April 3, 1902

WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.


House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) : That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty ; and the proposed notion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.


L-C
LIB

Lawrence Geoffrey Power (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

The hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) moved the adjournment of the debate yesterday, he is first entitled to the floor.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

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

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (South Leeds).

I informed you last night, Mr. Speaker, that it was not my intention to occupy any time in discussing the motion or the amendment now before the House. But the hon. member who was to reply to the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Maclaren) is not in his place, and I feel it my duty to make a few observations in reply to him. I would have done so last night, but the Minister of Finance was kind enough to say that owing to an arrangement having been made to take a vote on Tuesday night he would consent to an adjournment, and let me make my observations to-day. The hon. member for Huntingdon, in his speech, made use of the following language :

I am in principle a free trader, and that is the basis of my 'support of the fiscal policy of the present government. That party and that policy which come nearest to ?ny views are the party and the policy that I support.

Further on he says :

One thing I cannot understand is how the increase of duty is going to cheapen articles to those who have to purchase. That has always troubled me. I was talking the other day to a manufacturer down it the Russrl House, ana 1 put him this question: 'What about us who have to purchase ?' He said, 'The increase in duty does not necessarily increase the price of the article.' Well, we are all human, we like to get all we can for what we have to sell and buy as cheaply as possible. And I have not that confidence of the philanthropy, of the manufacturers of this country to believe that they are going to give us goods any cheaper than they can afford to, and whatever duty is put on they will add to the price of their goods.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

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

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR.

rants, 2c. pet pound, the weight of box or basket to be included for duty ; butter, 4c. per pound ; buckwheat, 10c. a bushel ; buckwheat meal or flour, ljc. per pound ; oleomargarine, butterine or other substitutes for butter are prohibited.

I would like to ask my hon. friend if he would have that prohibition removed. Some years ago, I think in 1886, I had the honour of introducing into this House a Bill to prohibit the importation and manufacture of oleomargarine as a substitute for butter. I urged that a duty of 10 cents per pound, which would actually amount to prohibition, be placed on the oleomargarine manufactured in Canada or imported. It was ruining the dairying industry of the country, as I proved by statistics. The proposition was opposed by some hon. gentlemen of the opposition. One said he had purchased oleomargarine in the United States, brought it into this country, and fed it to his lumbermen in camp. Another hon. gentleman of standing in the House then, and of standing in the House to-day, made a speech from which I propose to quote a few words. During my speech I had read from the report of Commissioner Coleman of the United States Agricultural Department, in which he says ;

The manufacture of injurious compounds of fat, which are being shipped as genuine butter, threatens the legitimate dqiry interests of America.

Further on in my speech I announced what the government proposed doing. ' I said :

I asked, at the same time, that an excise and customs duty of 10 cents per pound be placed on all oleomargarine, either imported or manufactured in the country ; and I am glad to say that the government, true to its protective policy-the national policy-came down with a resolution placing a customs duty of 10 cents and an excise duty of 8 cents per pound on all these substitutes.

The government accepted the proposition I made, and came down with a specific and an excise duty on oleomargarine, either manufactured or imported. Had that been inforced it would practically amount to prohibition. But, as the matter was discussed further, the present Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) rose in his place and suggested to the then Minister of Customs (Sir Mackenzie Bowell), that in place of putting on an import and excise duty, it was better to prohibit the article, and the then Minister of Customs accepted the proposition and placed the article on the prohibited list. The hon. Minister of Customs had the audacity to state to the people that he was the party who was instrumental in having the importation of that article prohibited. But, we have one hon. gentleman high in the counsels of the party then in opposition and high in the counsels of the cabinet of to-day, and here is the speech that he made ;

The Conservative government saw the force of my argument and they put a duty of 2 cents a pound on pork and pork products and on beef and beef products. And what is the result ? We are growing enough to feed the people of this country and we are sending millions of dollars worth away to feed the people across the sea. Would the hon. member for Huntingdon be willing to allow the corn and rattlesnake fed pork of the United States to come in here and compete with the pea, oat and rye fed pork we produce in this country which is commanding the best price in the market ? I am not surprised that he gave a note of warning to the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier). We have had a dozen hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House giving notes of warning to the government, saying that they are free traders, and telling the government that if they advance the tariff they will withdraw their support. How can the farmers, the workingmen and the manufacturers of Canada expect any more protection from this government when hon. gentlemen behind them are standing up here and there and warning the government to make no change in the tariff in an upward direction, threatening them that if they do they will withdraw their support ? We have not heard from the ministers yet on this question, excepting from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) in presenting his budget and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). Why have the ministers of the government not sprung to their feet to defend the position they have taken ? They are allowing the members behind them to get up and tell their experience and they are ascertaining how many of them would vote against them in case they attempted to give any increased protection to the industries of this country. The last note of warning that we heard was from the hon. member for Huntingdon. He said : Ho not touch the tariff. If you do, I will vote against you. But the ministers of this government care more for their seats in office than" for their words or for any help they can give to the farmers, the workingmen, or the manufacturers of Canada. I have just stated that these hon. gentlemen care more for their seats in office than for the solemn promises they gave to the people of this country.

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

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

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR.

Oh, the salary ! That is only a small item to some of them. I wonder that there is an hon. gentleman sitting on the treasury benches to-day who can go to sleep and sleep soundly. I do not think it is possible. These hon. gentlemen must have the nightmare of broken promises to disturb their slumber. We can all remember that in 1896 the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, the hon. Minister of Mr. TAYLOR.

Customs and the right hon. Prime Minister sang one tune to the farmers, and I could read a record as long as my arm of the promises they made to the people. They have not redeemed one of them. The Prime Minister himself went to the temperance people. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) was the temperance apostle of the party. The Prime Minister said : You put me in and you can depend on that hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fisher). You put me in and I will submit a plebiscite to the people ; if the people carry that plebiscite I will give effect to the will of the people. He submitted the question to the people. Hid he carry it ? He directed two or three of his ministers to go into the province of Quebec and say to the people: If the

plebiscite is carried it is going to put Sir Wilfrid in a hole. Yote against it. If you carry the plebiscite it means $2 a head for every man, woman and child. The average family in Quebec is from fifteen to twenty and it means to the poor farmer down there who is a temperance man a direct tdx of 830 or $40 in most cases to make up the deficiency of revenue that will be lost by the introduction of a prohibitory law. What was the result ? Quebec went nearly solid against the plebiscite, and upon the advice of the Prime Minister and three other ministers who stumped that province.

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

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

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR.

No; they were cabinet

ministers. But notwithstanding their

efforts, the plebiscite carried by a substantial majority, and did the Prime Minister give effect to the will of the people ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

No.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

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

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR.

Certainly not. Ask the Rev. Mr. Huxtable, who was chairman of the delegation that waited on him at Car-leton Place, and who said : I never gave a Conservative vote in my life, but I will never vote for the Liberals again until they redeem their pledge. That is one of the nightmares that haunts the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher), who said that if the express will of the people were not carried out he would leave the' cabinet. Well, the Minister of Agriculture has not left the cabinet yet. He thinks more of liis salary than he does of his word. Then, the Prime Minister told the people in London, Ont., that he would get a preference in England for the produce of the farmers of Canada, and he pointed out to the farmers what a nice thing it would be for them to be able to sell their oats, and their wheat, and their meat, and their hay, on the English market at an advantage over the products of the United States. The Prime Minister went to England, and did he ask for a preference ? On the contrary, he said in England : We will give you a preference in our markefs and

we will not take anything in return. That is the way he redeemed that pledge. Again the Prime Minister told the people that if they put him in power he would get them reciprocity with the United States, and the people along the frontier, particularly around my place, took Sir Wilfrid Laurier at his word and they brought their produce over to the United States when the Liberals got into power, but they had their goods seized because they forgot to enter them at the custom-house. The right lion, gentleman sent a commission to Washington. There is only one of the commissioners present in the House to-day, I am sorry to see. They went for a jaunt to Washington in their private cars, well padded and well lined, and they spent the money of the people of Canada, but they got no reciprocity.

There was a troublesome question before the people of Canada known as the Manitoba school question, and the Prime Minister said : I will settle that question if you put me in power; 1 will send a commission to Manitoba headed by Sir Oliver Mowat to ascertain the facts, and we will settle the question. Did he send Sir Oliver Mowat to Manitoba ? Not at all. He sent up his handy man who sits up behind him, the man who says elections are not carried by prayers, the man who thinks that every man in this country has his price; he sent him up to Manitoba in a special car to have a good time. This gentleman interviewed Mr. Greenway, and on the authority of a gentleman who is satisfied that the facts I will relate are true, this is what occurred. Mr. Greenway said : There are three men here, namely, Mr. Sifton, Mr. Martin and Mr. Prendergast, who will have to be removed before I can settle the school question. An arrangement was made as a basis of settlement which included the provision that if these three men were satisfied and gotten out of the way, a certain amendment to the school law would be proposed if the government at Ottawa would give to Mr. Greenway a slice out of the school land funds to help his depleted treasury. Remember that the federal government was the trustee of these funds for the benefit of the schools of Manitoba for all time to come. However, the bargain was made and legislation was introduced here to give Mr. Greenway the money belonging to that, sacred trust fund, and the Bill passed through this House* but thank God we had a Senate that defeated it. Now, that the Liberals have control of the Senate, I expect that when the proper time comes there will be a Bill passed to give Mr. Greenway the $300,000. Then Mr. Sifton had to be settled with, and Mr. Tarte said to him : You withdraw your opposition to the settlement of the Manitoba school question ; come to Ottawa and join the government as Minister of the Interior ; you will have control of all the lauds of Manitoba and tl*e

North-west Territories, and the gold lands of the Yukon. Mr. Sifton, who is a pretty shrewd fellow when there is anything affecting himself up, replied: I will go down provided I have control over the department without being subject to Council. The Minister of Public Works. (Hon. Mr. Tarte) yielded, and Mr. Sifton came down and was made Minister of the Interior, and the Prime Minister announced to the people of Canada that he gave Mr. Sifton absolute control of his department. The proof of that exists, because Mr. Sifton was not long in office until he gave the gold lands of that country to his friends to build a few miles of tramway. Thank God we had a Senate to stop that. I expect to see this year a Bill go through the Senate to recoup the gentlemen who got the contract for that work. Then there was Sir. Slartin left. The Slinister of Public Works could not handle Sir. Slartin alone, and so he had a consultation with the Canadian Pacific Railway people about it. He went to the Canadian Pacific Railway people and said : We want Martin out of the way; you hire him to be your solicitor in British Columbia for a few years; give him a large salary of $8,000 or $10,000 a year, and we will recoup you by increasing the subsidies which the Conservative government agreed to give for the building of the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway sent Sir. Slartin to British Columbia as their solicitor with a large salary, and this government carried out the corrupt bargain and recouped the Canadian Pacific Railway by increasing the subsidies to build the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. Then they went to Sir. Prendergast and said : You are working here for $400 or $500 a year as a common member of parliament, fighting the battles of your people, why not take the chief justiceship with a large salary, and withdraw your opposition and we will get the school question settled. Sir. Prendergast agreed and they appointed him chief justice of Slanitoba at a big salary, and then Sir. Greenway amended the School Act. The Prime Slinister now tells us he has settled the Slanitoba school question. It is true that he resorted to the corrupt means I have referred to, but ask His Grace Archbishop Langevin, and he will tell you that the Slanitoba school question is not settled, and that, it is a burning issue to-day in Manitoba.

He promised to abolish private cars. I see in the paper the other day that they had to build a new siding at the station to accommodate the private cars of the ministers. Each one has a private car. The Pi-ime Minister said that if he were elected, he would ride with the common people in their common cars. I want to see the Prime Slinister ride in a special car, but I think one special car should do for this government, as one special car did for the gov-

eminent of the late lamented Sir John A. Macdonald. He promised to abolish protection. Did he do it ? He promised to remove the duty on coal oil. He lowered the duty a cent a gallon, and then the wells were sold out to the Standard Oil Company ; and to quiet the late Judge Lister on this subject, they took him out of this House and put him on the bench, and then gave the legislation which they had bargained for to the Standard Oil Company, and that great monopoly has now control of this country.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
L-C
CON

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

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR.

The government is paying 32 cents a gallon for it, besides $1.25 lor the barrels. He promised the people of the North-west that he would remove the duty on agricultural implements. Did he do it 7 Ask the representatives of the North-west. But they are not going to vote against the government. They are getting a share of the plunder, and they will put up with it. He promised the workingmen of British Columbia that he would stop the importation of Chinese into this country. Has he done it ? We see them in rebellion on that question, asking the Prime Minister to carry out the pledge he made to them. He promised that he would reform the Senate. Has he done that ? Ask Mr. H. H. Cook or read the evidence which he gave. When they went selling seats in the Senate, that was a reformation. I suppose they will thank Providence that the Senate has been reformed because a number of Conservative members have died, and they have appointed some of their partisans for a price to fill their places. They promised to reduce the debt. The Prime Minister said ' Put me in, and I will surround myself with a cabinet of business men.' Where are the business men in this cabinet to-day ? We have a cabinet of lawyers, with one business man in it-the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), who takes care that he has good protection on biscuits and everything that comes out of his factories. I like to see it, because it gives the farmers better protection on their flour. The Prime Minister promised that he would reduce the national debt. Has he done it ? No. Instead of that, he has increased it in about six years by some $12,000,000. He promised to reduce the taxation. Has he reduced it any? The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) stated the other night that the government had reduced the cost of goods to the people 10 per cent, and the Minister of Customs gave the people to understand that their goods were now costing 10 per cent less than they had cost under the old tariff. The hon. member for Guysborough said that the average duty had been reduced from 20 per cent to 18 per cent, or a reduction in the cost of goods of 10 per cent. How does that affect the farmers of this country ? Take a farmer who lives in the

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

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

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR.

part of the country that I do, where he can throw a stone into the United States. He goes over and buys a dollar's worth of goods, and brings them home. Under the old tariff he would pay 20 per cent duty, so that that dollar's worth would cost him $1.20. To-day he goes and buys a dollar's worth of goods and brings them home, and pays 18 cents duty on them, so that the dollar's worth cost him $1.18. Therefore he pays two cents less on the transaction ; and this the hon. member for Guysborough says is a reduction of 10 per cent to the people on their purchases. The Prime Minister said : ' Put me in, and I will surround myself with a cabinet of business men, who will run the country on business principles, and we will save two millions, three millions, four millions ' ; and Mr. Justice Mills said. ' Yes, we can save five millions of dollars a year.'

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

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

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR.

He is transplanted to the bench. He was first translated to the Senate, and from there he was elevated to the bench. How has the government carried out that promise ? The Conservative government ran the country, and ran it better, and made more permanent improvements, on $36,000,000 or $37,000,000 a year than these people are doing on $47,845,000, which is the figure of their main estimates for this year. They have had prosperous times and large revenues ; and the people of this country expected that the Prime Minister and his cabinet, being business men, would do what any practical business man wouid do in times of prosperity, when more money was coming in than he required to run his business. They expected that the government would use the surplus to reduce the national debt. Have they done it ? No ; they have simply spent all they got, and in six years they have mortgaged the country to the extent of $12,000,000 more. Take a practical farmer who has a mortgage of $10,000 on his farm. He prospers, and his farm yields good returns. Would he say to his family, ' We will spend it all, and if at the end of the year it is not quite enough to pay running expenses, we will put another mortgage of $oo0 on the farm.' Would that farmer be a prudent business man ? That is just what this government have done ; they have spent all their revenue and mortgaged this country in the last six years to the extent of $12,000,000 more. I will just give one illustration to show the extravagant manner in which they are transacting the public business-and this applies more particularly to the practical, honest farmer who is in this cabinet, in the person of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher), though the government as a whole is responsible. The late Conservative government, who were corrupt and everything that was bad, judging by statements of the members of the

present government when they sat on this side of the House, took the census for three terms-in 1871, in 1881 and in 1891. The census of 1871 cost $511,000, that of 1881 cost $552,000, and that of 1891 cost $549,000, or an average of $540,000. Now, what little bill has this practical business man, the Minister of Agriculture, contracted ? A question was put to him on the 3rd of March : How much has been expended on the census up to date ? And the answer was $948,000 up to the 3rd of March. But there is about two years work yet to be done. I have a question yet on the paper asking how much has been expended up to date, and how much the minister anticipates it will take to complete the work. I am prepared to say, that added to that $948,000 it will take another sum of $250,000 to complete the census. That makes an increase in 1901 over 1891 of $649,000. Is that the way a business government should conduct the business of the country 7 Take my own town. By the census of 1891, it had a population of 3,869. The town has been growing considerably since, and yet by the present census that number is reduced to 3,526. Now, our municipal assessor was at work at the same time that the census enumerators were making their count, and took down the heads of families and tho number of each family. I have here a note from the Town Clerk's office with regard to that enumeration.

Gananoque, Oct. 17, 1901.

Dear Sir,-The assessment roll for the town of Gananaoque for the year 1901 shows a population of 3,718. I regret that I cannot give the other particulars asked for as they are not on the roll.

Yours, &c.,

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink

S. McCAMMON.


Thus the municipal assessor, who was at work at the same time as the Dominion census enumerators, gives the town 192 more persons than do the enumerators of this government. I got the assessors returns from every municipality in my county, and these show an increase of over 1,000 in population as compared with a reduction of the 1,000 in the census returns. That is a fair sample of how the censuses were taken in Ontario at least. And for this imperfect census we are paying $650,000 more than was paid by the late Conservative government for the census taken by it in 1871, 1881 or 1891. The Minister of Trade and Commerce pretends to be disappointed, but he must know that so far as Ontario is concerned the figures are altogether wrong. He has frequently expressed his confidence in the government at Toronto, and that government compiles a census every year from the municipal returns. and he has always argued by that the censuses compiled by the bureau of statistics at Toronto were correct, yet see the 66 difference between them and the figures given by the enumerators of this government. I have here the last estimates which the late Conservative government laid before the House in 1895-6 and the main estimates of the present government now before the House. I find that there are increases in the expenditure of every department under the present government as compared with 1895- 6. In that year, the late government had a public debt, including sinking fund, of $12,732,706.14, which has risen under the present administration to $13,967,312.65, or an increase of $1,234,606.51. [DOT] In charges of management the late government asked for an expenditure of $164,180 in 1895-6, whereas the present government wants $181,743 or $7,000 of an increase. In civil government the late administration spent in 1895-6 $1,449,000 against $1,575,000 asked for by this government, or an increase of $125,800. Administration of Justice cost us in 1895-6 $769,800. This year, according to the main estimates, it is costing us $976,000 or an increase of $206,000. On penitentaries the expenditure of $467,000 in 1895-6 has been increased to $491,000 or an increase of $24,000. On legislation we are spending $931,000 as against $853,000 in 1895-6, showing an increase of $78,000 under the present administration. Then take arts, agriculture and statistics, at the head of which department is this great business man, the Minister of Agriculture, the expenditure to-day is $502,000 as against $208,000 by the late government in ,1895-6, or an increase of $294,000. Qn quarantine the late government expended $70,000, and we are now asked for $193,000, an increase of $123,000. Immigration cost us in 1895-6 $130,000, to-day it is costing us $445,000, or an increase of $315,000. In pensions there is a decrease of $1,021. Then take superannuation. The expenditure on that branch has increased from $273,000 under the late government to $328,000, or an increase of $55,000, caused by superannuations which have taken place since this administration has taken office despite their pledge to the people that they would abolish the superannuation system. I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to explain a flagrant abuse in his own city of the superannuation system. There we had a postmaster, competent and efficient, and what did this government do ? They wrote out an order-in-council which they got His Excellency the Governor General to sign, believing no doubt it was true, superannuating the former postmaster because he was too old, and to-day that gentleman is drawing a big pension for doing nothing although he is a much abler


April 3, 1902