygienic laws and sanitary regulations almost an impossibility. Neatness and cleanliness is the exception. The air of their apartments is filled with noisome smells and pestilential vapours, threatening disease and death. Property occupied by them is consequently lessened In value and the locality itself is avoided by the white population.

Not only their personal habits, but their moral idea, methods and institutions directly anl agonize our own. What we love, they hate ; what we admire, they despise ; what we regard as vices they practice as virtues or tolerate as necessities.

The religious ideas even of the higher and titled classes in China are pre-eminently wretched ; their superstitions numerous and ludicrous, their educational system exceedingly defective, and their civilization effete and decaying. Among the labouring or ' coolie ' classes the grade of morals is very low. One illustration of this is seen in their treatment of woman. Her birth is commonly regarded as a calamity. If not destroyed, which is not unusual, she is regarded as a slave and suffers privation, contempt and degradation from the cradle to the tomb. Instances are frequent of the sale for debt by parents of their daughters, and by husbands of their wives, and that too for the worst purposes. Infanticide of girls is practiced to some degree, in all parts of the empire, and in some sections to an alarming extent. Concubinage is a recognized institution. The sanctity and obligation of an oath are disregarded, and the torture is often employed to extort the truth.

Such are some of the characteristics of the class from which nine-tenths of our immigrants come. Respectable persons are deterred both by law and prejudice, and as a rule, only the most indigent and desperate consent to leave their native country. The female immigrants are bought and sold like chattels and practice the most revolting vices and immorality. Born and brought up under these heathenish influences, with these low ideas of law and virtue, coming to our country for the sole purpose of making money, without homes and families without domestic affections or interests ; with no high incitements to duty or strong dis-suasives from wrong doing ; with no adequate sense of special obligation ; with no property to pay a fine and with no fear of imprisonment since it brings no greater discomfort or con-

finement than his usual mode of life ; with blunted or erroneous perceptions, grovelling thoughts, gross passions, parsimonious and degrading habits, the Chinaman in America cannot be considered a desirable member of society either from a physical or moral standpoint.

3. The third and principal objection, however, to the Chinese is the fact that they do not assimilate with our people, but remain a distinct and alien element. In this respect they differ from all other voluntary immigrants. The German, the Irishman, the Frenchman, have sought our country as a permanent home for themselves and their posterity. Promptly and cheerfully adopting our habits, customs, and political institutions, devoted to our people, to our government and the laws, they speedily become our worthiest and thriftiest citizens, vindicating in the council chambers of the nation their knowledge of our political principles, and illustrating upon every battlefield where liberty has been attacked the patriotism which such knowledge inspires.

It is not so with the Chinese. They have been in this country over a quarter of a century. Their employment as house-servants and labourers has brought them into close and immediate contact with our people, but no change in them has been produced. What they were when they came here they are to-day-the same in dress, the same in disposition, the same in language, the same in religion, the same in political feeling. They indicate no desire, either by word or action, to become identified with us. They came to us not because they were dissatisfied with the social or political institutions of their own country, but because they believed they could better their condition in life. To make money was their sole object. When they have accomplished this they do not invest their earnings in land or homesteads, but return with them to their native China. They come with no desire or purpose to make this their permanent home. So strong is their feeling in this respect that the poorest labourers stipulate, as a part of the contract by which they sell their services, that their dead bodies shall be carried back to" China, and thousands have been thus exported. They have no conception of our judicial or legislative system. They cannot be relied on to perform military duty. They are incompetent as jurymen. Indeed, the only purpose in society for which they are available is to perform manual labour. They bring with them neither wives nor families, nor do they intermarry with the resident population. They have an inferior intelligence and a different civilization from our own. Mentally, morally, physically, socially and politically they have remained a distinct and antagonistic race.

Nor, in view of their strong national prejudices, is there any hope that the future will be different. Instances are numerous where an inferior race has been absorbed and improved by a superior one, but the condition precedent to such a result is the acknowledgment on the part of the lower race of such inferiority. Nations, as well as individuals, must conclude that they need help before th"y are willing to ask or receive it. The Chinese have not, and never will, come to such a conclusion. Their inordinate vanity leads them to believe their country to be the centre of the territorial system, and they therefore call it the ' midland or central nation.' 1

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

Aulay MacAulay Morrison

Liberal

Mr. MORRISON.

They boast a civilization which antedates the birth of Christ ; they point with pride to a philosopher, Confucius, whose maxims, as the perfection of wisdom, have become their code of laws. They obey a government which, in their faith, is heaven-descended-an absolute despotism, vast, awful and impressive, whose tremendous and mysterious power regulates their lives or decrees their death, and under which liberty is an unknown idea.

Thus intrenched behind national prejudices, they are impregnable against all influences, and remain a great, united class, distinct from us in colour, in size, in feature, in dress, in language, in customs, in habits, and in social peculiarities. A nation to be strong must be homogeneous. All the elements that attach themselves to its society should be assimilated rapidly into one harmonious and congruous whole. It is neither possible nor desirable for two distinct races to live harmoniously in the same society and under the same government. It this single proposition be true, the conclusion is sound that Chinese immigration should be restricted or prohibited. This conclusion, however, is strengthened by the facts already stated, showing its evil effects upon the industrial and social interests of our people.

Notv, Sir. Speaker, that is the very able presentation made by this commission in 1878. The presentation made by the commission, which was handed down the other day, is equally strong, in fact, being more recent evidence, it is stronger than the previous presentation. Some people say : You must allow these Chinamen and Japanese into the country and treat them as the people of the United States treat the negroes. There is no analogy in the world between the negro question and the Chinese and Japanese question; there is no analogy inasmuch as the negroes were not a civilized people. They were not a civilized people when they were taken hold of. The first civilization they knew was the Christian civilization, and they submitted to it, and became incorporated in the body politic of the United States, or of any other Christian country to which they may have gone. That statement applies to any other savage nation; but the Chinese are an old civilized nation, they boast of an older civilization than our own. They have the idea ingrained in them that they are a superior people; and anybody who knows anything about a Chinaman is aware that a Chinaman looks with the utmost contempt, in nine cases out of ten, upon white people. They look with unconcealed contempt upon white women, and would show that contempt in i arious ways were they not in fear of chastisement from white men. So the case of the Chinaman is totally different from that of the negro. Some entertain the hope that in receiving the Chinaman and treating them well, we would be much mire likely to engraft them upon our Christian civilization. Such a thing in my opinion is absolutely impossible; and I make the statement which may appear heterodox, and which I dislike to make very much indeed, that I do not think there is any chance of

ever Christianizing a Chinaman whilst he holds the opinion that his religion is superior to the Christian religion. He will pretend that he is a Christian, because he is brainy enough and astute enough to know that he can thereby advance his own interests, and he knows that he is better off in a Christian country. In fact, I do not know of one argument that can be advanced in favour of Chinese immigration. However, the present administration, which has by its policy succeeded in uniting the people at home, I know will go a step further, and make our population more homogeneous by giving us relief against this Chinese onslaught upon the nation, a relief which the people of British Columbia so much desire.

The policy of the government in respect to labour questions is inconsistent with any policy admitting Chinese immigration. How can the government reconcile the labour policy of the Postmaster General with the policy of admitting these Oriental hordes ? Of what avail is his ' Labour Gazette,' and his Labour Department, and his machinerv for inaugurating and carrying out labour legislation, if, on the other hand, he permits such an anomaly in our political economy to remain as the existence of such an antagonistic element as the Chinese and Japanese ? A government which has passed legislation in favour of labour, such as we have had, a government which has done away with the sweating system which grew tip under the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite, a government which has done away with long hours and unsanitary conditions, a government that has inaugurated a system of current wages and has introduced a fair-wage clause in government contracts, a government that has adopted the policy of giving government work to Canadians, that has introduced the conciliation and arbitration principles into their platform, that has made provision for the safety of the labouring man in mines and on railways-surely a government that has done all these things cannot, consistently with their past and present policy, allow this Chinese and Oriental immigration into the country. We must, Mr. Speaker, perpetuate government by the people and for the people, and we cannot do that if we allow Chinese and Oriental immigration. M e cannot do that if we allow an element which will destroy our political economy to become established in this country. The government must be an example in every way. It must be an exemplary employer, and I am sure that the government would not for one moment consider the advisability of allowing Chinamen to be employed upon its works, and if it does not allow Chinamen to be employed upon its wcrks, why does it encourage the employment of Chinamen in the industries of the country ? It is an absolute inconsistency, and I am quite sure the government will not do so. A Liberal government must preserve the

government and resources of Canada for the people of Canada.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a word in conclusion as to the way we are respected abroad. I have in a very slight way shown that we now enjoy a measure of prosperity unexampled in the history of Canada, that we are united and comparatively satisfied with our present state of affairs. To make the text complete I crave to refer very briefly to the way in which Canada is looked upon abroad. The London ' Times ' after the preferential clauses of the tariff were introduced saw fit to make this reference :

The new departure (the Preferential Tariff, 18S7) is most gratifying to all -vho desire to see the empire knitted more closely together. It is the most remarkable step yet made towards the fiscal confederation of the empire.

The ' Daily News ' said :

As patriots we welcome this significant display of attachment from the greatest of our colonies, and as Liberals we congratulate the leader of the Liberal party of the Dominion.

The London correspondent of the New York ' Times ' wrote :

For tho first time in my experience England and the English are regarding Canadians and the Dominion with affectionate enthus'asm.

The London ' Financial News,' a paper that the people of Canada should regard with a good deal of esteem, said :

We are not grateful merely for what Canada is doing for the mother councry in the field, or in the less glorious sphere of commerce. What appeals most strongly to our instincts is the splendid example Canada is giving to her younger sisters.

The ' Bullionist,' another financial paper, said :

We make bold to say never in the history of an English dependency, and rarely in the history of the mother couutry, has a finance minister been able to conclude his annual statement with such a stirring peroration as Mr. Fielding in the Dominion of Canada on Friday.

Referring to the presentation of the budget ou that occasion. Then, we have, in regard to the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock) and his great work for knitting the empire together, the letter of Mr. Henniker Heaton in respect to the hon. Postmaster General's efforts in behalf of penny postage. He gives credit to the hon. Postmaster General for tlie inauguration of penny postage and to that extent taking another step to-words unifying the empire. Now there is an abundance of evidence of the highest esteem in which the people of Canada are held abroad, and I am quite confident that I have conclusively shown that the people of Canada are obedient to the laws, that they are prosperous in their industry, that they are united at home and respected abroad. That being so, I am quite confident that yon, Mr. Speaker, will agree with

me that we are justified in assuming that the affairs of the people of Canada are in the hands of men of ability, experience and virtue.

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

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal relations of Canada with other countries and especially with the United States at the present time excite a very great degree of attention and interest in the public mind. It is a question wihich deserves and calls for our careful consideration and deliberation. It may not be, Sir, that revision of our policy at the present time, or definite action of any character is desirable, or called for, but some action of that character is inevitable in the near future, and it is in the highest degree important that the facts relating to our fiscal relations with various countries should be discussed, and should be made generally known to the public. I propose, to-day, Mr. Speaker, at the outset, to make a few references to some events in the past history of the legislation of this country which I think are, in the highest degree, pertinent to the condition of things that exists today. I had a great deal of pleasure a short time ago in listening to the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), and I can endorse most fully his encomiums as to the good character of the administration of the Mackenzie government, and his speculations as to what would probably have been the outcome of that policy had they continued in power. There is one thing in connection with that administration which I think the administration in power may profitably take into consideration. We had, in Canada, in the early years of the Mackenzie administration, a strong protectionist feeling. That was a question which was discussed to some extent when I first entered politics in Canada in 1872. It was a question which received a good deal of attention in the years 1874, 1875 and 1876 in this Canadian House of Commons. There were in the Liberal party, among the supporters of Mr. Mackenzie, a number of members who believed that the duties should be advanced and that the government should adopt a protective policy of a moderate character and to a limited extent. This policy was advocated by the members for the city of Hamilton who were supporters of the government, by the members of the city of Montreal, who were supporters of the government, by the members of the city of Toronto, by the member for South Brant and by myself. The rate of duty upon the great mass of our importations then was 174 per cent and the request made by the members of this House and supporters of the government who represented this demand for some advance in the duties was that the duties should be advanced from 174 per cent to 25 per cent. But, it was well known that an advance to 224 per cent would have Mr. MORRISON.

been acceptable and it is even probable that an advance of 24 per cent, or to 20 per cent, would have allayed the protectionist feeling that existed and would have been accepted with some degree of allowance and grumbling as a solution of the question by those who were demanding an increase of the duties. These demands, it is not necessary to say, were of the most moderate character. There were good reasons for adopting this policy. The revenue of the country was insufficient to meet the expenditure even with the careful and economical administration of Mr. Mackenzie. It was an era of deficits and it would have been the most proper thing in the world to have increased the revenue to a sufficient degree to meet the absolutely necessary expenditure of the government. It would have been done, and very little more than have been done, by the increase of the duties that was asked for.

I do not know-and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) is not present to say-I do not know what the actual desire of the Mackenzie government in reference to this matter was. I suspect however-and I think I have good reasons for the suspicion-that the Mackenzie government were willing to advance the duties to 20 per cent or even to 224 per cent. But the Minister of Finance of that day was waited upon by a delegation of the members from the maritime provinces headed by the Hon. A. G. Jones, then member for Halifax, and was informed by that delegation that if any advance in the duties was made it simply meant that there would be a bolt of the supporters of the government from the maritime provinces. Well, the members who advocated this policy and who were the supporters of the government in the west, hardly felt justified in taking so extreme a position as to threaten the Mackenzie government with their condign displeasure if it did not meet their wishes, and consequently the government, if it had any intention to advance the duties, abandoned that intention and surrendered to the threats of the Liberal members from the maritime provinces.

At that time we were on the eve of a rearrangement of party issues. If the Liberal party had advanced the duties even by a bare 24 per cent on the 174 Per cent list, we have reason to suppose that the then opposition would have met that advance by a denunciation of the adoption of a protective policy.

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

Some hon. MEMBERS

Oh.

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

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

Yes. We have reason to suppose so. The advance of the duties, however, was not made. The Minister of Finance in his budget speech in 1876 set at rest our speculations, our doubts, our aspirations and our desires by announcing- as has been announced on the present occasion-that there would be no change in

the tariff. That speech was made in the afternoon. The Finance Minister closed his remarks just a little before six o'clock, and in the interval betwen six o'clock and eight o'clock-unless the opposition had deliberated upon this question before, and had resolved what they would do in case the government did increase the duties, and had also made an alternative resolve as to what they would do if the government did not increase the duties, which I am doubtful of- in the space between six and eight o'clock the opposition had decided upon its course ; had decided to strike out a bold course ; had decided to adopt the policy of protection ; had decided to denounce the position taken by the Finance Minister and the Mackenzie administration, and tabled a resolution calling for a readjustment of the tariff of Canada upon protectionist principles.

Well, Sir, we all know the result. Our chances were thrown away. I fought for an increase in the duties, for I believed that the salvation and the existence of the Liberal party depended upon the government taking the course that my friends and myself then advocated. We failed. The duties were not increased. The policy outlined by the resolution of Sir John Macdonald became the policy of the Conservative party. We went to the country upon that issue and we sustained a crushing defeat. Mow, Sir, the leader of the Reform government of that day, and the ministers of his administration, in my belief had not the slightest anticipation that they were in danger. They had not the slightest degree of realization as to the character of public sentiment in the country. I felt it. I went to my constituency and held meetings for the two years that elapsed before the elections. I held twenty or thirty meetings in each year, because I felt that my position was in danger. I felt that as a supporter of the Mackenzie government I was liable to be defeated, and in June, 1878, I wrote to the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie. I had previously implored our friends to go into the field, to hold meetings to combat this new principle, and I had warned them if this was not done they were in danger. I wrote as I say, to the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie in June, 1878, telling him that in my opinion his government was in a dangerous position, that in my opinion they were resting in a fancied security, and might wake up upon the realization of disaster. I advised him to postpone the date of the elections and to take measures to have this question thoroughly discussed in every riding in the Dominion, and to have this protective policy combatted by good speakers everywhere. Well, X suppose that my good friend Mr. Mackenzie had some little sympathy for mo, a poor deluded member from the west who had got scared and who did not realize fully how safe the government were, and how little danger there was of this heresy taking possession of the public mind. The

hon. gentleman had the kindness to write me a long letter, to disabuse my mind of the false impressions I had imbibed ; to show me that really I failed entirely to apprehend the drift of public sentiment; to assure me that the government was perfectly safe; that there was no danger at all; and that it was folly for me to borrow trouble. He went on to enter into details and to show me the ridings we were sure to carry, the ridings we might possibly loose, the ridings we might possibly gain, and he wound up his survey of the field by the assertion that he would come back to power with a majority of 00 members in the House of Commons. Well, I did not believe it, but when the thunderbolt fell on the 17th of September I must confess that I was paralyzed, for I had no anticipation that there would be a majority of 60 on the opposite side. But such was the case.

Now, the mistake of the government of that time was simply this. They underrated the force of the currents of public sentiment that pervaded the country. They did not realize how strong a hold this doctrine of protection had taken upon the public mind. They failed even to take advantage of the circumstances they might have taken advantage of, by combatting vigorously in every riding in the Dominion this so-called heresy. They failed to do it, and they were beaten.

The opposition party came into power, came into power largely because the Liberal party had failed to understand the drift of public sentiment, and because the Liberal party had refused to do what was a reasonable thing, and a thing they ought to have done. They had refused to make a slight concession to this protectionist sentiment that pervaded the country. What was the great difference between a tariff of 17i per cent, and a tariff of 20 per cent or even 22 per cent. Bach was a revenue tariff. The one was a little more protective than the other incidentally and that was all. However, this concession to public sentiment was refused by the Liberal party and the party fell. Sir John Macdonald came into power. Now, Sir, I am bound to say that the policy inaugurated by Sir John Macdonald-that the changes made by that hon. gentleman were not violent changes ; that the changes were not in the strictest sense of the word what might be called radical. It is true that a protective policy was adopted; a moderately protective policy I am bound to say in the light of past events, and speaking as I want to speak candidly and with a desire to present the truth. The duties under the Sir John A. Macdonald tariff were about half as high as the duties in the United States under their protective tariff ; they were what we may reasonably assert to have been moderate duties. We went on under that policy for eighteen years ; and during all that time we had been dealing with states which, with the exception of

152S

Great Britain are protective states-the United States, Germany, France, Russia-all highly protected ; only one example of a free trade nation standing out in the whole field-the example of Great Britain.

In dealing with this question, it is easy enough to take the position of a doctrinaire, and to say that this or that corresponds with the teaching of political economy, and that nothing else can be correct; but it seems to me that the proper course for us to pursue at this juncture is to be governed by practical conditions. Theories are all right, but theories may not be applicable to the conditions; and we should be governed by practical conditions. Now, I am afraid I shall be considered an inconsistent man.

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

William Cameron Edwards

Liberal

Mr. EDWARDS.

There is no trouble about that.

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

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

My hon. friend says there is no trouble about that. I must confess that I cannot hold on to the doctrines of absolute free trade, as my hon. friend does, in the light of the experience I have passed through and the knowledge I have obtained. I am afraid that I must confess that I am slightly inconsistent, that I sometimes change and modify my opinions; and on this question I have reached conclusions by a process of reasoning founded on conditions which have come under my notice.

For instance, with regard to our trade relations with the United States, when I became a member of the Joint High Commission, I commenced to analyse the American trade returns; and I found before I had worked at them long, that I had been quite ignorant of our trade relations with the United States, and that the same degree of ignorance had characterized the great mass of the Canadian people. As I proceeded to analyze these trade returns, I found that the policy which the United States had pursued against Canada since the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty had been a positively unfriendly and hostile policy-a policy conceived by the desire to keep us from growing and prospering; and that under the operation of that policy of repression they had kept our experts to the United States stationary from 18U6 down to this present moment, while we had left our markets open to them through the operation of moderate duties, and they had marched in and practically monopolized the supply of manufactures to the Dominion of Canada. Well, I said, this is not right; something needs to be done. Whether I am a free trader or a protectionist, or whatever my antecedents may have been, this is a condition of tilings which requires readjustment; it is a condition of things which is not proper or desirable or in our interest to allow to continue. Thus, by a course of experience, of study, of inquiring into the facts, I confess that I have to some extent modified opinions which I may have

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

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

entertained some years ago. Changed conditions and changing conditions must ever modify opinions; and the man who does not change or modify his opinions, is a man who does not grow-is not a progressive man; is not an intelligent man; is not a man who is influenced by his environment as he ought to be.

When I issued my address to my electors at the last general election, I was, I think, the first public man in Canada to give public utterance to the views which I entertained with regard to our American trade; and I judge that those views were acceptable to my constituents, because I was elected by acclamation; and I think I am justified in making the prediction that the views which were enunciated in that address, and were accepted by the electors of North Norfolk, Conservative and Liberal, are views which will be accepted by tliree-l'ourths of the electors of Canada. As a Liberal, I stand here to make these statements, because, so far as my own influence and voice can prevent it, I do not want my party to be in ignorance of these facts or to take a position or enter upon a line of action without being fully aware of the conditions that exist. The government, of course, are not, in my opinion, called upon to take definite action in this matter now. When I tabled a resolution here on the 24th of February, I did so, not for the purpose of defining an issue and challenging the issue as between the government and the opposite party. It was not with that intention at all. I approve of the policy of the government in taking this matter into consideration-in deferring their conclusions as to the course they will pursue, and in the meantime ascertaining what will be the result of the conference at London in regard to the relations of the various parts of the empire to each other. While I sustain my views by every argument which I can advance, while I believe in them and commend them to the consideration of the government, I do not expect that the government is to take them into consideration with a view to definite and final action this session.

At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

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

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

I had stated, Mr. Speaker, just before you left the chair at six o'clock, that the change in our fiscal policy, consequent upon the success of the Conservative party in 1878, could not fairly be termed a radical one. And in the same connection, Sir, I would say that upon the defeat of the Conservative party in 1896 and the establishment of the present government, the changes made in the fiscal policy of the country were still not at all radical

iu their character, with the exception of the feature introduced into the tariff, termed ' the preferential policy.' With this exception, the changes were comparatively slight, and the policy pursued by the previous government was, in a large measure, continued. The promise of the Liberal party to reduce the taxation from the customs duties was, in a measure redeemed by the adoption of the preference in favour of Great Britain-the preference, first, of 121 per cent, then increased to 25 per cent, and later to 33J per cent. 1 have never been very enthusiastic about this preference. It was, of course, a method for reducing taxation. It was an indirect, but never-the less an actual reduction of taxes from customs, so far as the importations from Great Britain are concerned. And to this extent and in this respect those who advocated the policy may feel justified. However, to me it has always seemed that we receive nothing in return for this concession. We are left in the English markets upon exactly the same footing as that occupied by all foreign states. The preference was a sentimental one, an evidence of our good will for England, it was accepted as such, it promotes good feeling, but I think that, so far as a mere expression of sentiment is concerned, a preference of 121 per cent would have been just as effective as the highest preference. It has wrought consequences that are not such as we can felicitate ourselves upon, because it has reduced the protection enjoyed by certain manufacturing industries below the point this protection should stand at. For this reason I think it would have been a commendable act if some change had been made in the tariff this session to meet that condition of things which has been created by the unusualy reduced production to the woollen industries. However, it is difficult for a government to meddle with the tariff, and a government necessarily shrinks from such a step. It -was specially natural for the government to shrink from interfering with the tariff in this case, when it avowed its intention, after the London conference was held and certain conditions settled, so that we may know where we are, to revise the fiscal policy of the country.

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

Edward Frederick Clarke

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARKE.

When was that avowal made ?

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

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

command of the iron and steel market. It has increased its exports and manufactures, within a very limited number of years, to over $400,000,000 per annum, and when the Isthmian canal is built, the United States will give Great Britain competition in the open door markets of Asia that will trouble not a little the British manufacturers. In our common markets to-day, Germany and the United States are the formidable competitors of Great Britain. Are these two great nations, are their institutions and their development, an evolution from the free trade ideas of Cobden ? Not at all. These competitors of Great Britain have been created by a stringent and effective protection, and without the inauguration, adoption and continuance of that policy, these nations would never have attained the position they occupy to-day. These are matters for grave consideration. Why are nearly all the nations in the world protective ? Why is it that some common impulse impels these nations to adopt a policy that will develop their resources and enlarge the operations of their labourers, give them a great variety of interests and multiply and fortify their industries ? It is because they feel that this is necessary to their development as a nation.

Let us give some little attention to the effect of protection in the United States- the country with which we have the most intimate trade relations, with which we must in the future have the most intimate trade relations, that will have more influence on our destiny than all the rest of the world, in all probability.

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

Edward Frederick Clarke

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARKE.

Notwithstanding the preference.

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

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

Notwithstanding any other influences which may intervene. The protective policy of the United States, I am free to say, has been an extravagant one. It has wrought many evils in that country.

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

An hon. MEMBER.

It is doing so now.

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

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

Yes, I admit the truth of that assertion. These evils have been wrought by the fact that the protective policy of the United States, the instrument they use, they applied with too great rigour; that, where moderate duties, such as we have in Canada were sufficient, they have adopted extravagant duties; where a 30 per cent duty was enough, they would have, perhaps, 60 per cent or 75 per cent. And manufacturers in the United States, where they have been able to combine, have been in a position to charge the domestic consumer very much higher prices than they could afford to export for, and did export for. These are evils attending the system, they are evils which are the consequence of the application of the system in a way which was beyond the means required for the Mr. CHARLTON.

development of the industries of the country. But, notwithstanding this, it would be folly to deny or to attempt to minimize the effects which protection has produced in the United States, a country which, to-day, is the greatest manufacturing nation on the face of the globe; a country which, last year, produced more goods than Great Britain and France combined; a country which produced, last year, $13,000,000,000 worth of manufactures; a country which, last year, exported $400,000,000 worth of manufactures; a country which is increasing its export of manufactures with marvellous rapidity. All these things, whether they make a desirable consummation or not, are the results of the system of protection which has been in vogue in the United States, and which has been continued continuously and consistently for over forty years.

It would be interesting to see what the condition of the American export and import trade has been In the period anterior to the period of protection and succeeding the adoption of protection. I draw the line between the two periods; at 1875, although the Morrill tariff was passed in 1801, but the civil war and the inflated currency prevented the system of protection from having its full effect at once. The full and fair results of protection were not attained until the country had emerged from the difficulties attendant upon the war and had resumed a specie payment. And, so I take the year 1875 as the beginning of the period when protection was in full force and the results of protection were fully attained. From 1790 to 1874 is a period of eighty-four years. During that period there were fifteen years when the United States had a balance of trade in its favour, the aggregate amount of these balances being $152,723,000. During the same period, there were sixty-nine years when the balances of trade were against the United States, and the aggregate amount of these balances was $2,150,000,000. Now, the

period from 1875 to 1901 is a period of twenty-six years. During that time there were twenty-two years when the balance of trade was in favour of the United States, and four years when there was an adverse balance. The favourable balances aggregated nearly $5,000,000,000, while the adverse balances aggregated $69,000,000. In the last four years the favourable balances of trade in the United States aggregated $2,354,000,000, and, last year, the balance of trade in favour of the country was $664,500,000, and of that amount we provided $71,000,000. Now, these are conditions which I think must convince any candid mind that protection has wrought certain results in the United States; that, whatever may have been the abuses of the system, however crude and improper may have been the application of the details of the system, it has made of the United States the

greatest manufacturing nation on the face of the glohe. It has increased, as I shall show, presently, its output of manufactures at a marvellous ratio, and it has put the United States far in the van among the nations of the world in the productions of manufactures. In 1860, the census returns of that year gave the production of manufactures in the United States as $1,885,861,000. In 1890, the production of manufactures was $13,000,000,000. The increase of manufactures in this period was at the rate of 688 per cent. In 1860, the population of the United States was 31,000,000; in 1890, it was 76,000,000. The increase of population in that period, therefore, was 145 per cent, while the increase in the production of manufactures was 688 per cent. These figures tell their own story, and that story is that, protection has not been a failure in the United States; that story is that the United States has attained a position among the nations of the globe which makes it the wealthiest nation under the light of Heaven, the greatest manufacturing nation in the world, perhaps the most powerful nation in the world, a nation with its industries developed to the fullest extent, a nation supplying its own wants and seeking the markets of the world, a nation with an educated class of operatives, men of intellectual character, and capable of performing a great amount of work-for it is said that, notwithstanding the high rate of wages in the United States the dollar will purchase more work in the line of manufactures than in any other country. Now, the United States has reached at this moment the position wthere these excessive rates of protection are unnecessary, has reached a position where protection can be dispensed with, as that country can compete with every other country in the world on equal terms, and without favour either in her own markets or in the markets of the world.

Now, this is what I have to say with regard to protection in the broad field of its operation and application in the world, i have given more particularly and in detail the results in the United States, but the fact that this policy has been adopted and is continued in Germany, Russia and France is evidence, I think, that it must be producing practical results in the same line, or it should be repudiated in those countries.

Now, I come to the consideration of our own trade relations with the United States. I think, Sir, the spirit of the American policy towards us should affect the spirit that we show toward the United States and our policy toward them. I state that as a fact in my belief-that, whatever would be abstractly desirable, concrete conditions should govern our action rather than theories, and that the policy of the United States toward us, the conduct of the United States toward us, the spirit of the United

States toward us should have an influence and a direct influence, upon our action, conduct and spirit toward the United States. What have been the salient features of the policy of the United States toward Canada ? In 1854, we secured from that country a very desirable and favourable treaty. That treaty remained in pperation for twelve years. Under its operation our export trade with the United States quadrupled, and our import trade with the United States increased in almost the same proportion. That treaty conferred upon both 'countries unmixed advantages and blessings. Although our exports to the United States were slightly in excess of our imports, that was owing to exceptional circumstances, the existence of the civil war in the United States and an abnormal demand for animal products and farm products. Yet, it is certain that, when the war had ended and matters had adjusted themselves to their usual level, our importations from the United States would at least have equalled our exports to that country.

Now, that treaty was abrogated in 1866 without cause, abrogated iu a fit of spleen, abrogated in face of the fact that, to offset the exhibition in the Canadian Assembly at Quebec of a little pro-confederate feeling, we had sent 40,000 men to fight in the union armies; and that the great mass of the people of Canada sympathized with the north. I say in face of these facts that treaty was abrogated, avowedly because of some little exhibition of sympathy with the South in the Canadian legislature. Canadians made an effort to avert the loss of the treaty. They admitted that it might perhaps be advisable to enlarge its provisions, to include among the articles for reciprocal interchange, certain manufactured articles. They were ready to consent to any proposition within reason rather than have that treaty abrogated. They were spurned, no propositions were entertained, the fiat of the United States had gone forth that the treaty must be abrogated. The feeling in the country wit'i regard to the Alabama matter and some other matters gave a hostile tinge to sentiment that rendered it impossible to secure any arrangement that would save the treaty.

Now, then, for thirty-five years since the abrogation of that treaty, what has been the policy of the United States ? They have continually and continuously, consistently and persistently, adopted and continued a policy of repression. They have sought to shut out our imports from their markets, it has been their fixed and deliberate design to do this-no question about it. We sent to them, in 1866, $44,000,000 worth of the productions of Canada; we sent to them in 1901, aside from precious metals, less than that amount, trade had remained stationary during all these years. That was their policy toward us. What was our policy towards them ? We had a

scale of duties of about 15 per cent on their manufactured articles, we raised those duties in 1876 to 17i per cent; we raised them under the policy of protection that was in vogue from 1878 to 1896 to less than one-half the rate of duties they imposed upon our exportations to that country; and today, under a Liberal policy, with as large a reduction made in our duties as is possible to make, larger perhaps than is advisable to make, their duties are still as high again as our own; and in consequence of that, while our exports to the United States have remained stationary, our imports from the United States have risen from 828.000,000 in 1866 to $119,000,000 in 1901. While in 1866 we sold them $25,000,000 worth of farm products, in 1901 we sold them a little more than $8,000,000 ; we had reduced our sale of farm products to one-third of what it was in 1866. But while we have given them a larger market for their farm products than they gave us, while we have increased our importations to three-fold, almost four-fold, what they were in 1866, they still continue this same policy, this deliberate policy of shutting us out of their markets.

Now, what are we going to do ? Of course our tariff to-day does not exactly suit the United States, they would rather have us remove all duties and give them absolute control of our market. But tilie tariff suits the United States about as well as they can ever expect any tariff will suit them! It suits them so well that they are able to sell us three times as much as they buy from us; it suits them so well that they have control of our markets for manufactures; it suits them so well that while we are their third best customer in the world, their custom, so far as we are concerned, is of comparatively very small value indeed. And what we want to do is to avoid earning their contempt by refusing to stand this kind of treatment. And how will we do that ? Well, we want to place ourselves in a good trading position, we want to place ourselves in a position where we have got something to offer in return for something that we ask. We have got nothing to offer now except that we might enlarge our free list, which is already too large. We might let down the bars, which are already too low, while our neighbour has a stake and ridered fence in front of us but it is not desirable to do this.

My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I do not suppose, sympathizes with my ideas; I gathered from what he said the other night that he scarcely does. I would not expect that the hon. gentleman would do so fully, for I do not think that he would voluntarily incur the odium of inconsistency that would attach to him if he who refused to advance the duties in 1876 to 2i per cent to allay the protectionist sentiment, were to go as far as I am prepared to go to-day. I think he will rnain-Mr. CHARLTON.

tain his consistency, nail his colours to the mast, and sink, colours and all, if it is necessary to do so. I was very much pleased with his speech the other night. I admired his masterly analysis of the census returns. If his premises were correct, it was a very marvellous exposure of a great outrage- and I have no reason to say that his premises were not correct. I endorse fully his admirable forecast of what would probably have been the outcome of the policy for the Mackenzie administration if it had continued in power. The common sense policy for the North-west was holding the land for the settler and the construction of a Canadian railway to be owned by the government, and I think the country would have profited vastly by the continuance of Mr. Mackenzie in power, even if he did not rise the duties 2J per cent.

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

Edward Frederick Clarke

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARKE.

After the experience we have had of the Intercolonial Railway ?

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

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

I think perhaps we would have had a better experience, for the road would have been built under different auspices and by a different party. Then I admired the hon. gentleman's justification, plausible, to say the least, of the increase of the expenditure. I do not think that matter could have been presented in a better, a more ingenious, a more convincing light than it was presented by the Minister of Finance. I think so far as the hon. gentleman and myself are concerned that we might honestly reach different conclusions in measuring the effect of recent developments and influences. It is not necessary for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to believe as I do. I respect his convictions. It is not necessary for me to believe exactly as he does, and I trust that he will respect my convictions. I look upon the character of our trade with the United States with deep resentment, perhaps he does not. That is a matter for us to consider calmly, fully and fairly when we discuss this question, as we shall do for weeks and months to come.

And just here, by way of parenthesis, I may refer to a story my hon. friend told, a story in which I figured to some extent as one of the characters. The hon. gentleman said that I was a very devout man, that I had stated on several occasions in the House that I was. Well, I wish to affirm, Mr. Speaker, that I never said on several occasions, or on one occasion, in this House that I was a very devout man, and I have never claimed to be anything else than a very great sinner. It is very true, Mr. Speaker, that I have taken in charge, and to the best of my ability, promoted and urged certain legislation in this House. One Bill I did, after a long struggle, succeed in getting upon the statute-book. I took up another subject and I did not succeed with that. Now, I always realized, Mr. Speaker- 1 say this to you in confidence-I always

i537

realized in taking charge of these Bills, that I was doing a most unpopular thing, that 1 was losing caste with my fellow-members, that I was making myself a subject of ridicule. I felt that from the start, and I certainly did not go into this for the sake of popularity. I fought one Bill persistently, and I think courageously, until 1 secured a success.

I fought the other Bill in the same way until I came to the conclusion that success was hopeless and then I abandoned it. So far as any political return, or any return in the shape of popularity among my fellow members was concerned, I never expected to get it, I never did get it and it has been to me, as far as my position in this House is concerned, undoubtedly a detriment. I felt that to be the case then and I feel it still. In regard to the story of my hon. friend it was not exactly correct. He has a good sense of humour but he was guilty of attributing the vision of some person to me.

I told the story as being the vision that somebody else had. I never had a vision myself and I do not ever expect to have one. If I were asked to tell the story again and to make the application now, I should say that the probability would be that the person having the vision would see the souls hung up to dry, because they were too green to burn, of men who were satisfied with our present trade relations with the United States and intend to permit them to continue and who had no idea of resenting the conduct of the country which treats us in such a manner.

I gave verf careful attention and consideration to the speech of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I entirely disapprove of his position on the reciprocity question. I disapprove of that position in toto. I am sorry to see an attempt to create in this country a sentiment adverse to the securing of reciprocity with the United States upon fair and reasonable terms. We are two countries, existing side by side, with the same boundary for 4,000 miles, each of us possessing about 3,000,000 square miles of the North American continent, with railways binding us together by networks for intercommunication, with water courses serving as a boundary between the two countries and inviting communication, with geographical conditions between the two countries knitting us closely together, with a similarity of races, laws, religions and institutions. Practically one people, nature designed that these two great countries should have intimate trade relations and the ingenuity of adverse and hostile fiscal legislation has not been able to prevent a large development of intercommunication between these countries. If we remove the barriers, if we place the fiscal relations of these two countries upon a mutually fair basis we will have an enormous development of commerce and one 49

which would be profitable and advantageous to both peoples alike. We have obtained a very satisfactory development of trade with Great Britain. We have built up an export trade in farm products with that country of a most satisfactory character. We owe to Great Britain fair treatment, fraternal treatment, but, it is not necessary for us to confine our attempts to create a profitable market to one country, or one hemisphere ; and while Great Britain with her forty million inhabitants is a good market, we compete with all the nations of the world, and we compete upon conditions which place us, in some cases, at a disadvantage. We cannot reach the markets of England as easily as can France, or Germany, or Russia, but, the United States with 76,000,000 inhabitants is at our doors. We can reach the markets of that country with a facility and ease that no other country can. We have here almost within telephone call-yes, within telephone call-teeming millions of people in great centres of population and markets that we can reach more readily than even the states of the west; and for people to say that we do not want trade relations with this country, that we do not want reciprocity, that we will throw the whole thing over and sacrifice this great American trade, is preposterous nonsense. What we want of the United States is not non-intercourse, not repression, but what we want of the United States is fair play, what we want of the United States is an equal chance with them, a chance to get into then- markets on as good terms as they get into ours.

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

Edward Frederick Clarke

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARKE.

How do you hope to get it 1

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

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

If we cannot get it we can do the other thing. If we have to do the other thing we will do it, but I would deprecate it. I would adopt another course as a last resort. I would only resort to it if nothing better could be done. There is one thing to be borne in mind in connection with this American trade. If we adopt a system of protection in Canada, we do it for the purpose of manufacturing in our own country the goods that we import from abroad, of having in our own country the artisans who produce these goods so that we can feed them. One thing that affords us a cause of complaint against the United States is that we import over $60,000,000 worth of manufactures from that country, and we are not allowed to send to them even a small portion of the food that the operatives who produce these goods consume. What we want is a chance to reach that already created market, that market that exists to-day, that exists by virtue of the production of thirteen thousand million dollars' worth of manufactured goods. If we go to work to create a market we can do it, but it will not be as great a market, not as valuable a market, and it will take years and a vast sum of money to do it. If we

can get access to the market of the United States, to the market that has been created by a period of forty years of protection, will it not be better to attempt to do that than to attempt to create a market ourselves ?

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

March 20, 1902