April 3, 1902


man that the one put in his place. The late incumbent at Kingston was 68 years of age when superannuated by these gentlemen, and they appointed in his place Mr. Gunn, a defeated candidate, who was seventy years of age when they appointed him. And these are the people who promised to abolish the abuse of superannuation. You cannot walk down the streets of this city without stumbling over young men in the prime of life, who were superannuated by these gentlemen to make positions for their party heelers. The militia, under the late government, cost $1,098,000 and to-day it costs $1,773,000, being an increase of $674,000. Railways and canals chargeable to income cost $96,000 in 1895-6, and to-day is costing $344,000, an increase of $248,000. Public works chargeable to income cost $1,300,000 in 1895-6 against $3,200,000 this year, or an increase of $1,957,000. The expenditure of mail subsidies has jumped from $383,000 to $724,000, or an increase of $340,000, and yet we have no fast line. Ocean and river service has increased from $166,000 to $243,000, or $76,000 increase. The expenditure on ocean and river service has risen from $166,000 to $243,000, showing an increase of $183,000. Scientific institutions has increased from $85,000 to $110,000, or $25,000. The item of marine hospitals shows an increase of $2,000. The item of steamboat inspection shows an increase of $4,000. Our fisheries cost us $417,000 in 1895-6 and to-day the expenditure on that item is $467,000-an increase of $49,000. Superintendence of insurance cost us $11,200 in 1895-6 and is now costing us $15,500, being an increase of $4,300. Subsidies to provinces have increased from $4,236,000 to $4,366,000. That increase is the carrying out of the promise of these gentlemen that if they were put in they would give the provinces larger subsidies, but Ontario has not benefited in that respect. The geological survey costs us $19,000 more than it did in 1895-6. The expenditure on Indians has jumped from $894,000 in 1895-6 to $1,079,000 this year, being an increase of $184,000. The late Sir John Macdonald assured us that these Indians were gradually becoming selfsustaining and that the charge for taking care of them would grow gradually less, aud so it did under the late Conservative administration. But although we have no more Indians than we had then and no more treaties, we find the Indian Department asking this year for $184,000 more than did the late Conservative government for that purpose. Then take the item of miscellaneous-comprising the little items of envelopes, sealing wax, etc. Under the late Conservative


CON

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

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR.

government the expenditure was $142,000. but that has now risen to $327,000, an increase of $184,000. No doubt the travelling expense of the ministers is comprised in this item for we do not see any trace of them anywhere else.

In the Department of Customs the expenditure has increased from $874,000 to $1,892,000, or the business man who is now at the head of that department is now spending $318,000 more than his predecessors.

Culling timber under the late government cost $2,950, but to-day it is costing $18,000, an increase of $15,400, and there is no timber to cull.

The item of weights and measures cost us in 1895-6 $99,000 and to-day it is costing us $110,000, or an increase of $12,000.

The inspection of weights and measures cost us $99,800 in 1895-6, and it now costs us $112,050, or an increase of $47,000.

Railways and canals collecting revenue, the late government did this work for $4,-

061,000, but to-day it is costing $6,666,000, or an increase of $2,600,000.

Public works cost us in 1895-6 $174,600 and that expenditure is to-day increased to $316,400, or an increase of $141,800.

I now come to the item of post offices which the Postmaster General promised us would be self-sustaining and revenue producing. What do we find ? The late government asked about $3,500,000, and this government asked $4,000,000, an increase of $528,000 over what was asked by the Conservative government to do the post office business of this country.

Aud for the Department of Trade and Commerce, which my hon. friend said ought to be abolished because it was not needed, the late government asked $19,100, and in his. estimate of this year the hon. gentleman asks $27,100-an increase of $8,000 for this department, over which he presides, and which he said was useless.

In Dominion lands the estimate of the late Conservative government was $117,022, against $157,532 this year, an increase of $40,000.

This makes a total of $36,800,000 asked by the Conservative government, and this year we are asked $47,800,000, an increase of $11,000,000. This is for current expenditure.

Now we come to capital account. For reduction of debt, Railways and Canals, Public Works, and Dominion Lands, the late Conservative government asked, in 1895-6, $4,408,000, and this government asks, $5,510,000, an increase of $1,107,000.

The grand total on account of consolidated revenue and capital is $41,243,000 under the late Conservative government, and $53,361,000 under this government, or an increase of $12,118,000. For the sake of convenience, and in order that the exact figures 1 may be given, I give the comparison in full :

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   S. McCAMMON.
Permalink

COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES.


1895-6. 1902-3. Increase. Interest on Public Debt Public Debt (including Sinking Funds) Charges of Management Civil Government Administration of Justice Police # Penitentiaries Legislation ' ' ' ' Arts, Agriculture and Statistics Quarantine Immigration Pensions (Decrease' $1,011 02) Superannuation Militia Railways and Canals (Income) Public Works (Income) Mail Subsidies and Steamship Subventions Ocean and River Service Lighthouse and Coast Service Scientific Institutions Marine Hospitals Steamboat Inspection Fisheries Superintendence of Insurance Subsidies to Provinces Geological Survey Indians North-west Mounted Police j ' ' ' ' Government North-west Miscellaneous Customs Excise Culling Timber Weights, Measures, Gas and Electric Light Inspection.. Inspection of Staples Adulteration of Food * Minor Revenues (Decrease, $1,605 00) Railways and Canals (Collection of Revenue) Public Works (Collection of Revenue) Post Office ' Trade and Commerce Dominion Lands Total to Consolidated Fund Capital Account. Redemption of Debt Railways and Canals (Capital).^ . Public Works (Capital) Dominion Lands (Capital) Total to Capital.., Grand Total § cts. 9 cts. $ cts.New-Yukon... 250,000 00 250,000 0012,732,706 11 13,967,312 65 1,234,606 51164,150 00 131,743 SO 17,539 801,449,434 16 1,575,225 66 125,791 50769,812 50 976,365 00 206,552 5022,000 00 30,000 00 8,000 00467,460 30 491,490 00 24,029 70853,255 50 931,296 00 78,040 50208,200 00 502,400 00 294,200 0070,000 00 193,500 00 123,500 00130,000 00 445,000 00 315,000 0086,664 37 85,643 35 273,240 00 328,240 00 55,000 001,098,884 00 1,773,003 00 674,119 0096,157 33 344,387 33 248,230 001.313,730 00 3,270,850 00 1,957,120 00383.733 33 724,566 67 340,833 34166,400 00 243,300 00 76,900 00457,870 00 641,770 00 183,900 0085,150 00 110,653 00 25,503 0039,000 00 41,000 00 2,000 0026,000 00 30,300 00 4,300 00417,900 00 407,000 00 49,100 0011,200 00 15,500 00 4,300 004,236,000 00 4,366,334 68 130,334 6845,000 00 04,430 00 19,430 00894,588 00 1,079,064 00 184,476 00500,000 00 850,000 00 350,000 00315,009 00 425,359 00 110,350 00142,600 00 327,195 00 184,595 00874,285 00 1,192,365 00 318,080 00472,953 75 490,129 37 17,175 622,950 00 18,350 00 15,400 0099,800 00 112,050 00 12,250 003,000 00 50,000 00 47,000 0025,000 00 25,000 00 2,505 00 2,000 00 4,061,413 00 6,660,853 00 2,605,440 00174,650 00 316,450 00 141,800 003,525,635 00 4,054,280 00 528,645 0019,100 00 27,100 00 8,000 00117,022 00 157,532 00 40,510 0036,834,458 38 47,845,038 51 11,010,580 131,721,539 61 75,000 00 2,527,420 00 3,861,600 00 1,334,180 0085,000 00 1 320,000 00 1,235,000 0075,000 00 260,000 00 185,000 004,408,959 61 5,516,600 00 1,107,640 3941,243,417 99 53,361,638 51 12,118,220 42


?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).

My attention was drawn away for a moment. I desire to follow the hon. gentleman's argument and would like to ask a question. The comparison he is making, as I understand, is between estimates and not between actual expenditures.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES.
Permalink
CON

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

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR.

Not between expenditures, but between the main estimates brought 60$

down by the Conservative government in 1895-6, and the main estimates that are now before us. When the supplementary estimates come down-those supplementar-ies which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance intimated would be so very large- I shall be ready to analyse them and make a comparison with the supplementaries under the Conservative government. I expect to see, in these coming supplementary estimates, attempts made to cover up some of

the jobs-for instance, the grant to the Yukon Railway, and also the money granted to settle the Manitoba school question with Greenway, and, no doubt, many others. We can deal with these supplementary estimates when we see them, but, in the meantime, I am making a comparison on the basis of the main estimates.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

Has the bon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) a comparative statement of the actual expenditure ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES.
Permalink
CON

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

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR.

My hon. and respected friend the leader of the opposition gave a comparison of the actual expenditure. And, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) will read the speech of my leader on this point, he will find that his estimate, his comparison on the basis of expenditure and mine on the basis of the main estimates, come to practically the same thing.

Some hon. gentlemen on the other side have said that the speakers on this side have not said much about the amendment.

I am strongly in favour of that amendment, and so is every member on this side. But hon. gentlemen opposite are at sixes and sevens as to the policy they favour. Here we staud as one man declaring in favour of increased and adequate protection to the manufacturing, agriculture, fishing, mining and other interests of this country. I think I speak for the party

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

Did I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) to say ' increased ' protection ? It is not so in the amendment, but ' adequate ' protection.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES.
Permalink
CON

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

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR.

That means just whatsit says. For instance, the duty on biscuits is 35 per cent. But if, when we get into power, my hon. friend (Mr. Paterson) comes before us and satisfies us that 35 per cent does not afford adequate protection, we will gladly increase it to 40 per cent. We want protection that will be adequate to keep in this country the boys and girls we grow here, protection that will be adequate to afford them opportunities for labour in producing every article required and not have those articles brought in from Germany as hon. gentlemen opposite are doing with their preferential tariff. We are prepared, as the resolution says, to agree to a fair preferential tariff between Great Britain and her colonies. But we do not want such preference as we have to-day which allows Germany to send her manufactures to England, have them wrapped and parcelled there, and then sent out to Canada under a preference on the plea that 25 per cent of the labour used in producing them is English labour. The hon. Minister of Customs knows that in this way large quantities of German goods come into Canada to compete with the honest labour of Canada. Our leader and every man on this side, so far as I have heard the expression of their views, is opposed to any such one-Mr. TAYLOR.

sided preferential tariff as this. We are prepared to deal fairly by Great Britain and her colonies, and to give them a preference if that preference will not injure our Canadian labour. We say that we are building up the British Empire by building up Canada, and we will not allow a lot of pauper labour or otherwise in London or in any other part of the empire to come in here and compete with honest Canadian labour. Therefore, we say that we will give adequate protection to Canadian industries. Our party is a unit on this policy, and the people of the country will be a unit in favour of it when we appeal to them.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES.
Permalink
L-C

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. SAMUEL HUGHES (North Victoria).

Mr. Speaker, in the London, England,

< Daily News,' of March 18th, 1902, I notice the following paragraph, part of a long article dealing with incidents of the war in South Africa in the year 1900 :

What struck me as a pretty horrible incident was that some Canadians who were too far off to join in the fight afterwards came in and stripped off the boots and socks of the dead Boers-a thing I should not like to do even in the case of a living Boer-and pulled out their toe-nails to carry away as mementoes.

That, Sir, refers to the only Canadian force that was there at that time, ' E ' Battery, Royal Canadian Field Artillery. I may say in explanation that one of the young English yeomen who was present at that engagement and who knew the circumstances, has written, to do justice to the Canadian Artillery. His letter appeared in the issue of the 'Daily News,' two days later, the 20th March. He corrects the statement of the contributor I have just quoted, and shows that these Boers had themselves taken off their boots in order to creep noiselessly into camp. Inasmuch as the item I have quoted has appeared in some Canadian papers to the discredit of the Canadian force, I desire to quote what this young English soldier says, which is absolutely true. His letter, in the ' Daily News of March 20th, 1902, reads as follows : Conservative Club, Carlisle, March 18,1902.

Sir-In your issue of to-day, under ihe heading ''When will the war be over ?' appears an account of the suppression of the rebellion in Griqualand West by General Sir Charles Warren with particular reference to Colonel Hughes, the' colonial scout, who was an exceedingly smart officer. There are many inaccuracies in the said account which I pm not concerned to correct ; but I do wish to contradict the slander therein contained against my old comrades the Canadians. Your scout whose testimony is recorded could not have been present at the engagement with which he connects the Canadians, otherwise he would not name the fight Smith s Drift.' The battle was fought at 'Fabers Puts, which is many miles from 'Smith's Drift,' and against the statement of your scout tha-t the Canadians were 'too far off to join in the fight, and that they 'stripped the dead Boers of their btots and socks,' perhaps you will allow me to say that the Canadians who were 'E' battery, R C F.A., and as efficient a body of men as have served in this war, were encamped within 200 I yards of the garden whence the enemy made

their attack on the camp, and their (the Canadians) guns did good execution in the action. That the colonials had several casualties in their ranks is the best contradiction I can give, and as to the 'boots and socks' fiction, the fact simply is that the Boers doffed their own boots the more noiselessly to approach our lines. I can send you a photograph of a dead Boer as he fell shot through the heart in the aforesaid garden, minus his boots but plus his socks. Your scout lost some of his own chums in the action, but he was not there himself.

Since the Canadians herein mentioned have leturned home, I trust you will permit me in their absence to record this protest.

Yours, &c.,

GEO. HODGSON, late trooper, 24th Co., I.Y.

I may say, Sir, that there is no need for me to make any further statement in addition to what is contained in this young soldier's letter. The Canadians conducted themselves on that occasion, as on every other occasion, with the greatest gallantry. I had the honour of being present myself. The Canadians were not, as this young soldier says, two hundred yards from the position held by the Boers, they were only 65 yards, and they maintained that position, and did splendid service throughout. I would not have mentioned this matter, only that an item has appeared in some of the papers to the discredit of E Battery of the Royal Canadian Field Artillery. No better men served in South Africa.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES.
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Walter Scott

Liberal

Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).

The amendment proposed by the hon. leader Of the opposition to the motion of the Minister of Finance, has been so thoroughly discussed from almost every point of view that it is not with the idea of advancing anything new that I rise to take part in this debate. In consequence of a statement made by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, the idea has got abroad that at the next session of parliament the country may expect some changes, or some revision of the tariff, and it is because of that possibility, or that probability, that I deem it my duty as the representative of a district composed largely of the consuming classes to state briefly my position on the tariff question. I shall endeavour to make my remarks very brief. I hope that what I have to say will not be so woefully misconstrued as some few remarks I made on a similar occasion last year were misconstrued by one of the hon. members who followed me In that debate. Last year I discussed a question partially of a local nature, just as hon. gentlemen at that time, and again this year, have discussed some questions partly of a local character. But the matter I brought up at that time, the future of the North-west Territories, I think is as important to the whole of Canada as almost any question that could be raised in this House. The hon. gentleman who followed me at that time, the member for Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster), said that he

found in my remarks the solution of something that had been puzzling him from the time of the general election. He found that I had made some promises of a local character to the people of my district superior to the promises which the opposition there had been able to make. Of course the reply might have been made to the hon. gentleman that there could not be found in his remarks any reason for his election to a seat in this House. But that would have been scarcely fair, because, from his point of view, I believe the speech he made was a very good speech, and a very good presentation of the case from his point of view. But to assure the hon. gentleman, and to assure this House, that he was entirely mistaken, I may state that the matter which I at that time discussed is not a matter of political difference in the North-west Territories. The statement that I made was similar to and, as a matter of fact, was largely a repetition of statements made by and of the position that is taken by the local Prime Minister of the territories who is a member of the party to which the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara belongs.

I am sorry that I cannot promise to follow very closely this afternoon the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) who has just taken his seat. I fear he has covered too much ground for me to chase him over. I am sorry too, that I cannot hope to approach the high statesmanship which he exhibited in his speech and which was exemplified when he touched the matter of private cars. I would not attempt, either, to follow his example in respect to fairness when he discussed the expenditure. He went over the figures in regard to expenditure, showing the increases that have been made since 1896 when his own friends were in power, but he abstained from any reference to the extra services that have been, given to the people in return for that increased expenditure. I would not endeavour either to imitate the hon. gentleman's accuracy, as when he referred to the government as a government of lawyers. I think he used the expression that the government is all composed of lawyers. Now, unless I am mistaken, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) is not a lawyer, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) is not a lawyer, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) is not a lawyer, the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) is not a lawyer, the Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Mr. Borden) is not a lawyer, the Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier) is not a lawyer. the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) is not a lawyer, the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is not a lawyer, the Minister without portfolio (Hon. Mr. Templeman) is not a lawyer, but a journalist. Here we have 8 or 9 members of the government, nearly 60 per cent, who are not lawyers. That is enough to show his accuracy.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).

That is pretty close for him.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES.
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Walter Scott

Liberal

Mr. SCOTT.

Well, that probably is as close to the mark as he got in the greater part of his speech, and possibly it is as close as many hon. members opposite have managed to get to the mark when they have dealt with public questions in this House, and a good deal closer than many of them are able to get when they deal with public questions in the country.

The Liberal party, since 1896, has been accused of carrying out the policy of the Conservatives, and it has been stated that Conservatives are still governing the country because the Liberal government are enforcing the Conservative policy. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor), in his opening remarks, referred to the action taken in this House some years ago respecting oleomargarine, at a time when his friends were in power, and if I understood him correctly, he stated that the present Minister of Customs had made a suggestion which had been accepted by the then Minister of Customs and carried out. He brought this up in a spirit, it seemed to me, of reprobation against the hon. Minister of Customs. If this fact is true, then, our friends opposite, when they were in power, were not unwilling, at times-on very few occasions, it is true

to take a suggestion from the other side, and I believe that any government of conscientious, honest men will never be unwilling to accept good suggestions no matter where they may come from. I was rather amused, in listening to the remarks of the last speaker, to note the excessive anxiety that pervaded these remarks in behalf of the farmers of the country. His speech was an appeal from the farmer's point of view. It seems to me that he has changed his point of view to a considerable extent from the time when, in Goderich, he was talking privately to a manufacturer there by the name of Saunders, and when he told that manufacturer, that if he and his friends were in power the farmers would not be so well off, that they would not have free binder twine, free wire, or free cream separators, that they would put a 45 per cent duty on agricultural implements, and according to the statement of Mr. Saunders, the hon. gentleman said that the present government were doing too much for the farmers. If we get into power, that is myself and my friends, said the hon. gentleman then the condition of things will be changed radically. A reference was also made by the hon. gentleman to the question of coal oil. He asked if the changes made by this government in the tariff in regard to coal oil had resulted in any reduction in the price. I am very happy to say that in the country with which I am familiar, west of Lake Superior, the changes made in the tariff and in the regulations in regard to the transportation of coal oil have resulted in Mr. SCOTT.

a reduction of price of from 5 to 10 cents a gallon which the people of that country very much appreciate. The hon. gentleman spent some time in endeavouring to refute the position taken by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) respecting the reduction of taxes which the present government claim they have made since 1896. The hon. member for Guysborough claimed that a reduction of 10 per cent had been made through the tariff legislation of the present government in the taxation levied on the people of the country. The hon. member who spoke last seemed to be puzzled by that statement and he sought to refute it. lJos-sibly it is not worth while for me to spend very much time in dealing with his references to the question because the proposition should be perfectly plain to every, one who has ever studied arithmetic. If we'take three from eighteen it must be clear to every one that this is something in the neighbourhood of a 10 per cent reduction. It may be clearer to the hon. gentleman if it is put in another way. The duty that was collected in the last fiscal year amounted to $29,000,000. That was the amount of the taxation levied on the people of the country. Had the tariff not been changed, had the tariff been left as it was, when the hon. gentleman and his friends went out of power, there would have been duty collected to the amount of $34,000,000. There is a reduction of about $5,000,000 from $34,000,000, and that means a reduction of rather more than 10 per cent. Is there any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who is not yet assured of this fact. If five taken from thirty-four is not equal to as much as 10 per cent, then, I do not know anything about arithmetic. In common with, I think, I may say all the members of this House, and in common with all the people of this country, I was very much pleased at the statement that the hon. Minister of Finance was able to give to this House. The statement which he made showed that the finances of the country are in a very flourishing condition, and I think it is a fair indication that the affairs of the people, of individuals and business men and others in the country are in a fairly prosperous condition. Our friends opposite all state that they agree that the country is in a prosperous condition and that progress is being made, but some of them contend that the government should not seek to claim any credit for the prosperity and progress that are to be seen on every nand. If that is true, if the attitude and policy of the government have had no effect upon the affairs of the country, why do hon. gentlemen spend so much of the time of this House talking about the tariff ? If it be true that the tariff policy of the government has had no effect upon the business of the country, why spend "so much time discussing it ? If it has had any effect surely it must have had a good effect, because conditions under the present tariff

have shown remarkable improvement. One point of that criticism that is made by our friends opposite is in regard to the expenditure. It has been said by a number of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that hon. gentlemen opposite are careful never to come down to details in regard to expenditure. It is an easy matter to state that the expenditure is too high, but any person who takes the responsibility of stating that the expenditure is too high should be willing to take the responsibility of pointing out the items in the estimates which should be cut out, or reduced and as long as none of these hon. gentlemen are willing to take that responsibility they have no right to be making the general statement that the expenditure is too high. As long as they will not take that responsibility they may rest assured that the country will not take very much stock in their statements about the expenditure. My hon. friend the junior member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) in fatherly tones told the hon. Minister of Finance that it was a dangerous thing to allow the expenditure to reach too high a point, because when the time came when there was any necessity of reduction, or when reduction became advisable, he would find it very difficult to make reductions. This hon. gentleman asked the hon. Finance Minister where he would commence to make reductions. On behalf of the hon. member for Centre Toronto I would implore the hon. Minister of Finance when the time comes when he must make reductions not to start in Toronto, because, if he does, there will be a howl against any such policy.

As I said at the commencement I intend to confine my remarks chiefly to my position on the tariff question. When I sought election in Assiniboia-while I asked for support as a Liberal, yet I also sought the suffrages of my constituents from the point of view that I should be absolutely independent in voting in this House, and that I should be free to support any measure which seemed to me and which seemed to the people I represent to be in the interests of the country. Therefore, Sir, if at any time the party led by the hon. leader of the opposition should pro, pound a policy which I considered to be more in the interests of my constituents than the policy of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, I shall have no hesitation whatever in casting in my lot with them, and giving my support to that policy. To the people I represent, the fiscal policy of the government is one of the great issues of the day; as a matter of fact, I think it is the chief issue which divides the political parties in Canada. Consequently, the amendment that has been moved by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) and which lays down the position of the Conservative party on the tariff issue, becomes a matter of very great concern to me. Let me point out that it is very similar in terms to the

resolution that was proposed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) last session. I regret now, as I regretted then, that the position taken by the leader of the opposition and his friends, is not somewhat more specific so that there should be no doubt in any part of the country as to what are the intentions of the leaders of the Conservative party, if they should be given an opportunity to frame and enforce a tariff in this coum try. Speaking last session on the resolution which was then proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition, I expressed the fear that in different parts of the country different arguments would be based upon it by the friends of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden). To show that my fear was not groundless,

I shall read a few extracts from, what is next to the ' Mail and Empire,' possibly the chief Conservative organ in the Dominion of Canada; I refer to the Winnipeg ' Telegram.' Those of us who listened to the debates of last session and of this session, have not much doubt as to what would be the effect on the tariff, if our friends on the opposite side were reinstated on the Treasury benches. There cannot be any doubt in the minds of the members of this House as to what the hon. leader of the opposition would do with the tariff fif he were Trime Minister. There can be no doubt that in such an event there would be a general and considerable increase in the tariff; but the Winnipeg ' Telegram ' on December 3rd last, was so much in doubt about the matter that it wrote as follows :

We have frequently pointed out that the Conservative resolution of last session did not call for a raising of the duties.

On December 26, the Winnipeg ' Telegram ' again wrote :

And they (the western Liberals) will probably consider that they have more to hope for from a Conservative government in regard to reductions in the tariff than from the present administration.

What may b.e described as the chief Conservative organ in the west, is, it will be seen, endeavouring to convince the people of that country, that it is to the Conservative party they must look if they are to have a lower tariff than at present. On December 28, the ' Telegram ' said :

But those who support the government because they fear that a Conservative government would make immediate and substantial increases in the tariff should remember that a party is better judged by its actions than by its words.

Apparently this organ has some little doubt about the words of its leaders. On February 13, while an election was pending in Lisgar, this paper wrote :

Liberal speakers in Lisgar, as well as the * Free Press,' are striving to convince the electors of that constituency that the Conservative party is pledged to increase the tariff.

It was surely a very strange thing that the

Liberal speakers in Lisgar should try to convince the electors of that constituency that the Conservative party is pledged to increase the tariff. The ' Telegram ' declared that this was nothing but a subterfuge on the part of the Liberals. Now, these references were all made pertinent to the resolution that was introduced in this House by the hon. leader of the opposition last year, and the ' Telegram ' has also spoken regarding the resolution at present before us. On March 20, a day or two after this resolution was brought down, the 'Telegram' said:

The ' Free Press ' tries to put the high tariff construction on the resolution, but this is only an expedient for avoiding the confession which would otherwise hav.e to be made. There is no doubt what the resolution means. It means that there should be adequate protection for all branches of Canadian industry. If any labour, agricultural or manufacturing interests have not now adequate protection, it means that increased protection should he given, but it does not mean a great increase or a general increase.

The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) was in Lisgar during that election, and he is reported in the Winnipeg papers to have said :

The Conservative policy does not call for increased protection.

The hon. leader of the opposition will no doubt realize from these quotations that it is necessary for him to be a little more explicit with regard to his tariff intentions, so that there shall not he tihis diversity of opinion among his friends as to what he and his party will do if they should come to power in this Dominion. I have here the amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) this session, and it reads :

This House, regarding the operation of the present, tariff as unsatisfactory, is of opinion that the country requires a declared policy of adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries, as will at all times secure the Canadian markets for Canadians.

The policy of the Conservative party therefore is, that a high protective wall shall be placed around Canada which shall prevent foreign goods coming into this country and which shall prevent the people of Canada from buying any, but goods that are manufactured in Canada. As I said last year :

I may not be entirely satisfied with the tariff as applied by the present government;

I may think that the tariff should be lower than it is at the present time, but I have to face a practical situation. If I am to do anything practical I have to vote either for the Liberals or for the Conservatives on this tariff question. Well, there is no ground left for me to hesitate upon as to my course. There is nothing left for me to do, in view of all the conditions, than to vote in favour of the policy; the declared policy which is in force and which has been put in force by the leaders of the Liberal party.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES.
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Walter Scott

Liberal

Mr. SCOTT.

While the leader of the opposition was not quite as specific as he might be with regard to some of the phases of the tariff question, he was very specific with regard to others. He complained in his speech during this debate, that fruits were being imported to too great an extent, and he told us that in the fiscal year 1900-1, $2,433,974 worth of fruits were imported into Canada; $1,766,979 worth of which came in under duty and $666,995 worth of which came in free of duty. The plea of the hou. gentleman is that this fruit should not be allowed to be brought into Canada and that a tariff wall should be put up to vprevent our people importing this fruit. This is a matter of considerable interest to the people west of Lake Superior who have to import all the fruit they use.

A point which possibly has not been emphasized as much as it might during this debate, is, that the policy which is announced by the leader of the opposition and supported by his party in this House, is not the old national policy. Under the national policy we had duties reaching on the average to a point around 30 per cent, but the declaration of the leader of the opposition now is, that we should have a tariff wall at least as high as the tariff wall of the United States, which of course is a great deal higher than the tariff wall we had under the national policy. The hon. leader of the opposition has stated (page 1334, revised ' Hansard ') ;

If we intend to maintain and build up our own products and manufactures against such powerful and tremendous competition as that which we must anticipate from the United States we would fix our tariff of customs against that country on a scale at least as high as is that of their tariff against us.

This is a feature which I think should be emphasized before this House and before the people of the country-that it is not the national policy that our friends of the opposition would restore if they came into power, but a tariff 30 or 40 or 50 per cent higher than was the national policy tariff. In support of this, I will also quote, from the speech of the hon. member for Bast Toronto (Mr. Kemp), who said :

Unfortunately for a long rerm of years we have been witnessing conditions which have been very distasteful to us, which have grated upon our finer feelings. Our pride has risen in us, and we have, as it were, set our teeth, when we have witnessed what has been going on in this country for the last 50 years. I refer to the exodus which has been talked of in this House under the administration of various governments.

The hon. member for East Toronto is a very enthusiastic advocate of the policy which is declared by the hon. leader of the opposition, and it is evident by his remarks that that policy is not the national policy tariff, but a tariff 30 or 40 or 50 per cent higher than the national policy tariff. Therefore, as between the attitude of the

government of the present day, and the attitude of our friends on the other side of the House, there is nothing left for me-[DOT] although I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with the present tariff-but to support the present tariff and the men who keep it in operation.

At six o'clock, House took recess.

. After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES.
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Walter Scott

Liberal

Mr. SCOTT.

Before six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I had complimented the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) who immediately preceded me upon the extensive and complete collection of 1900 campaign chestnuts which he had embodied in his speech. I had remarked on the various opinions expressed by different Conservative authorities throughout the country respecting the application of the principles contained in the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition. I had endeavoured to prove, and I think with a fair measure of success, that what is really meant by the amendment before the House is not a return to the national policy tariff, but the enforcement of a tariff a great deal higher than was the national policy tariff. I pointed out the plain words of the hon. leader of the opposition to that effect, and quoted from the remarks of several of the hon. gentlemen who support him in this House in proof of my statement that what the people of this country have to expect:, if the Conservative party should return to power, and apply the principle they advocate here, is not the national policy tariff, which was in force for eighteen years in this country, but a tariff exceeding 50 per cent, for I understand that the average tariff rate in the United States is a little higher than 52 per cent. I had explained that from my own point of view, no ground was left for me to do otherwise than support the government, which I intend to do very heartily, when the vote is taken, notwithstanding that it would please me and the people I represent if certain items in the tariff list were considerably reduced. I had also expressed the hope that the explanation which I intended to make of my position on the tariff question would not be so misinterpreted as were a few remarks on another matter which I made last year. It was not a matter of very great moment on that occasion that the remarks of any single individual should be misinterpreted or misconstrued ; but in regard to this whole tariff question, it seems to me. from remarks which have been very generally made in this House and out of it. that the position of the representatives of the country to the west of Lake Superior and in fact the position and sentiments of the whole people who live west of Lake Superior, are considerably misinterpreted and misunderstood by the people in the eastern part of Canada. Time and again the people of the west are spoken of as clamouring for free trade. Now, not to my

knowledge has any representative of the west, in this debate or in any debate that took place last year, asked for free trade. We not only do not clamour for free trade, but we do not ask for free trade. We have supported the government in their revenue tariff policy, and so long as that is the case I think it is not proper for representatives of eastern Canada to be imputing to the west what they term unreasonable views. So far as I am concerned, while I would be willing to support to the fullest extent any respectable and powerful party in this country that would go the whole length of free trade, I have to recognize that at the present time that the idea seems to be impracticable. There is no considerable party anywhere in Canada that seems to favour following that idea to its full extent; and therefore my position is that so long as there is a tariff in force, which affords incidental protection to a certain class of people in the country, the advantage of that tariff should as far as possible be made equitable to every class of people in the country.

Only a few days ago in this House a question was raised by hon. members from the North-west Territories who wished to have the minimum valuation which is placed upon imported horses increased and it was at once thrown at us that we were inconsistent, that we were usually free traders but that on any little matter which we thought would benefit the people we represent we were willing to turn ourselves inside out and advocate protection. I am not very much concerned with accusations of inconsistency. I am perfectly willing to stand the brunt of such accusations. So long as the manufacturing.and other classes of the country are reaping some benefit from the incidental protection of the tariff which is in force it is perfectly proper to demand that the people whom I represent should be given such advantages as can be given them through the incidental protection of the tariff. But, in the matter I speak of, the matter of scrub horses, I contend that we were not asking for protection in the usual tariff sense. We were not wishing to promote the industry that we were speaking about. We were not wishing that any change should be made in the tariff for the purpose of promoting that industry. What we wanted was to stamp out that industry which is quite a different thing from asking the government to aid in promoting an industry by means of the tariff. I can only repeat that I do not wish to hold myself bound by an idea which in this country is only a theory-the idea of free trade. * ,So long as there is a tariff in force, so long as an advantage is given to some classes of the people by this tariff so long am I going to contend that the advantage should be extended to all classes of the community to an extent as great as possible. But, the reason why I and other representatives of the consuming classes contend for the lowest possible tariff is because there is very little ad-

vantage tnat can be given by any tariff to the consuming classes. The advantage which can be given by our tariff in this country is almost entirely reaped by what are known as the manufacturers. Hon. gentlemen opposite who advocate high duties have been complimenting themselves upon their doctrine having obtained some converts on this side of the House. One of the members whom they have seemed to believe has become converted to their views is the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd). As it seems always to be well, if possible, to get evidence from the other side, I am going to read to the House a fairly lengthy statement which was made to this House in this debate by the hon. member for South Brant. If he is a convert to the doctrine of high protection, then, I think I may class myself in the same category. I read this in order to place it again upon the 'Hansard' because it states what I think to be the truth in a very much stronger, more forcible and more concise form than I could put it myself. The hon. gentleman said :

When I look at the trade figures once more and I discover that our agriculturists are the greatest manufacturers there are in this country, that the agricultural interest is the greatest manufacturing interest there is in Canada, when I find that that industry exported last year, in animals and their products alone, $55,000,000, where five years ago they exported $36,000,000 worth, that in agricultural products they exported $24,000,000 worth, while five years ago only $14,000,000 worth were exported, I ask myself the question : Am I entitled to speak for that great agricultural class which has no interest in a tariff, and whom we can only benefit by making life as easy as possible ? We cannot protect the agriculturists of this country. Neither have I been waited upon by any agricultural societies in the riding from which I come, asking me to seek increas 3d protection for any product of the farm or of agriculture. I ask myself the question: Would I be justified in expressing the opinion that a declaration of protection will benefit the mining industry of Ithis country ? That is an interest that does not appear to receive that calm consideration that its growing magnitude entitles it to. That mining industry of ours is going to become a source of enormous wealth to the people of Canada, which we, even in our day, have only a faint appreciation of. When we look at the actual facts of the case and see that only five years ago the exports of minerals from this country were $8,000,000, while, last year, they had risen to the munificent sum of $40,000,000, an increase of 500 per cent in five years, we can hope that when twenty-five years shall have elapsed the prediction made by Professor Bell, one of the most eminent geologists that we have in this country, recently in an address delivered in the city of Toronto, when he showed himself to be thoroughly conversant of the subject, that in twenty-five years Canada would export not $40,000,000 hut $1,000,000,000 of mineral products, shall have been verified, and we are hardly in a position to say that by increasing the cost of mining machinery we will be advancing the interests of the miners of this country. That is an industry that can only be protected by making mining machinery cheap. The government have done what they could by removing the Mr. SCOTT.

duty from mining machinery, and I do not therefore like to endorse this resolution even on behalf of the miners. Then, you take our fisheries; how can we give adequate protection to the fisheries ? They have no products we could give any protection to under the sun. The only protection our fishermen want is the protection of good harbours, good life-saving apparatus and the protection that markets easy of access will give to them. Any money in the form of protecting the fisheries expended to make the lives of the fishermen more secure and their occupation less hazardous and more agreeable, will be money well expended, and it will be the only kind of protection that we can give our fishing interests.

Take our forest products. As far as I am personally concerned-although I do not think it would do much good-I am in favour of putting reciprocal tariff on lumber as long as our friends to the south of us maintain a tariff on lumber. Taking the five great national industries I have spoken of : The minerals, the fisheries, the forests, animals and their products, and agriculture, we have an export of $161,000,000. On that vast trade, by no method of protection can you encourage it to the development of a single cent.

That is the declaration of tbe bon. gentleman tvliom bon. gentlemen opposite claim as a convert to tbe principle of high protection. I would not go quite so far as the bon. member for South Brant. I think there may be some few things in regard to which the farmers of this country, the greatest producers that we have and who must be for generations to come the foundation of our progress and prosperity, may possibly in some few slight particulars be given an advantage by tbe tariff, but the advantage which can be given is so very slight in comparison with the advantages which a smaller and comparatively Insignificant class of the community reap from the tariff, that it is my opinion and it is the strong, and unanimous opinion of the people in the country I come from, that the tariff should be kept at the lowest possible point. From hon. gentlemen sitting actually on tbe opposite side of tbe House statements may be quoted in further proof of tbe fact that the products of the great producing classes of this country cannot be protected. For instance the hon. member for South Wentworth (Mr. Smith), who claims to be a high tariff man, respecting the product of wheat, asks: What has the government done as to the price of wheat ? He held that no government could affect exports. He held that by the tariff they could affect imports into the country, but he contended that by no tariff could the exports be affected ? This is simply proving the case that the products of the great producing class in Canada cannot be given any advantage by tbe tariff. There are things that tbe government can do for the great producing classes, and there were a number of things that this government, when they come into power in 189ti, found it possible to do, a number of things that they did do which have resulted in a great deal of advantage to the whole people of Canada.

In the matter of the United States cattle quarantine, I was very much surprised to hear my hon. friend from South Wentworth (Mr. Smith) speak, disparagingly of the action of the government. The actual results of that action, I shall give in a very few words. In the four and a half years ending 1896, during which the quarantine regulations were in force, the sales of cattle in Canada to the United States amounted to 3,762 head, valued at $52,606, whereas in the four and a half years ending 1901, after the Minister of Agriculture had secured the abrogation of those regulations, the sales amounted to no less than 341,317 head, value $526,919. There can be no question therefore that the action of the Minister of Agriculture was of very material advantage to the people of Canada. I am in a position to state, on the authority of possibly the largest cattle dealers in Canada, Messrs. Gordon and Ironsides, whose headquarters are at Winnipeg, that this action of the Minister of Agriculture was equivalent to a profit of $10 per head to every cattle owner in the North-west Territories.

The policy of the government in perfecting our cold storage transportation system is also one the benefit of which can not be gainsaid.

Then there is the establishing of government creameries in the territories, and I might cite a long list of actions of the present government, which have resulted undoubtedly in very material advantage for the people generally.

While by means of a tariff, very little can really be done to aid the agricultural industry, there is one means by which that interest can be benefited, and that is by improving our methods of transportation. In this connection the government has done a great deal. The other day the Minister of Finance declared that the capital expenditure during the current fiscal year will amount to $14,000,000, the greater part of which has been devoted to the assistance of railway projects, and the improvement of our transportation facilities. To those gentlemen who sometimes contend that the west is too generously dealt with by this governement, let me point out that of this $14,000,000 expended in the current fiscal year on the improvement of our transportation facilities, a very small fraction _ indeed is expended in the country west of Lake Superior-very much smaller, I believe, than ought to be expended.

The advocates of protection now, as at all times in the past, endeavour, by some means or other, to give a sugar coating to the pill which they want us to swallow. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has recently become an ardent advocate of the protectionist system, and the sugar coating which he gives the pill is the idea of retaliation. He endeavours to play on the prejudices of the people rather than appeal to their common sense,

by urging them to retaliate against our American neighbours. But when we reach bed rock in the ideas of protectionists, we find that first and last and all the time their main object is to give the manufacturing class an advantage by law at the expense of the other classes. And the hon. gentleman from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) proceeded in his speech in this debate to abandon the retaliation plea by urging that apart altogether from the course of the United States in its tariff respecting Canada, our tariff should be a protective one, because our manufacturer cannot afford to live under the preference granted the mother country. If the United States, he said, had no existence, and there consequently could be no idea of retaliation, we would still require a high tariff wall to protect our manufacturing industries against the competition of the motherland. It was rather interesting to observe our friends on the opposition benches during the speech of that hon. gentleman. When he was proving to their satisfaction that he had been for many years entirely mistaken and inconsistent in his advocacy of a revenue tariff, they applauded him loudly as though inconsistency were a mark of intelligence and statesmanship, and apparently forgetting, for the moment, that whenever a reference is made to the policy of the opposition, they claim great merit of consistency in standing by the principle which they advocated twenty-five years ago. In their case statesmanship is based on consistency, but in the case of the hon. member for North Norfolk, its chief mark is inconsistency. Our opposition friends, however, do not occupy quite the same position in their tariff advocacy as they did twenty-five years ago. When the high tariff resolution was proposed in 1878, and that policy was applied in the succeeding years, they were continually advancing the plea that this high tariff would necessarily be a measure of short duration, because as soon as the infant industries were built up, the tariff wall could be taken down, and these industries could hold their own against the world. To-day, however, the leader of the opposition says he is not willing to have a measure of reciprocity with the United States because our industries require, and always will need, protection, and will never be in a position to compete against their American rivals. So that the position of hon. gentlemen opposite to-day is not at all that which they took twenty-five years ago.

I quite admit that our tariff may be improved. I think that it might be considerably improved by further reducing the duties on various articles. When this tariff was proposed in 1897, there was considerable dissatisfaction among the people of Manitoba and the North-west Territories on the ground that the government had not gone as far as the people were led to believe, by their promises before 1896, they would go. I do not know that it can be

time. What would be the case to-day had the advice of our friends in opposition been taken four or five years ago, and had a tariff wall been put up so high as entirely to prevent goods coming in from the United States ? Do you suppose that we would see to-day people going into the Canadian North-west by hundreds and thousands weekly? Do you suppose the people of Manitoba and the North-west would have been producing, as they did last year, 112,000,000 or 115,000,000 bushels of grain ? I do not think there is the slightest possibility of it. The North-west will be peopled by a policy which makes the conditions of life there as easy as possible. If transportation arrangements are made by which they can remove their products to the seaboard at the least expense, and if the tariff is kept at such a point that they can buy their goods at the least cost, such a policy will result in peopling the North-west, and will result eventually to the advantage of everybody in Canada, the manufacturers included. The parliament and people of this country have before them a great opportunity to people the vast stretches of fertile land west of Lake Superior, and the only policy under which that can be done is one which will make conditions of life easy for the people there, and enable them to buy their goods as cheaply as possible ; and, as I said before, such a policy will eventually prove to be the most favourable one to the manufacturers of eastern Canada, as well as for the Dominion as a whole.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES.
Permalink
CON

William James Roche

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).

The hon. member for Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), in his opening remarks, reflected somewhat upon the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) because of his want of accuracy, as he called it, in referring to this government as a government of lawyers. The hon. member for Assiniboia, in endeavouring to refute the statement, mentioned these members of the Cabinet who are not of the legal profession. But the hon. gentleman should remember that when the Conservative government was in power the present Prime Minister himself, in his speeches throughout Canada, reflected upon the Conservative government for containing a lawyer as Minister of Justice, and a lawyer as Solicitor General ; he complained that the government gave a great deal of their legal work to outside lawyers who were political supporters of the government, and he promised in his addresses to the people of Canada that all this would be changed on the advent of a Liberal government to power. But the fact is that since this government has come to power, not only have they a very large representation of the legal profession in the Cabinet, but their Solicitor General is allowed to practice his own profession in addition to his governmental duties, and they have increased to a very large extent the sum of money paid to Mr. SCOTT.

outside lawyers who are political supporters of the present government.

The hon. member for Assiniboia, in reflecting upon another hon. member for want of accuracy I think has left himself open to the same charge. For instance, he spoke on the coal oil question, and declared that that was an article that had been reduced in price to the people of the west from five to ten cents a gallon, owing to changes and concessions made to the Standard Oil Company.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES.
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Walter Scott

Liberal

Mr. SCOTT.

I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. What I said was that the change in the regulations for bringing coal oil into the country had resulted in that reduction to the consumer.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES.
Permalink
CON

William James Roche

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).

I can assure the hon. gentleman that in the town where I reside I cannot purchase a single gallon of the best American coal oil for less than forty cents, nor a gallan of Canadian oil of the first brand, for less than thirty-five cents ; and these are exactly the same prices I paid in 1896. With a miserable reduction of one cent a gallon in the duty, how could we expect to get coal oil five cents or ten cents a gallon cheaper. It is true that some changes were made in the regulations regarding the admission of coal oil. We were allowed to import in tank steamers, and heretofore we were permitted to introduce tank cars into the west. To be sure the tank cars are admitted now and the number of distributing points has been increased, but at the same time the price of coal oil throughout Manitoba generally has not been reduced-so I am informed by those who buy and sell the oil, and they say that they are not buying it and selling it one cent cheaper than they did prior to 1896. In addition to that, and because of improper inspection on the part of the government officers, the quality of the coal oil sent into the Northwest last winter was simply disgraceful. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) himself spoke on this question at an earler period in the session, and he admitted that the quality of the coal oil in the North-west, was, as I have said, disgraceful. So far as my information goes there has been no reduction in the price of coal oil since 1896.

The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) says that while it is all well enough for the members of the opposition to complain of the extravagant expenditure of the government, why do they not move to strike out the items that they object to ? Well, it is not the province of an opposition to do that. The only thing an opposition can do is to make a general protest, as we do, on the floor of this House, and in addition to that we offer a resolution at the end of each session stating in general terms that the expenditure of the government during the past year was extravagant. Of course, the supporters of the government vote down that resolution. But when we move it and vote for

it we discharge our duties to the country, and we are powerless to do anything else.

The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) has taken exception to the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition because, he says, it is not definite enough. I wonder what the hon. gentleman wants in the line of definiteness. The amendment is definite enough to any one who wishes to read it plainly, but of course those who do not, can turn it and twist it in any manner they may see fit. The hon. member is afraid that some of the supporters of the opposition may place one interpretation upon that amendment and others place other interpretations upon it. Let the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) first pluck the mote out of his own eye. Let me ask him : What kind of a declaration have we had from the Minister of Finance in reference to the tariff changes that are to be made at the next session of parliament. Some of the government supporters are claiming that it means increased protection and others, including the Liberal members from the west, are stating that it means a diminution of customs duties. The amendment of the leader of the opposition calls for a policy of adequate protection to all the industries of our country. Surely that is definite enough. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) would certainly not have the opposition formulate a tariff for every particular item in the Customs Act. That is not the duty of the opposition. When the leader of the opposition introduced his amendment to have a declared policy on the tariff, it is something that the people of this country will support him in, because now we have a cabinet rent in factions; some preaching one thing and some another; some free traders and some protectionists, just in order to rake into their fold the supporters of both kinds of fiscal policy. I was glad to see that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) had not the same assurance that the member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) had. That hon. gentleman declared that the people of the west were perfectly satisfied with the tariff as it stands to-day, but the member for Assiniboia was candid enough to state that the people of the west are not satisfied with the tariff. He does say, however, that in 1897 there was a very great disappointment in the west when the tariff was submitted by the Finance Minister. They could not feel otherwise. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) is aware of the pledges made to the people of the west by the supporters of the Liberal party of that day, and he knows that the tariff submitted in 1897 was not a fulfilment of those pledges. The Liberal members in the House at that time recognized this very well, because they endeavoured to square themselves with their constituents for supporting the government, by declaring that they looked upon the tariff of 1897 only as the first instalment towards a policy of free trade. But session after session has since rolled by, and future instalments are overdue, and now we are led to believe by the Minister of finance, according to the implications which any sensible man would draw from his words, that instead of lowering the duties, the customs duties will be increased in the future. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) tells us that there is not now the feeling of disappointment there used to be in 1897. Of course, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) knows full well that there is not going to be any material lowering of the duties, and therefore he, as a journalist and a moulder of public opinion, in line with such organs as the Winnipeg ' Free Press,' is endeavouring to educate the people of the west up to the fact that we must have, what they call, a revenue tariff. But what is in a name ? The Minister of Finance tells us that the present tariff is only a reduction of 2-22 per cent on the Conservative tariff, and without admitting that his figures are accurate, we know that the reduction is less than that. But even with the British preference applied the Minister of Finance claims that the tariff has been reduced only 2-22 per cent, and that is the difference which the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) claims is the difference between a revenue and a protective tariff. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) is paying rather a poor compliment to the intelligence of the people of the west and of Canada generally when he claims that the present tariff is a tariff for revenue purposes only.

The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) has spoken about the resolution moved by the member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) asking that the minimum valuation be increased on horses imported from the United States. The hon. member (Mr. Scott) supported that resolution, but he objects to have the term protectionist applied to it. Well, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyd) who introduced that resolution was candid enough to state that he purposely intended it to be a measure of protection to the western farmers. The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) said : Why not let the people get cheap

horses if they desire; you have settlers with possibly little money going into that country, and they may be desirous of securing cheap animals. But the farmers of the west do not want these animals to come to Canada for the reason that they are scrub animals, and are entering into competition with the better class of horses in the west. That is the reason why there is a demand that the minimum valuation should be increased. The proposition is a protection to the farmers, and the farmers of the west are not particular by what name you call it so long as it gives them that protection.

The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) has referred to the woollen industry and he dealt very gently indeed with that question. Probably the hon. gentleman may have had a hint that there is something coming in the way of increased protection to the woollen industry next session of par-

liament, because be expressed the opinion that if any industry requires protection, probably the woollen industry was as badly in need of it as any other. However, he quoted the opinion of one woollen manufacturer to show that he was satisfied with the present tariff. If that be the opinion of the member for Assiniboia, he differs materially from the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), who has openly declared himself in favour of increased protection being given to the woollen industry at the next session of parliament. I think it is a safe prophecy that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) may look forward to the duty on woollens being increased.

It was apparent to any one who followed the remarks of the Minister of Finance, that he endeavoured to buoy himself up with an air of assumed cheerfulness under cover of the general prosperity of the country. But, nevertheless, knowing the weak points in his argument, and that they would be taken full advantage of by his opponents, he could not hide a certain air of embarrassment because of the bubbles that would soon be pricked in the half truths with which many of his arguments were clothed. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) has the faculty, or the habit of quoting only those statistics that will add force to his argument, omitting those that might prove embarrassing, using percentages when they are in his favour, and when they are opposed to his contentions claiming that they are unreliable. He however was compelled to make several admissions which detracted considerably from his claim of wise administration on the part of the government. In doing so, of course he places his party in rather a ridiculous position before the public by approving of that which they formerly denounced, and using arguments which heretofore met with their condemnation when used by a Conservative government. For instance, the money on deposit in our savings banks, the amount of life insurance, the amount of the bank circulation. &c., which were heretofore quoted by Conservative finance ministers as evidences of the general prosperity of the country, were ridiculed by the Liberal party in days gone by as evidences rather of national poverty than of prosperity. But now we hear the Finance Minister, in each succeeding year, in every budget speech delivered in this House, using these very same arguments which were formerly denounced by him, apparently oblivious of the inconsistency of his course. As Conservatives, Sir, we welcome, and we join with our opponents in welcoming, all and any evidences of prosperity. As men who prefer country to party we hail with pleasure the advent of good times ; but in doing so, we are acting in marked contrast to our opponents, who when on this side of the House, never missed an opportunity, no matter how numerous or glaring the evidences of prosperity were, of decrying the fair fame and name

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES.
Permalink
CON

William James Roche

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).

of their own country in order to make paltry political capital against their opponents.

But the Finance Minister used a very apt term when, in answer to an interruption of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) he told that hon. gentleman that if he should ever have the privilege in the future of being a Finance Minister of Canada, and was as lucky as he was, he might well congratulate himself-a significant though no doubt unintentional admission ; for if there has ever been a party in the history of Canada, or for that matter in the history of any other country, that has proved to be lucky to the fullest extent of the term, assuming the reigns of power on the eve of a wave of prosperity that has proved to be universal in its character, that party is the present Liberal party of Canada. It makes very interesting reading for the student of politics who desires to refresh his memory as to the opinions expressed by these hon. gentlemen when in opposition, to turn up their past speeches. He will see that there is scarcely an argument used by them to prove ma 1-administration on the part of their opponents that cannot be used with double effect against themselves to-day. But charges of inconsistency and insincerity, no matter how strongly they may be pressed home against hon. gentlemen opposite, are met with an air of levity that could only proceed from those who have not a due sense of their responsibilities or a full appreciation of what constitutes honour in public men. What care they for consistency so long as they are in the enjoyment of the fruits of office ? What store do they set by sincerity so long as they are basking in the sunshine of power, and having full confidence in their ability to corrupt the electorate by divers means, they snap their fingers at public sentiment and rely entirely on the practice of ways that are dark and tricks that are vain, of which they are pasc masters, to secure for themselves a renewal of power which they would not otherwise secure if a fair field and no favours were permitted when the people are called upon to make their selection. A Liberal of the rank and file is quoted against himself. He meets the quotation with a laugh-' good politics,' says he. A member of the cabinet is confronted with his declarations of the past in direct opposition to his present actions. ' Oh,' he exclaims, ' that was before I had any responsibility as a minister of the Crown ; that was when I was in opposition, before I was drawing $7,000 or $8,000 per annum.' The Prime Minister himself, the premier of His Majesty's premier colony, the man who above all others should set an example of public probity, who should be an example for the young men of our country to imitate makes light of gross breaches of faith on the part of himself and his colleagues, and airily replies, 'We are here, and you are there ; what are you going to do about it ? ' With this experience and these examples, I think the Canadian

people may well feel rather discouraged at the outlook for pure politics in the future. It is not surprising that so many of the better class of our citizens are deterred from entering public life, with such examples of duplicity and double dealing practiced by those who in days of yore made loud professions of virtue in their Pharisaical manner but who have exploited the possibilities of hyprocrisy to its fullest extent since their advent to power. A surplus is claimed by a Conservative finance minister. He is immediately held up to the ridicule of the public by his Liberal critics. An evidence of incapacity, said they, on the part of a finance minister. The former philosopher of the House, the Hon. David Mills, who has been transfered to the judiciary, when a member of the opposition in this House, declared that a government had no business to have a surplus. These are his words :

I say that a government is not entitled to have a surplus. There it no stimulus to economy when a large surplus remains in the hands of the government.

Which is true, though it does not remain very long in the hands of this government.

A large surplus Invites to extravagance, and has invited to extragance in this country. The government and parliament should inaugurate a system of economy.

And to this declaration of the Hon. David Mills, the members on the back benches pounded their desks in noisy approbation. He was not the only member of the cabinet who took exception to surpluses. The present Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) in stentorian tones that made the rafters of the House of Commons ring, gave utterance to the following words in 1883 :

It is no part of the duty of the Finance Minister to extract more money out of the pockets of the people than is absolutely wanted* to carry on public affairs. What would be said of a chancellor of the exchequer in England if he could not estimate the requirements of the public service nearer than $2,000,000 ? He would be ridiculed as unable to grasp the financial conditions of the country.

gether, by the figures quoted to the House by the Finance Minister himself, we shall* have on the 30th of June next a deficit of $8,-450,000-the least any one could expect was that this government would apply this surplus to a reduction of the burdens of the people. We expected that they would have reduced the national debt, reduced taxation, and our household expenditure. But instead of decreases there have been increases all along the line. What do we see with regard to the public debt, under which they claimed the people of Canada were groaning, when the Conservatives held office, and when that debt was millions of dollars less than it is to-day ? They then exhausted all their ability and eloquence and powers of denunciation in making out that the people were being impoverished in order to pay the interest on that debt. Well, how does it stand now ? We find that this year the public debt will be increased by $6,000,000, making in all an increase of $16,000,000 since these hon. gentlemen came to office. Had they applied their so-called surpluses to the relief of taxation, they might with some reason have claimed our approval, but they have raised our taxation $2.66 per capita. Had they reduced the expenditure, they might have claimed some credit for their policy, but instead they have increased our annual expenditure by $23,547,617. So that we have a record thus far of an increase of $16,000,000 in our public debt, of over $23,000,000 in our expenditure, and of upwards of $11,000,000 in our taxation. A wonderful showing for this so-called economical government. And mark you, Sir, these were the particular items upon which these hon. gentlemen judged their predecessors and called upon the people to turn the Conservative government out of power. Is it at all surprising that, with such a showing, the hon. Finance Minister did not evince that spirit of jubilation in his budget speech which the good times would otherwise have warranted 1 But what a spectacle did we see when the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) rose in his place and endeavoured to draw a red herring

This sentiment was also welcomed by his Liberal supporters. This, however, was before these hon. gentlemen held office. What do we find now ? We find a Liberal finance minister getting up in his place in the House and actually boasting of having extracted from the pockets of the people during the last five years $19,000,000 more than was necessary to meet the lavish expenditure of this extravagant government-more than was necessary to meet the requirements of the public service. If that was a good principle in days gone by, it should be an equally good principle to-day. Now, with a revenue of $56,800,000 during the present year, and a surplus of some $5,0oo.000 on consolidated account-although taking the total expenditure of the government, on consolidated account and capital account toacross the trail, endeavoured to divert the attention of parliament and the people from the true condition of affairs, by delivering a nine years old speech on the census, which most of us had read before coming to parliament, and in which, by his cheap criticism, bitter invective and gross charges of wholesale perjury against all the officials connected with the census of 1891, he endeavoured to alleviate the disappointment in the country caused by the census returns of 1901. One would have thought that that hon. gentleman, in* what is practically his valedictory in this House-a House that is to know him no longer-though I am, quite willing to admit that his training in opposition has not been conducive to amiability in one of so bilious a temperament, one would have thought that he

would have endeavoured to assume a virtue even if he had it not, and adopt a tone more becoming to one Who is about to take his departure from parliamentary life. True there may be some excuse for the bitterness of the hon. gentleman in the fact that he had been relegated to that useless appendage of the government, as he was wont in the old days to describe it, the Department of Trade and Commerce-that office which he himself used to declare had been simply created in order that a haven of quiet repose might he afforded to a supporter of the government for whom a cabinet position had to be supplied. How true those words are when applied to the hon. gentleman himself. How those chickens have come home to roost. But apparently it is very difficult for some hon. gentlemen to change their old-time habits. He accused the census officials of 1891 of having made false returns, at the instigation no doubt of the government of that day, of having perjured themselves in order to do political service to their party, but he forgot that the Conservative government or its officials did not resort to the tactics adopted by this government when taking the census of 1901. The late government did not send out private circulars to the census enumerators, asking them to count as residents of Canada people who had left the country, and to keep a separate list of the young men, showing their political persuasion, in order that that might be afterwards used to party advantage. It ill becomes the hon. gentleman to make groundless charges against a host of officials who are every bit as honorable as he is, especially in the light of the experience we have had in the taking of the last census.

The hon. minister could not abstain from giving a rap to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) for his so-called lapsing or backsliding to protectionist doctrines. The hon. member for North Norfolk had been the colleague of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, he had served with him on the International Commission, and has always been considered one of the most level-headed and brainy men of the House. In days gone by he has been accused of being rather too friendly to the neighbouring republic, and no one in this House is better posted on the needs and requirements of Canada and on trade questions in the United States. But if the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce were in quest of members on his own side who were in favour of protection, he need not have travelled beyond the coniines of his own cabinet. He could have found one within the radius of the ministry itself. Why did he not attack the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), who is an avowed protectionist, both in his speeches in this House and on the public platform ? Why did not the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce turn his guns against this colleague of his own ? Was the doughty Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).

knight afraid of his colleague V Did he shrink from a contest with the fiery little champion of protection within his own charmed circle, the Minister of Public Works? Nor is the Minister of Public Works the only member of the cabinet who is a protectionist at heart, though I give that hon. minister the credit of saying that he has the courage of his convictions and will give voice to them, whereas the other members of the -cabinet who share his views, practice protection while preaching free trade. Had he done this, then the hon. minister, after having subdued his colleagues, could turn his attention to the back benches, where he would find at least a score of his own supporters who are protectionists at heart, and having routed them, he might have had a little sweet communion with himself. For have we not had it on no less an authority than the Prime Minister himself that the Minister of Trade and Commerce lived for twenty years a double life, politically speaking, previous to attaining office. Has not the Prime Minister told us that when the Mackenzie administration held office, the Minister of Trade and Commerce was willing to adopt a protectionist policy, was willing to increase the duties, and was only deterred from doing so by the pistol put to his head by the members from the maritime provinces, in response to which the coon came down. He sacrificed what he knew would be in the best interests of his country for the sake of his party, and the right hon. gentleman lauded him for this spirit of sacrifice. The people of Canada, said the right hon. gentleman, knew but very little what they owed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for having endured during all those years the obliquy of having been an inveterate free trader while in fact he was all along willing to be a protectionist The Prime Minister, at a banquet given the Minister of Trade and Commerce down stairs, thus expressed his opinion of his colleague amid no doubt the cordial approval of those around the festive board on that occasion. That opinion has been quoted before by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), but a good thing will stand repetition, and let me now read to the House what the right hon. the Prime Minister then said:

There never was a day of the many days since we have hail to discuss questions together in council but I could count and rely on the sup-pert of Sir Richard Cartwright, and though, as sometimes happens in the councils of the party, we did not agree when in the council, when the policy of the party was agreed upon Sir Richard Cartwright never wavered in- his support of it.

I may give you an instance which has come to me from reliable sources, and it is a thing which goes far to show the character of our guest of this evening. In the days of Mr. Mackenzie, when the country was much depressed, there were many who believed that if the tariff was increased that policy would be justified by the necessities of the revenue, and that it would be a valuable policy for the country at large. I

can give you the story without betraying secrets, because these things happened before my day, but if the advice of Sir Richard Cartwright had prevailed at that time this policy would have been adopted. If it was not accepted it was on

account of other influences

That was the pistol influence.

-which prevailed with the government of the day, and for sixteen or twenty years Sir Richard bore the brunt of the obloquy of not having responded to public sentiment, whereas the truth was he was ready to respond to public sentiment. For eighteen years he bore the brunt of all the obloquy, and never whispered a word. It is not every day you can find such abnegation and such loyalty to the party, and I have reason to believe, and repeat it to you-I not only repeat it to you, my colleagues, but I wish my words to be heard all over Canada-that Canada little knows the debt of gratitude that it owes to Sir Richard Cartwright.

This was considered by the Prime Minister to be a meritorious act on the part of Sir Richard Cartwright, and I have no doubt he was cheered by those assembled around that table. But there are people in Canada who have rather higher ideals of what constitutes good statesmanship. I am glad to be able to say that there are many people in Canada who, instead of approving of a man being a protectionist at heart and preaching free trade, consider such a course to be of the very essence of political hypocrisy.

Now, the Finance Minister claimed- claimed by imputation at any rate-that because our trade with Great Britain has increased to a certain extent this was solely and wholly due to the operation of the preferential tariff. But when he was asked to produce the figures showing our trade with the United States, he had conveniently forgotten them. But these figures have been made available to hon. gentlemen in this House since then, and they entirely nullify the arguments of the Minister of Finance. That hon. gentleman himself admitted that our trade with the United States had vastly increased, and said that our trade with every other country had also greatly increased. If the increase of our trade with Great Britain has been less than the increase of our trade with other countries, how can the Minister of Finance say that the increase of our trade with Great Britain, such as it is, is due to the fact that we have given Great Britain the preference. It would be absurd to take such a position. Our exports to the United States last year decreased by about 681,507, while our exports to Great Britain fell off $2,407,412. Our imports from the United States during the same period increased by $6,762,783, while our imports from Great Britain decreased during that period by about $2,307,977. Is this great decrease of our trade with Great Britain amounting to no less than $4,700,000, owing to the preferential tariff ? The hon. minister cannot claim credit for the increases of our trade without assuming responsibility also for this great

diminution of our trade with Great Britain. The fact is this whole preferential tariff has been so arranged as to deceive not only the people of Canada but the people of the motherland as well. England derives little, if 'any benefit, while Canada derives from it no benefit whatever. It may be true that, in some instances, the English exporter and the Canadian exporter may benefit to a certain extent, but the consuming population are not benefited one whit. And, on the other hand, the chief products of Germany, sent to Great Britain and a small portion of work done upon them, come into Canada under the guise of British goods, and so get the benefit of the preference, while Canadian products are placed on the German maximum tariff. It would prove very interesting reading if a reliable statement could be presented showing the quantity of German goods that have taken advantage of the preferential tariff and have come into Canada under the guise of British goods. Our greatest competitor is the United States. The products of that country are similar to our own. American products go into the German market under the German minimum tariff, while ours must pay the maximum tariff. The Americans have an advantage on every bushel of wheat sent into the German market as compared with the Canadian product of 9J cents per bushel; on oats, 4J cents per bushel; on barley, 1J cents per bushel; on rye, 9i cents per bushel; on peas, 3i cents per bushel; and so with butter, beans and other articles. This is a discrimination against Canada for having given a preference to Great Britain. And our government has not lifted a finger to improve this condition of affairs. The average rate on dutiable goods coming from the United States last year, according to the Finance Minister, was 24-83 per cent, and the average rate on dutiable goods coming from Great Britain was 24-74 per cent practically the same, notwithstanding the fact that Great Britain is supposed to enjoy a preference of 33J per cent. The average duty on all goods, dutiable and free coming from the United States was less than 12i per cent, while the average on goods coming from Great Britain was 18-23 per cent. This, in the old days of the Conservative government would have been seized upon with avidity by our opponents as evidence of rank discrimination against the motherland. As I said, this whole preferential tariff, lauded as it was by its promoters because of its possibilities from both a sentimental and a business standpoint, has proven a disappointment to everybody except the German exporter. The English man, taking a superficial view and not knowing that the general tariff had been increased on many articles before the preference was applied, thought he was going to be very highly advantaged; and it is only recently he has been undeceived and has found how he was hoodwinked. The Cana-

dian consumer was led to believe that he would purchase goods at a cheaper rate under the operation of this tariff, and, as a result of sentimental considerations, would receive a real preference for his goods in the mother country. But now, since the tariff has been in operation and he has had an opportunity to attest its value, he admits, and must admit, that he pays prices as high and even higher in some instances, and that the products from our Canadian farms are admitted on exactly the same footing as are the products from every country in the world. And he is practically shut out of the German market. Now, had the right hon. First Minister pressed upon the home authority the necessity and advisability of giving us a real preference in their market and thus fulfilling his pledges to the people of Canada prior to 1896; had he, at the time of his visit, when the olive branch had been held out by the leading statesmen of Great Britain, endeavoured to secure what he promised, he would have conferred upon the people of Canada a benefit of whose advantages It would not have required days and weeks of argument to convince the people of Canada. But, unfortunately for us, the right hon. gentleman was more anxious about receiving those empty baubles and glittering titles he used to refer to so contemptuously when he was a democrat to the hilt, than about winning solid advantages for the people. He thought more of receiving Cobden medals-'and, by the way, I do not think that that Cobden medal was sent back since it was shown that it was received under false pretenses. As we know, Lord Farrer said that had it been known that this preference would apply to Great Britain alone, the medal would not now glisten on the right hon. gentleman's breast. It was because it was thought that this preference was offered to the whole world that the right hon. gentleman was admitted as an honorary member of the club. When he was forced to change his law and make it apply to Great Britain alone, he did not return the Cobden medal, evidently being a thorough believer in the motto, ' What we have we'll hold.' The right hon. gentleman should have been active in looking after the interests of Canada rather than In making speeches to the people of Great Britain, in which he advised them not only that Canada would not ask for any return for the preference given in our markets, but not to make any return. Why ? Because it would injure Canada ? No, but because it would cause a departure from the old free trade traditions that had made Great Britain such a mighty power. It was not in looking after the interests of Canada that the right hon. gentleman said it, but in advising the statesmen of Great Britain what policy they could adopt to injuriously affect this country. It is to be hoped that on the approaching visit of the right hon. gentleman, where he has been Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).

invited to participate in the Coronation ceremonies and also to discuss questions of inter-imperial relations, he will do better. I see that the manner of his acceptance has caused profound disappointment among the people of Great Britain. It is to be hoped that he will not repeat the error of the past, but that instead of looking after titles for himself and making those empty speeches which prove little but his own desire of saying something pleasant to the particular audience he happens to be addressing, he will do all he can to promote the interest of the country he represents.

These hon. gentlemen claim that they gave this preference to the motherland to Show their loyalty, to show their attachment, and their gratitu&e for her assistance to us in the past. Well, Sir, I will admit that something needed to be done by a party with the record of these hon. gentlemen, a party that, in 1891, advocated a policy which, if it had been adopted, would in all probability have resulted in political union with the United States, at any rate that was the belief of their former leader, the Hon. Edward Blake, who severed his allegiance with them, and would neither lead nor follow a party that advocated such a policy. I admit that a party having done that, needed to take some steps more than ordinary to prove their loyalty and attachment to the motherland. But, Sir, if they considered it necessary to adopt this policy, and if that policy can be proved to be injurious to Canadian interests, I say as "a young Canadian that it is our duty to look after ourselves, and that our loyalty should begin at home. I would call to my'aid no less an authority than the Prime Minister himself, who declared, when he was advocating this policy, that John Bull himself would think all the more of a son that looked after his own interest, and he stated that we should not mix up business with sentiment. Here is what the hon. gentleman said in one of his speeches, at Brantford, according to the report of the Toronto ' Globe ' :

I think England can look after her own interests and if I know John Bull at all he expects his son. to follow his example and do the same, namely, to look after number one. I think he would have a contempt for a son who did not turn an honest penny.

These were the sentiments of the Prime Minister at that time. He went on to say :

Business was business and sentiment was sentiment; hut he did not believe that sentiment was business any more than business was sentiment.

Most profound logic, and worthy the approbation of his party. Now, Sir, I do not desire to discuss this question from a sectional standpoint. Some of my colleagues from the west on the Liberal side of the House have declared that the people of the west were satisfied with the action of this government on tariff matters. The mem-

ber for West Assiniboia admitted as much, and the member for Saskatchewan declared they were satisfied. I wish to deny that statement emphatically. Tb6 latter gentleman declared that there were some reductions made on some small implements, and what were they ? Axes, adzes, pronged forks and spades In which the farmers invest a few cents each year. It is true they reduced the duty a little on these minor articles, but the farmers do not buy them a single cent cheaper. It is possible that the importer may get them a little less, 1 am doubtful of that even; but the reduction would be so infinitesimal that the purchasing farmer does not reap a single cent from it. But on those larger implements such as mowers and binders in which the farmers invest thousands and thousands of dollars every year, these hon. gentlemen claim that the duty should not only be reduced, but that these implements should be placed upon the free list. Now, I have here a list of articles in which a vast amount of money is expended each year by the farming population, the list shows the imports during the last year under the general tariff, the amount of duty paid, and the number that came in under the preferential tariff:

- General Tariff. Preferential Tariff. Duty.s $ $ cts.Harvesters, self- bi n d i n g and others, 20 p.c.. 828,118 165,623 60Mowing machines 20 p.c 426,084 85,216 80Ploughs, 20 p.c.. 147,381 29,476 201. No. 6, 104 13 87Horse rakes,20p.c 104,075 20,815 00Harrows, 20 p.c.. 47,833 9,566 60No. 2, 29 3 87Drills, 20 p.c.... 31,002 6,21S 40Reapers, 20 p.c.. 57,681 11,536 20Buggies and car- riages, 35 p.c.. 47,915 16,770 25M No. 5, 0,259 1,460 44F arm wagons, 42,064 10,516 00

On several other articles in which the farmers invest a vast amount of money each year, the duty remained exactly the same as it was prior to 1896, notwithstanding that the people were told at that time that should the Liberal party come into power they would place many of those articles upon the free list, notably self binders and reapers.

The Minister of the Interior, in his speech delivered in Winnipeg in 1896, told the people of Manitoba that they were being bled white for the purpose of amassing - huge fortunes for the Massey-Harris Company, and others by paying them such an outrageously high tariff duty as 20 per cent on mowers and binders, and he declared these

articles should be placed upon the free list. Free coal oil was another promise they made, and it was given a miserable reduction of 1 cent a gallon. Now they neglect to point out to the people of the west that the Conservatives have proved themselves to be the true tariff reformers in respect to the duty on agricultural implements, since they cut the duty almost in two, and reduced it from 35 per cent to 20 per cent. The Minister of the Interior also stated that the Conservative government, by a system of drawbacks, were allowing these men to export their reapers and binders to Australia and sell them for $85 or 890, whereas the farmers of the North-west had to pay 8140 and $150 for the same machine. But in a return I asked for in this House,

I find that there has been paid out to these same manufacturers in drawbacks since the Liberal party came into power, $300,000 under the very same policy which they condemned in opposition. Certainly if it was a vicious principle prior to 1896 it ought to be equally vicious at the present time. The Minister of the Interior also told the people in Manitoba that the manufacturers of these implements were employing 9,000 hands, and he declared that if this duty were reduced-because he now claims that far from being a protective duty, it is not even a revenue tariff-if this duty were reduced these 9,000 hands would have to seek employment in the United States, and our own manufacturing establishments would be crushed out. Certainly that is good Conservative doctrine, the hon. gentlemen opposite condemned it strongly in the past. In his campaign speeches during the contest in Lisgar, the hon. gentleman harped and harped upon this-matter, and I will not be surprised if, in the tariff revision next year, we shall see increased duties on agricultural implements as well. Possibly one of the reasons why the Minister of the Interior has changed his ideas regarding the duty on agricultural implements is to be found in the fact of a certain deal having gone through in which the Manitoba ' Free Press ' changed hands, and the Minister of the Interior and the Massey-Harris Company were mixed up in the deal, and as a result he lias-had turned over to himself the leading organ of the Liberal party in the west.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the present government took great credit for having changed many of the duties from a specific to an ad valorem basis. I desire to point out that the value of many of those articles purchased by the consumer in Canada to-day is much higher than it was prior to the time before the Liberals came into power. We find it to be the case under the system of specific duties that when such duties are imposed they do not increase in proportion to the value of the article. These duties remain the same no matter how much the price may be increased to the consumer, but where the duties are placed on an ad valorem basis

the consumer not only has to pay more for the goods but he has to pay more on account of the duty as well. In many of these instances where a change has been made where the price has been increased, the farmer does not realize how much more he has to pay in duty, because he is called upon to pay for an increased value as well as for an increased duty, whereas under the system of specific duties he was called upon to pay merely the increased prices of the articles that he purchased. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) gave voice to an expression which he meant to be a reproach to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) and the Conservative party in general because they were consistent enough to advocate the one policy for twenty-five years. He stated that he might close his eyes and let his mind revert back five and twenty years. The hon. gentleman is always living in the past. No wonder he is considered to be a back number. He stated that he could imagine that he heard from the very self-same desk, from the hon. gentleman's predecessor the selfsame views given expression to a quarter of a century ago, and he expressed amazement that there could be a politician or a party that could be true to a principle or a policy for the space of a quarter of a century. If he judged us by the standard of his own party he had every reason to cast that reflection upon us in his speech because during that time his party has changed its policy half a dozen times. No sooner did they meet defeat on one policy than they produced a new one, and advocated it with all the gusto of new found converts. They never had any principle, political exigencies being their guide. Instead of this being a reflection upon the policy of the Conservative party, it is a matter of very great credit to tiie Conservative party, and the hon. gentleman will look in vain for its parallel within the ranks of the Liberal party. Hon. gentlemen opposite have increased the expenditure, as I have already declared, upwards of $23,000,000, they have increased the taxation upwards of $11,000,000, they have increased the national debt by $16,000,000, they have bestowed upon a score of members of parliament positions of emolument under the Crown in direct opposition to their declarations in the past, they have failed to even make an attempt to obtain a mutual trade preference within the empire when the time was opportune, they have, ever since they assumed the reins of power, violated that well laid down rule of letting contracts to the highest tenderer, parcelling them out instead to political supporters in return for favours present and to come, they have increased the number of cabinet ministers by two, raising their salaries by $2,000 per annum, they have abandoned that plank in their platform calling for the

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   COMPARISON OF ESTIMATES.
Permalink

April 3, 1902