April 7, 1902

L-C

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :

Is it the Intention of the government, as announced in the Liberal press, to introduce a Bill fixing the 24th May as the day of official observance of the King's birthday.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   OFFICIAL OBSERVANCE OF THE KING'S BIRTHDAY.
Permalink
?

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Lanrier).

The attention of the government has been called to this subject, but no decision has been reached on it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   OFFICIAL OBSERVANCE OF THE KING'S BIRTHDAY.
Permalink

WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.


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


CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).

Before resuming the course of the argument, I was endeavouring to present to the House when the debate was adjourned on Friday evening, I wish to call attention to a paragraph which appears in the Montreal ' Herald ' :

The opposition's story was told by two members in succession, Mr. Broder and Mr. Lennox. Both

told the same story of broken pledges and big expenditures and made the same apologies for the prosperity of tile country that have been made by all the Conservative speakers.

Items of- this character are not, in themselves, important. But inasmuch as neither the hon. gentleman Who preceded me nor myself addressed our arguments in the line spoken of, I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact, and also for the reason that we find this organ supporting the government-and it appears, as some one says, a subsidized organ-in this instance, as in some other instances, has referred to arguments as being advanced by this side of the House which were not advanced. We know that conscience makes cowards of us all, and the Liberal party, conscious of their weakness in these matters as well as in a variety of other matters, imagine that the opposition must be talking of this matter' even though they do not refer to it.

Now, when I concluded my remarks the other evening, X was referring to the condition of the country in 1878, and was pointing out the deplorable condition in which the country then stood. Canada had in fact reached the parting of the ways; it was more than the parting of the ways, because the government had acknowledged defeat, they had acknowledged that they were unable from the resources of the country, to carry on the affairs of the country. Canada had, in a commercial and industrial sense, actually abandoned the field, and was going backwards. I need not remind the House who came to the rescue on that occasion. He may be an efficient general who, upon the battle field, casts about him to ascertain the position of the enemy, the strength of the enemy, and lines up his own army in an efficient battle array. He is perhaps a brilliant general who, when victory trembles in the balance, rushes to the head of his forces, stays a threatened retreat, and holds them in line. But, Sir, he is a prince of soldiers who, when panic has set in, when confidence has been lost, when the army nas commenced to retreat, when all seems lost, comes and rallies the soldiers, stays their retreat, and ultimately, after reorganizing them, leads them on to victory. I need not tell the House who was that man, that father of his country, that saviour of Canada, in 1878. [DOT]

Now, this newspaper says that I referred to the prosperity of the country, and tried to apologize for it. X do not need to apologize for the success of the country. The success of the country, as is known to every thoughtful Canadian, as is known to every statesman the world around, is owing to two things, and two things alone : To the general prosperity of the commercial world and to the magnificent policy, so far as it relates to Canada, that was Inaugurated in 1878. I refer now to the condition of things which succeeded the declaration of policy, and the magnificent campaign that Mr. LENNOX.

was carried on by the Conservative party, ably led by Sir John A. Macdonald, the greatest Canadian statesman, and one of the greatest statesmen of the British Empire. Almost immediately that declaration of Sir John A. Macdonald reanimated the country. I wish to point out this fact, that you may make your policies what you will, you may argue as you will, but unless you animate a country with hope, unless you can point It to something to be accomplished, you will never succeed in building up a nation. So I cast back the statement of the Minister of Agriculture when he told us, in winding up that somewhat tedious speech of his the other day, as a conclusion of the whole matter, that the future of the country must take care of itself. If that is the theory of the Minister of Agriculture for assisting this country, if tliaf is all he can do for agriculture, if he cannot point to a line of policy which will develop the varied resources of this country, if he cannot adapt himself to changing conditions and map out a line of conduct which will enable ns to compete for the commerce of the world with other nations, then I submit that the country will pronounce him not exactly fit for the position he occupies.

Now, after 1S78, after the victory that was then achieved, it goes without saying that Sir John A- Macdonald inaugurated the policy upon which he won. The Conservative party, Mr. Speaker, always carried out in the House the policy which they advocated in the country. I tell the hon. gentlemen opposite who talk about standing by the old policy of 1878, and that we stood, and stand, by the old policy of redeeming our pledges made to the people at the time of the elections. We had great success by reason of the national policy introduced by Sir John A. Macdonald, but we had not complete success, and perhaps that admission will give a grain of comfort to the cabinet and their followers. I have said that absolute certainty of the continuance of a policy is essential to its successful operation. After Sir John A. Macdonald inaugurated the policy, what attitude did the opposition of that day assume ? Why, Sir, instead of acting like a loyal opposition in the Interests of the country, instead of giving the policy a fair trial, they went up and down the country, many of them saying what they did not believe, traducing the policy, and declaring that it would be reversed on the first opportunity, trying to drive the young men out of this country, trying to stem the tide of immigration into this country. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), more unfaithful than most of his party, by his speeches in this House and throughout the country, by his writings in English papers such as the ' Economist ' did not cease to vilify the policy and administration of the Conservative party, to disgrace Canada, to deter immigrants from coming here and

to drive away our young men from this country.

I say it is the essence of a policy that it should be stable, and therefore it is little wonder that at the present time these gentlemen can point to some measure of success. They are' practically carrying out the policy- that was inaugurated by our great Canadian statesman, they have enforced it in a large degree, and to that fact I attribute the prosperity which the country now enjoys ; and so far as that policy fails to procure for Canada all the prosperity which she ought to enjoy, it is owing to the fact that they have tinkered with the tariff, and have never risen to the height of realizing its full scope, nor have they adequately carried it out.

1 will tell these hon. gentlemen a story, and they have always been fond of American authorities until recently, that was told by Chauncey Depew. He said that some few years ago there was in a village not far from the city of New York an excitement because it had been proclaimed that the end of the world would occur on a certain night at twelve o'clock. It unsettled the minds of the people as uncertainty of the future always does unsettle and unhinge people's minds. Some of the people sold their property at a sacrifice, some abandoned work and on the last day a number of them-and I trust hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House will take this lesson to heart-began to pray. Among them was an old shoemaker who had promised a pair of boots to Mrs. Brown for the next day. He prayed fervently, and as it approached twelve o'clock he prayed more fervently still. When it came to twelve o'clock he found that no change had occurred, but he thought that it would be better to pray a little longer. There might be a difficulty about the exact time. He continued praying for perhaps half an hour and then said-and this is the point I wish to impress upon hon. gentlemen opposite as to the necessity of certainty in fiscal matters-O Lord, if the end of the world is coming, let me know right now, but if the end of the world is not coming, O Lord may it please you to say so, because I must have Mrs. Brown's boots ready at twelve o'clock to-morrow ; there is nothing that knocks business out like this uncertainty. We have had, therefore, a better state of things since the government came into office in that regard. We have not had a disloyal opposition, but we have had a loyal opposition, not traducing the country but willing to give the government a fair chance to carry on public affairs. We have not had a complaining opposition, but we have had members on ooth sides of the . House uniting, whether acknowledging it or not, bceause the government has not had the candour to acknowledge it, in upbuilding the national policy and the policy of protection in this country, so that with a ready made policy and with a loyal opposition

supporting it, taken in conjunction with years of great plenty, we should have comparative success. Now, I wish to refer to some circumstances which are unique in a sense in connection with this debate. We have a decidedly unusual state of things. In the words of the man in the street, 'things are coming our way.' First, we have the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), and his speech is yet fresh in our minds. I venture to say that a more significant speech, one of more far-reaching effect, one that is more calculated to shake the confidence of the people of Canada and of the world, for that matter, in the truth and candour of the existing government has not been uttered. Taken in connection with the statement of the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in reference to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and with the utterances of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), who is declared to have taken exactly the same line as the-hon. member for North Norfolk, it establishes beyond refutation that for a quarter of a century we have had the leading men of the Reform party, the men whom the Reform party looked up to, the men whom they believed to be honest, going about this country proclaiming that which they did not believe to be true and denouncing and defaming the policy in which they actually believed. A more significant state of tilings has not existed in Canada for a long time. Now, there is more than that. We have what we would expect and what does not trouble my mind at all, and that is a good deal of wrangling in that party over that same speech. We have the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) on the right and the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) on the left, who, with the hon. member for North Norfolk, are the leaders of the Liberal party outside of the government, and we have these two hon. gentlemen attacking the hon. member for North Norfolk. At the same time we have the hon. member for Russell attacking and threatening the government. He is getting-shaky about the government; he does not know where they stand ; and who does know where they stand ? Is there a man in Canada, who. if you -were to divide that government, knows how many would stand on one side and how many on the other ? 1

do not know. . He holds them up-and history repeats itself-as they were held up in 1878 by a contingent from the maritime provinces. He says : Go one step farther and I will denounce you. An hon. member on the other side of the House farther back, on Friday evening did the same thing. So it is all over the House. The hon. member for Russell speaks as if he were in earnest. I do not know whether he is or not. I would believe every word he uttered was perfectly sincere only for one thing, which makes me feel that I do not know where 1 stand in that regard, and that is the fact

country when in the nature of things changes must be made ; it seems that these gentlemen are not able and have not the ability or have not the courage to announce a policy for themselves, and so they say from time to time : What is the policy of

the Conservative party, and what is the meaning of the declaration of the policy that has been enunciated toy Conservatives from session to session. In reply to these gentlemen that it is a definite policy; that it is a policy which so far as one can see, the Reform party has not been able to frame. The fact of its being a policy at all makes it what the Reform party are frequently looking for, what they have not been able to find, and what I venture to say-having regard to their actions in the past-they would not have the courage to enunciate even though they found it, because they want to see the way the wind blows before they declare a policy one way or the other. The policy of the Conservative party is not a patchwork policy ; it is not-If I return to the story of Joseph-a patch-work like Joseph's coat, to be worn one side out or the other side just as happens to suit the exigencies of the case ; with a patch for the Minister of Public Works ; a patch, not very definite in colour, for the Postmaster General ; a patch equally undecided in colour for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries ; two patches perhaps-because he has two policies, one in the east.and one in the west-two patches for the Minister of Interior ; shreds and patches for the back benches ; with blue ruin all over it here and there by way of adornment for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and with ornaments of immaculate white to represent the immaculate purity of the hon. leader of the government. The Conservative policy is not that kind of a policy. It is a policy which is well conceived, which is grounded on faith in the country, which is studded with hope throughout, a policy of certainty which has proved beneficent to this country in the past ; not devoid of colour either, for with the inauguration of this policy hope was brought to this country before ; and when the Conservative party comes to power again-and they cannot come too soon for the benefit of the country-a universal Christian emblem will span this country from ocean to ocean, and a rainbow of promise and hope will gladden the hearts of the people of Canada. Well, I do not Want to pay too much attention to the hon. member for Guysborough, because I would be enhancing his importance, and perhaps, he has enough of that now ; but he is as good a text to speak from as anybody else, and when I describe him I describe a good many others. The hon. member complained of the speech of the hon. member for North Nor* folk (Mr. Charlton) in this language :

I cannot conceive of the state of mind which would induce the hon. gentleman, who has done so much for the sanctity of the Sabbath and the

chastity of the home to make such a speech as he made in the House the other day.

Why cannot he conceive of it? I do not think my hon. friend from Guysborough does himself credit. Can he not understand an hon. gentleman repenting of his wickedness ? Is he at a loss to understand that the hon. member for North Norfolk, after having for eighteen or twenty years proclaimed a doctrine in which he did not believe, might very well be aroused by patriotism or by a desire to do what is fair by his country, to recede from the false position he had occupied, and come to acknowledge fairly and squarely that he had abandoned that life and had determined to lead a better one ? The hon member for Guysborough says:

' I cannot understand the state of mind which would induce the hon. gentleman.' Why, Mr. Speaker, does it require an inducement for a member of this House of Commons to do his duty ? What kind of inducement does the hon. member mean ? I do not know; perhaps he does. Then he says, speaking of the toon, member for North Norfolk, ' a gentleman who has done so much for the sanctity of the Sabbath and the chastity of the home.' God help this country, Mr. Speaker, when the sanctity of the Sabbath depends on hon. members of the Liberal party. They have robbed Providence of the credit of the good crops; they have robbed Providence of the rainfall and the gladdening sunshine, and now they are robbing Providence of the credit for the sanctity of the Sabbath. Why, these hon. gentlemen robbed us of our policy. We have heard of men taking coppers from dead men's eyes; but where will these gentlemen stop when they talk of some man sanctifying the Sabbath, the hon. member for North Norfolk by the mouth of the hon. member for Guysborough ? Then, he speaks of the man who has done so much for the chastity of the home. Well, if I read a line or two from a speech of the hon. member for Guysborough, you will see that the chastity of the home is something that the hon. member for North Norfolk might well give attention to. This is what the hon. member for Guysborough said at Morden in 1899 :

To such a Liberal who said that the government did not keep its pledges, he would say, look at home. Have you kept the pledges made to your wife before you married her ?

The hon. member for Guysborough is surprised; he cannot understand a state of things like that; and he says : ' Have you kept the pledges you made to your wife when you married her ? ' Hon. gentlemen I think generally do. Then he says :

But what would you think if your wife left you, and went off with another man, and that man an unsanctified tramp ? That woman would be just as vile as the Liberal who turned Tory. '

Now, I am not going to forget the reverence which I owe to the sacred name of woman

through all the discouragements through which they passed. At last the time came when the party got into power, and then this lover came and demanded the price of his faithfulness. But they said : No; we wish to serve our party by giving this portfolio to another ; you are getting old and are not exactly a suitable bridegroom. This was the shock which unnerved him, and which has clouded his memory ever since. He accepted the portfolio of Trade and Commerce, but always since then he has lived in the past. If the hon. gentleman thinks that that reference, is not suitable to his taste, then I will recommend him to consider a historic instance, that of Hans Christian Andersen, the great Dane who made himself illustrious as a writer of children's stories. Andersen had a great apprehension that he might be buried alive, and I think that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, perhaps, has reason to fear that, living in the past as he does, he also might be buried alive. To prevent the dreadful fate he feared, Andersen had pinned upon his clothing when he retired at night a paper bearing these words : ' I am not dead, I am only in a trance.' I trust the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce may have an awakening sooner or later-and before it is too late. Talking of slumbering, I do not think that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce is really one whit more completely asleep than are a majority of the members of this government to the actual condition of things existing to-day. I can give no more apt illustration of what I think will be the historical verdict upon the attitude of the Reform party of to-day, and of the government in narticular, to the condition of the country, than is to be found in the well-known volume, ' Looking Backward.' You remember, Mr. Speaker, the instance, how a gentleman, returning to his house after being out for the evening, retired to a cell he had constructed for himself underground in order to be away from the disturbances of the house and the street. He had been celebrating ' Declaration Day '-this was in the city of Boston, in the United States. That night the building above was destroyed and communication with the cell was cut off. The rest of the story will be sufficiently described in what I read ;

And now (says the Dr.) ' can you tell me a little more explicitly when it was that you fell into that sleep, the date, I mean.' 1 Why, last night, of course ; I said so, did'nt I ? that is unless I have overslept an entire day. Great heavens ! that cannot be possible ; and yet I have an odd sensation of having slept a long time. It was was Decoration Day that I went to sleep.' [DOT]

' Decoration Day ? '

Yes, Monday, the 30th.' 'Pardon me, the 30th of what ? '

Why, of this month of course, unless I have slept into June, but that cannot he.'

This is the month of September.'

' September ! You don't mean that I have slept since May ! God in heaven ! Why it is incredible.'

We shall see,' replied my companion ; * you say it was May 30 when you went to sleep ? '

' Yes.'

' May I ask what year ? '

I stared blankly at him, incapable of speech, for some moments.

' Of what year ? ' I feebly echoed at last.

' Yes, of what year, if you please ? After you have told me that I shall be able to tell you how long you have slept.'

' It was the year 1887,' I said.

My companion insisted that I should take another draft from the glass, and felt my pulse. He said :

' Your appearance is that of a young man of barely 30, and your bodily condition seems not greatly different from that of one just roused from a somewhat too long and profound sleep, and yet this is the 10th of September, in the year 2000, and you have slept exactly one hundred and 13 years, three months and eleven days.'

Now, I do not quote this for the amusement of the House, I quote it because it points a moral, and because we are at a crisies in the affairs of Canada. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been writing epitaphs in order to denounce the Conservative party, perhaps it might not be improper for me to sketch an epitaph for the hon. minister himself. I regret that if the people of Canada were to erect a monument to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, they could not, I fear, unless he repents, consistently engrave upon his monument any such legend as that which is engraved on the monument to the memory of the late Alexander Mackenzie :

' Duty was his law, conscience was his ruler.' But on second thought, I do not think it would be well to erect a monument to the hon. minister, I think it would be better that a tablet to his memory should decorate the halls of this chamber, in order that it might be a warning to young Liberals in future to be careful as to whom they accept as their guide. So I venture to suggest that a tablet be erected to the memory of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to be placed on the southern wall of this chamber. What can we engrave upon it with any due regard to consistency ? We will, I think engrave two pillars of stone.- We will make one grand and graceful column dedicated ' Protection.' We will also have a crumbling rock inscribed with 'Free Trade,' and on that we will place the figure of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, leaning against the pillar designated protection. We will place in his hand a flag and on it the legends unrestricted reciprocity, commercial union, political union, annexation to the United States, and absorption in the United States. We will have the hon. gentleman, as aforetime, looking to Washington, and near him the figure of a man, not in particularly good humour-a figure representative of a gentleman named Cook,-and this figure pointing menacingly to the Minister of

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

of German trade and the utterances of German statesmen, he continues :

The time has undoubtedly come when we shall have to reconsider our attitude towards our foreign industrial competitors, our fellow subjects beyond the seas, and our whole commercial policy as well. Economic and political reasons render a change indispensable; from the insular no less than the imperial point of view a radical reform seems called for. And even military considerations bear out this conclusion; for we began by sacrificing our agriculture, the source oi our food supplies in war time, for the purpose of futhering our industry, and now we are offering np onr industry at the shrine of a theory which is no longer tenable.

I also refer to a line or two from an article on the Outlook of British Commerce in the ' Empire Review.' The writer deals with an article that was published by Mr. Carnegie. He says :

Need we despair then, because our political ideals have not yet so completely matured as to enable the stupendous resources we command to be systematically organized and methodically developed ? The personal element, Mr. Carnegie states we still enjoy, the 'dogged endurance,' 'the ambition to excel,' 'the will, to do or die.' Possessing these supreme qualities and controlling some -100 millions of people inhabiting nearly one fourth of the land surface of the glebe, with every physical advantage and geograph cal opportunity that man can desire, so tar from being pessimists, we ought to feel and understand that both in the matter of numbers and natural resources we hold all the winning cards in the great game for commercial supremacy. It only remains to decide how we must play them.

Then he goes on ;

This in itself would be a source of congral il lation to us were it not for the fact that our accumulative powers as a nation are now being attacked. The industrial armies of the United States are accumulating wealth more rapidly than we, and consequently the time must very shortly arrive when their bankers and financiers will be able to undersell us just as their producers and manufacturers have already done.

How then are we to protect ourselves ? Obviously by the same means that have been employed to raise the states of the American Union to their present magnificent position. Whilst the 'forty-five countries' of America have joined forces, established free trade amongst themselves, and thereby created a compact industrial army of immense strength, the fifty odd countries, colonies and dependencies which make up the British empire-with a population and territory of far greater magnitude than the United States,-are not only disunited in their political and commercial principles, but they are actually in many respects working against each other, and thereby making the way for the ecmmercial and political ascendency of our more powerful neighbours. It is to the question of 'national unity' that we must turn our attention, a unity first of trade principle, which will prevent the sacrifice of our own commerce and that of some of our dependencies and colonies to a theory which, however advantageous when originally introduced, is unquestionably out of date and injurious when considered in relation to the developments In transport, production, and international state-aided competition with which we p.re now face to-face. Un-Mr. LENNOX.

qualified free trade is not only misleading as a theory, but is, when considered from the political standpoint, a mischievous and dangerous principle which we cannot too quickly abandon if we desire to hold our own.

Then, he sums up in this way :

I do not think

.

Referring to Mr. Carnegie :

we need disturb ourselves much about

the loss of prestige, for just as a short rest enables the exhausted frame to quickly regain its accustcmed strength, so will a period of peace and prosperity restore power and confidence to the holders of British stock; hut the question of our stationary commerce is a more serious matter, and one of those unpalatable facts which it seems impossible to explain away. The other great nations of the earth are rapidly overtaking ua in the volume of commodities-raw and manufactured

which their enormous territories and expanding populations enable them to so readily produce. And if we are to hold our own in the great struggle for possession of the world's markets now in progress, we must thiuk how we can augument the land, labour, and natural resources at our disposal. Impossible as this may seem at first glance, a moments consideration at once opens our eyes to Great Britain's coming strength-our colonies. When will the dwellers in the motherland understand that their brothers beyond the seas, are not only strong in all they require, but are anxious and proud to place that strength at the disposal of the empire ?

That, this government has sacrificed our interests by the policy of preferential trade, making us less able to give something in return for concessions we might receive, is evident to any reasonable mind. That this government has postponed the accomplishment of that commercial unity of the empire which is to be the grandest achievement of this) century, is also perfectly evident. Did Australia made a jug-handled bargain for trade with Great Britain ? Not at all. Is there a doubt about the loyalty of the Australians ? The history of recent years refutes that suggestion. When the Australians came to deal with Great Britain they dealt upon a business basis idle men, and they would not sacrifice their rights. I charge that no government has the right to give away a dollar of the money of the people. That money in the hands of the government is a sacred trust. And when you come to give it, not to Britain or to the empire, but to British manufacturers, then I say that kindness begins at. home, and it is the duty of patriotic Canadians to think of their own country. I condemn this government directly and squarely for their action with regard to the preferential duty. When we adopted confederation we made a step towards the unity of the empire, and as Mr. Chamberlain has said, we laid the foundation for confederation in Australia which is again a stepping stone towards the unity of the whole empire. But when this government introduced its preferential trade principle they took a retrograde movement, because they put a stumbling

block in the way of mutual trade concessions within the empire, and they delayed if that be possible the realization of that great hope. I do not know that I will weary the House further reading extracts, although I have a long array of matters that I believe would be reasonably improving to the members of the government. 1 would judge from their dumbness; from what lawyers call, the studied silence with ' malice aforethought ', that they have not been studying up these great questions or else they would be prepared to enlighten public opinion. Are they the leaders of this country or not 1

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER.

Never.

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

Haughton Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX.

Another convert, and there are converts all along the line. I feel, Sir, that this country'is to some extent alive to the important questions that are being discussed in Great Britain, and her colonies, and I need not weary the House by proceeding further upon that matter. I will close by saying : that speaking, not from a political standpoint at all, I do trust that when the leader of this government goes to Great Britain and meets there the great men assembled, he will not allow any personal consideration or any love for that dead dogma of free trade, or Cobdenism to interfere with the intelligent discharge of his public duties as regards our own great country. I do urge him, that although he has not seen lit to lay before the people any large scheme to be discussed at this colonial conference, he will take, the matter seriously in mind. But, whether he does or not, I can say to the members of this House and to the people of the country, that the time is coming when there are no two courses open, when' Britain has to adopt the course that will unite all the parts of the empire within one broad circle. In doing so, I believe that the master minds of those great colonies will unite loyally with statesmen of Britain working out a scheme which will tend to cement the British empire, and more than verify the grand traditions of that empire. I said that things were coming our way. I think I have with some measure of success established that fact in detail. What does our way point to '! Our way points to the rapid accumulation of capital and to the development of well paid labour. It points to the development ih this country of great industrial energy; it points to a simultaneous concurrent advance of all our varied interests and to the development of our great natural resources. It points to Canada for Canadians ; and the empire-the empire for Canadians and Britons-for us all. It points to commercial unity ; comparative immunity from attack ; mutual defence, if attacked, to ability to defend, 714

and to the upbuilding of the greatest, grandest nation that the world has ever seen-a nation so grand and so majestic that the wisest statesmen of a quarter of a century ago did not even conceive of it. It points to one united empire, possessing within itself illimitable resources for every station and condition of life, and a wealth, if not beyond the wildest dreams of avarice, yet almost illimitable, wealth in everything that tends to make a nation great, contented, prosperous and free. This, I predict, is going to be the grand accomplishment of this century-the grand accomplishment of the early years of this century. I look for it ; I believe in it. There are difficulties in the way, I admit. There are difficulties from without, such as the jealousies of other nations; and there are difficulties from within, such as internal jealousies and want of .loyalty. But there are no difficulties which cannot be overcome ; and when in the early days of this century-ay, within the lifetime of our present Sovereign-there will be secured this grand unity of the empire, and the world around, then, with a new meaning, a new fervour and a renewed loyalty will ascend from hundreds of millions of loyal British subjects the anthem and the prayer, ' God bless King Edward the Seventh ! God save our gracious King ! '

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Fletcher Bath Wade

Liberal

Mr. F. B. WADE (Annapolis).

Mr. Speaker, I feel at this period of the debate that I owe the House an apology for rising to my feet to take part in the discussion ; but, Sir, the matters that have been placed before the House, the questions that have been raised and the issues that have been provoked are of such a nature that I feel that I cannot, in justice to the constituency I have tlie honour to represent, remain entirely quiet. I fear, however, that a great disappointment is in store for the House, after listening to the able speech which has just been delivered. I fear that I shall not be able to engage the attention of the House for half the time the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has done. Neither must you expect me, in view of my proportions, to float on the sunbeams or waltz on the rainbows as he has done ; but I shall have to keep myself upon terra firma. There are some sentences in his speech which have disappointed me. You know I am a bit of an optimist. I look with confidence at the great prosperity of Canada. I thought that we were now on the crest of the wave, and that it was going to continue. But I find that I was all wrong. I find that there will be no prosperity in the Dominion of Canada until the great Liberal-Conservative party has again come into power ; and then I sigh to myself and say, ' How long, electors, oh, how long will this great hour delay ? ' Royalty in England the other day commanded Britons to awake, and yet they slumbered on ; the even tenor of their way was not disturbed. But, Sir, the stentorian voice of the hon. member for South Simcoe

(Mr. Lennox) has commanded Britons to awake ; and I dare to prophesy that a wave of insomnia will spread over that land which will enhance the price of narcotics twofold. I am glad to know that the hon. gentleman has been content with exterminating the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) the giant of Guysborough (Mr. Fraser), and the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). It is true he did not quite demolish the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, but he left history to complete the job ; the gigantic form of the hon. member for Guysborough has shrunken to mean proportions ; while the hon. member for North Norfolk is on his knees crawling across the House, aud begging for admission to the ranks of the opposition.

It would be presumption on my part to endeavour to follow the line of argument of the hon. gentleman who has preceded me. Therefore, I will try to address myself in a quiet way to matters which I conceive to be of interest, not only to my constituents, but to the country at large. There is a sharp and clear issue before the House. I cannot say that it is raised by the resolution which has been moved by the hon. leader of the opposition ; but certainly it has been presented to us by hon. gentlemen on each side of the House. That issuse is : Shall there-or shall there not-be a greater measure of protection in the Dominion of Canada ? Protection, as I understand it, and as I believe the country understands it, and as I believe everybody will admit, is protection for the manufacturers. Now, Sir, in all well-considered measures that" may be presented by a government, or passed by parliament, the underlying principle is that the greatest amount of good shall be accomplished to the greatest number of people, and the least possible harm shall be done. Taking that as the platform from which we must consider this question, it is well for us to consider how many people are interested in this question on the one side or the other-how many are manufacturers, and how many are found in other occupations and other conditions of life ? I have been at some pains to get some data on this point. I have been examining the census of 1891, which I have been told and led to believe is not quite reliable. I find myself unable from that census to ascertain the exact number of the different trades and industries, because they have not been grouped ; but I have obtained sufficient data for my argument. There are 1,659,355 represented as being persons having an occupation. Of these 790,210 are agriculturists, fishermen, and miners. Domestic and personal servants are 246,183, those in manufacturing and mechanical industries are 320,001; profesions, 63,280 ; trade and transportation, 186,695 ; non-productive, 52,986 ; or a total of 1,659,355. But I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Fletcher Bath Wade

Liberal

Mr. WADE.

while under the head of manufactures we have 320,000, that heading includes not only manufacturers in the strict sense of the term, but all mechanical industries, including, so far as I am able to discover, lumbermen, carpenters, blacksmiths, shoemakers, machinists, plumbers, engineers, firemen, and thousands of other people. So that it is safe for us to say that of the 320,000, not more are real or genuine manufacturers than 160,000 ; and I am further borne out in this conclusion by the fact that when I turn to the trade and navigation returns and look at the exports for, the year 1901, I find that in them there were : products of the mine, $40,000,000 ; products of the fisheries, $10,000,000 ; products of the forest, $30,000,000 ; animals and their products, $85,000,000 ; agricultural products, $38,000,000 ; manuufactures, $17,000,000. So that we have a grand total of exports, amounting to $191,000,000, of the products of Canada, as against only $17,000,000 of her manufactures. I am only dealing with these figures for the purpose of giving prominence to my point, that when we come to deal with the interests of the people of Canada, we must deal with them relatively, and formulate and adopt a policy which will accomplish the greatest amount of good to the largest number of people. And when we have, upon one hand, a population representing anywhere from 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the whole people, as compared with a population, on the other hand, representing only 10 per cent to 15 per cent, it is our duty to consider as paramount the interests of the larger percentage. That being so, is it not proper that we should, in formulating our policy, consider the interests of the agriculturists, the miners, the fishermen, the lumbermen, the labourers, the professional men and all the others, as well as the interests of the manufacturers. But there are many hon. gentlemen on the other side who seem to imagine that there is but one class in this Dominion which should be considered. I have read the resolution proposed by the hon. the leader of the opposition :

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

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Hear, hear.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Fletcher Bath Wade

Liberal

Mr. WADE.

Some hon. gentlemen cheer this. Well, I will pause to hear whether they will say ' hear, hear ' after I have made a few remarks further on this point. I would like to know how the hon. the leader of the opposition proposes to protect the interests of the farmer. I am speaking now more particularly with regard to the farmers of the maritime provinces, because I am more familiar with their conditions than with

those of the farmers of the western provinces. I would like to understand how my hon. friend proposes to protect the interests of the farmers of the maritime provinces or of our miners, lumbermen or fishermen. I make bold to say that in the whole tariff list there is but one solitary item which has the slightest bearing upon the interests of the farmers down by the sea. I refer to the item of hams and bacon. Prince Edward Island, to a considerable extent, and New Brunswick, to a smaller extent, do produce hams and bacons, and the duties upon these articles may afford them some satisfaction, but leaving these products aside, and taking all the other agricultural articles, I defy any gentleman opposite to show how our farmers in the eastern provinces are benefited by the tariff in the slightest degree.

I have here a list of all the dutiable articles of farm produce. I have gone through the tariff as carefully as possiDle( and will read the result, though, of course, I may possibly have omitted something. That list comprises :

Animals, except for improvement of stock ; live hogs, bacons, hams and shoulders, beans, salt beef, butter, cheese, cider, cracked corn and *wheat, cranberries, plums and quinces, cucumbers, dried vegetables, eggs, flour and meal, fowls, fruit (raspberries), other berries, bay, meats, milk foods, pickles, potatoes, sheepskins.

That is the list. Take the lower provinces, the only competition which the farmer of Nova Scotia to-day has to meet is the competition of the Prince Edward Islander who comes there with ham, bacon, turnips, potatoes and oats, and sells huge quantities of them and the Ontario farmer whose butter, cheese, beef, mutton and lamb and poultry come to ns in striking competition. These are the only people we have to compete with ; there is no competition from the ^outside at all. Who ever heard of such a "thing in the maritime provinces as the importation of any of these articles from the United States, or any other foreign country?

Then I come to the miners. Will some hon. gentleman on the other side he good enough to inform me where the miner is protected ? Every article that enters into his daily consumption is taxed, and taxed heavily, and there is not a solitary thing which he can produce which can be protected beyond those we have on the tariff at present.

But before leaving the farmers, let me refer for a moment to something an hon. and very fair minded gentleman on the other side said during this debate. He said that we had given protection to the farmers because we had not repealed these duties. Why, in the name of all that is reasonnable, if there be any stray corners in the Dominion- and I presume there are some in Ontario and New Brunswick and iji Prince Edward Island, as I have said-where the farmers draw some measure of comfort from our tariff should we withdraw from these farmers consideration ? Must we take that from them and give them nothing in return ? Is it only the interests of the manufacturers that are to be considered ? That idea I contend is not a good one.

The same remark applies to the fishermen and the day labourers and to other walks in life.

We are told that we must prevent Canada being made a slaughter market for American manufacturers. Well, this with us down in Nova Scotia is a tender point. It was prophesied when the scheme of confederation was first mooted, that its effect would be to destroy our infant manufactures. The result has verified that prophesy, because the larger manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec came down to Nova Sco'tia with their goods and under sold our men, and the result was that nearly every factory in Nova Scotia was closed up. Nor did the competition stop there. Nearly the whole of our wholesale dry goods business was closed up by the fact that the larger houses in Ontario and Quebec doing an,' immense business, were able to come down there and under-sell our men and force them to close their doors. Any man within the sound of my voice, who is at all familiar with the conditions in Nova Scotia, knows what I say to be true, knows that we were obliged, in consequence of the union with these other provinces, to almost entirely change our conditions of life. We did do so. We have changed them, and we are now upon another sound basis and prepared to stand by things as they are.

But there is one idea that suggests itself to my mind with regard to this slaughter market, and which I have never heard come from hon. gentlemen on the other side. Suppose I am correct in my statement that 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the population of Canada are non-manufacturers, and suppose that they are correct in their statement that American manufacturers are making a slaughter market of the Dominion, that the Americans are selling here hundreds of millions of dollars worth of manufactured goods at slaughter prices, is it not self-evident that 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the people of Canada are consequently getting the goods cheaper than do the American people, living in the country where they are manufactured ? I think that idea is commencing to dawn upon the American public. I believe they now begin to see that the very goods that are sold in Canada for a certain figure they are obliged to buy at a largely advanced price. In other words, the manufacturers of the United States who have been able to build this tariff wall ; have been able to say : ' This territory is ours, and we may charge such prices as we see fit, and then we will go into the markets of the world, and, having the advantage of wresting from our own people these extravagant prices to place ourselves in a position to compete upon more advantageous terms with the outside world.'

Take the matter of locomotives ; take the matter of steel bridges; of steel rails or railway cars. These are being sold by the United States manufacturers in Spain, in Egypt, in India, and in other foreign markets ; and I undertake to say that the manufacturers are selling these goods in those markets at lower prices than they are selling them at in their own market. Let me give another illustration of the working of this high tariff. Cross Lake Huron from the Ontario side, and what do you see ? You see Canadian lumber going in there and paying a duty of $2 a thousand feet, and selling at the same price as the American article. It is bought by the Standard Oil Company. In their great works they are using I do not know how many millions of feet every year, making it into boxes for the shipment of their products to all parts of the world. Why do they use Canadian lumber ? Because when they ship out this lumber thus made into boxes, they receive a rebate of 90 per cent of duty paid, or $1.80 per thousand, giving them just that much advantage. Who, then, gets the advantage of this high tariff wall ? The great monopolists, such as the Standard Oil Company, are the parties who reap the benefit of it. Not only the Standard Oil Company, but other large manufacturers are using enormous quantities of Canadian lumber and getting the rebate in this way. I only mention this to illustrate the fact that the people are being deceived by this idea of high protection. It is not the producer who is always benefited; it is not the consumer who is always injured, provided that that consumer is a big corporation that can control its affairs in the manner I have indicated,

I do not intend to weary the House by speaking on this question. But I think it is my duty to say this, and to say it forcibly, that, while there are differences of opinion on this side as to what should be the exact tariff, there, are all interests represented here. There are men representing constituencies who would be delighted to have certain industries protected; there are men who would like to have the broadest measure of free trade. And all have a perfect right to stanp here and urge, each one, the interest of the constituency he represents with the utmost vigour. But, I am thankful to say that, on this side of the House, we have a body of men who are willing to ' give and take,' and we are all united upon a tariff which will result in the greatest measure of good to all. There is no man to-day who says that Canada can have absolute free trade. We know that a revenue must be raised, and we know that that revenue can only be raised-or ought only to be raised, that is, it is better that it should be raised-by a tariff. Therefore, it is our duty to meet and agree upon

Mr. "JVADE. ,

the other side say that we have falsified our promises.

An lion. MEMBER. Hear, hear.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Fletcher Bath Wade

Liberal

Mr. WADE.

An hon. gentleman on the other side says ' Hear, hear.' They said that before 1900. They went to the people and said that. And what answer did they receive ? Surely that should have satisfied them. But it does not appear to have satisfied them. The cry of ' Canada for the Canadians,' reverberated through these halls years ago. It was a master hand that first penned that phrase, and he used it to good advantage. But, when we came into power in 1896, and when this government simply carried out in 1897 the pledges it had given to the country, what was the first position taken by hon. gentlemen on the other side ? They said : You are going to ruin all the industries of Canada. Then this great wail went up from Montreal, and we were to have soup kitchens everywhere from Nova Scotia to Vancouver to feed the starving people who would be thrown out of employment by the government's policy. But this did not materialize. The record of this parliament teems vyith the speeches made by the hon. gentlemen of the other side proph-sying these doleful things. And when they found that, not only were the factories not closed, but that business had been given a fillip, that the manufacturers were increasing and that business people had more confidence, what then ? Why they simply turned about and said : These are our garments that you have stolen; this is our tariff. And they have continued that cry, until this session. But, this winter, they come forward and say : Oh, this as not

right; we must now have a declared policy. A ' declared ' policy, mark you. Last winter, they wanted a ' pronounced ' policy, and with that demand they met the electors of Nova Scotia. With what result ? With the result that the leader of the opposition in the parliament of Nova Scotia is fortunate enough to have one man to second his resolutions. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), a gentleman for whom I have the greatest respect, organized this campaign in the province of Nova Scotia. He went to demand that ' pronounced policy,' first, 1 believe, to the county of Lunenburg, a county in which, in spite of all our efforts in 1900, my hon. and genial friend Col. Kaulbacli, was returned with a majority of something over 230. But when this ' pronounced policy ' was put before the people of that magnificent county in terms which only the leader of the opposition could employ, what was the result ? The result was that they did not want very much of that ' pronounced policy,' and the supporters of the Liberal government were returned with a majority of over 700. The next place this ' pronounced policy ' was used, I believe, was the county of Annapolis. I happened to

be passing on a train and saw my bon. friend addressing a large crowd at Middleton. I regretted tbat I had not time to stay to hear him, but was compelled to go on, having business further down the line. I was able to squeeze into this House with a majority of 152. But when the people of Annapolis had digested that ' pronounced policy,' the candidates of the Liberal party were returned with majorities of about 500. So the matter ran all over the province of Nova Scotia. And we have come back here 'pronounced policy.' Somebody says there has been a mistake, that that resolution last winter was a mistake, that there was something wrong about it. I fancy it was the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) who suggested that they had better call it now 'a declared policy.' So now we have got a ' declared policy,' and upon that these gentlemen are going to the country again.

It does not seem to me, Sir, that it is about time that our friends on the other side roused themselves to a realization of the fact that it does not belong to them exclusively to cry, ' Canada for the Canadians.' Have we not just as much right as they have to cry ' Canada for the Canadians ? ' We may differ from them in our policy, but surely they will be just enough to admit that in adopting this policy we have done that which we deemed and what has proved best in the interest of Canada. I say, it is somewhat impertinent on their part to arrogate to themselves- the sole right of shouting, 'Canada for the Canadians.' It is on a par with the position that they took years gone by when they aixogated to themselves the whole of the loyalty in the Dominion of Canada. You will remember that after the speech made by our leader in Montreal, after the elections of 1896, there was a general expression of surprise in the English papers at the sentiments of that speech. Why, they said, ' this man is loyal to the empire.' It was a matter of surprise to them. Why ? Because the Conservative papers of Canada had so frequently and for so many years declared that the whole Liberal .party were annexationists, that they were, in the words of the bon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, looking to Washington, that they (were traitors to the empire-and the English press was surprised to see how false those statements had been. I say that is something of which the Conservative party ought to be ashamed. No man need to stand on the floor of parliament or elsewhere in this country and declare that he is loyal. For my part I consider that the self-proclaimed loyalist, the self-proclaimed patriot, is a man that needs watching. Every man is supposed to be loyal in this whole empire; and the individual who declares that any party is disloyal, or that any group of citizens is disloyal, that man himself is disloyal to the best interests of Canada.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that I should be considered failing in my duty if I did not say something on the apple question! and as it is now nearly six o'clock, I beg to call your attention to the fact.

At six o'clock, the House took recess.

After Recess.

The House resumed at 8 o'clock.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Fletcher Bath Wade

Liberal

Mr. WADE.

Mr. Speaker, it would not be necessary for me to have made any remarks, certainly not any extended remarks, in regard to the fruit industry, but for certain somewhat extraordinary statements which were made here a few days ago by the hon. member for South Wentworth (Mr. Smith). Last session there was considerable discussion in regard to the fruit business in the Annapolis valley in the province of Nova Scotia. I wish to say here that in any discussion I propose to engage in concerning that industry I would like to lift it beyond the pale of party politics. This is a great industry, one of the most important in my native province and in the constituency I have the honour to represent, and I do think, Sir, that we can best serve the interests of the fruit growers of Nova Scotia as well as the fruit growers of the whole of the Dominion of Canada if we approach the discussion of the matters that are of interest to them, from a non-political standpoint. I, therefore, wish to say that I regret that the remarks of the hon.' member for Wentworth were not free from political considerations, and that he endeavoured to cast upon the government the burden of all the misfortunes that are attendant upon the present conditions in regard to the fruit industry. He made some remarks that I believe will be regarded as somewhat startling. In the first place he informed the House that Nova Scotia this year had the only good crop of apples grown in the country. This is rather a remarkable statement coming from the hon. gentleman who lives in a part of this Dominion, which at the time when the Annapolis valley was first producing apples in abundance his county was traversed only by the aborigines. The crop of the Annapolis valley was barely an average one. It was good. It was strikingly good, but to have this hon. gentleman publish to the world that this great industry which was established by the French away back in 1600 and odd that its first good crop was last year is rather discouraging. Then, he blames the government for all the difficulties in connection with the transhipment of apples. He says the people there are dissatisfied, and that they are censuring the government. He attempts to, and does read resolutions from fruit growers associations and boards of trade to support-but which entirely failed to support-his charge, and then he tells us about the sad condition

225G

of affairs in Annapolis valley. That was rather startling, it was amusing to hear the hon. gentleman talk about the sad condition of affairs in the Annapolis valley where the people this year have put into their pockets over a million dollars as the outcome of their orchards. Then he cites as his authority for all this dissatisfaction, Mr. Peter Innes. Mr. Peter Innes is a very estimable Scotch gentleman. It would be well for me to say who Peter Innes is, because he is the authority that is taken by the hon. member for South Wentworth to represent the true state of feeling in the Annapolis valley. I wish to preface my remarks by saying that it is absolutely incorrect to say that there is the slightest dissatisfaction with the government in the Annapolis valley, and by the Annapolis valley I mean the counties of Annapolis, King's and Hants, in regard to either the apple business or the transportation question concerning it. Now, Mr. Peter Innes was for a number of years the manager of the Windsor and Annapolis Railway, now the Dominion Atlantic Railway. That railway to-day is the only outlet for the valley to the sea coast where the apples are transhipped to the steamers. During this regime the farmers and fruit growers of the Annapolis valley claimed -that his heart was as adamant towards them. The rates that he demanded were extortionate and they continued in that way until he ceased to be manager and another man took the rein of affairs. Then he became a grand reformer. These rates were ridiculously high. He demanded that they should be cut down at once. And what is the explanation he gave? He says :-In the days when I managed the Windsor and Annapolis Railway, apples were a luxury ; now they are a necessity. In the same way the hon. member for South Wentworth stood by the late government when they did nothing for the farmers, virtually, when they did nothing for the fruit growers, and supported them, having no fault to find with them whatever. But when his party was defeated, when his government was turned from power and when the present administration took upon itself the reins of government, the hon. member for South Wentworth became a great reformer. He demands everything from the government now and he is not willing to give them that credit which they deserve. To read his speech and to listen to his remarks one would suppose that it was the bounden duty of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) to go down through the province of Nova Scotia, to go to the ports of Halifax, St. John and Montreal and there, himself, see to it that the apples were stored on board the steamers that were properly ventilated, to see that they were properly stowed on the steamers and to accompany the ships on their voyage across the Atlantic ocean. I say that the government cannot undertake Mr. WADE.

such a duty or responsibility as that. We might with equal justice demand that the hon. member for South Wentworth should assume responsibility for that Mr. Onder-donk, from Ontario, who went down to the valley last year, purchased on credit some $80,000 worth of fruit, stored it in a warehouse and then gave a bill of sale of that fruit to his creditors by which the farmers were robbed of $80,000 of their money. I say that all the farjners and fruit growers ask is that the government of the Dominion of Canada shall aid them as far as they can in securing proper transportation of their fruit from this side to the other side. Then the hon. gentleman made another statement here. I am sorry he made it because it is not correct. He says :

Within the last twenty-four hours there has been a deputation of Nova Scotia fruit growers in this House to protest against the condition of things and complain that the government have neglected their duty.

I had the privilege of coming from the province of Nova Scotia in company with and conversing with them from the time we left Halifax until we arrived here. I secured a vast amount of useful information from them. I had the pleasure of going with that delegation to a conference with the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher), the deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) and not only is the statement that they complained of the action of the government untrue, but Mr. Ralph Eaton, the foremost orchardist in the lower provinces, after making a very exhaustive'speech in connection with this matter, took occasion to say that he was grateful to the government for what they have done in connection with the agricultural interests, that he was grateful to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and that he knew that they had his entire sympathy and that he was prepared to do anything and everything he could for them. ' That is the true situation with regard to the great fruit industry in the Annapolis valley.

Now, Sir, who is he who will be bold enough to say, that the government can come in and remedy all these evils that are existing ? Any man who knows aught about this matter knows, that all the government can do is to grant a subsidy in order to ensure the rapid and proper transit of fruit from the province of Nova Scotia, or from the Dominion of Canada to the other side of the Atlantic. This they have done. Last year and for a number of years they have been giving this subsidy to the Furness-Whithy Company. There was some discussion about the matter last year, and more stringent provisions were incorporated in the contract that was entered into between the government and that steamship company. Last year the company agreed to give the following service-

I am reading from the contract:

The contractors will on the 1st of July next, after the date of these presents, place on the route between the Port of St. John, In the province of New Brunswick and the port of London in England, the following steamers :-The ' Evangeline,' the ' Loyalist ' and the ' Dahomey ' ; and with these or with other good steamers sanctioned by the minister, maintained for the period of one year a regular service between these ports at fixed dates at regular intervals of not over fifteen days.

The 'balance of this contract was carefully drawn. It was supposed by the fruit owners that if these ships, or ships of a like character, could be employed in that trade, the business woud be properly served. I believe that if those ships had been employed and if the stowage of the fruit had been properly attended to there would have been no complaint and no dissatisfaction. In fact, I have here on my brief statements from the leading orchardists in that province supporting that contention, but I am sorry to say that the Furness-Whithy Company did not carry out their contract. In the first place, they were careless about the handling of the fruit from the cars to the steamer. In the next place, they piled the fruit sometimes eleven tiers deep in their steamers with the result, as any body would know-there being no intervening dunnage between the barrels-that the whole pressure of eight or nine barrels coming on the lower ones would spring the bilges of the barrels and bruised nearly every apple in them. Any lawyer knows that the persons who held bills of lading from these steamers would be in a position to maintain an action for damages against the company, but what could the government do V There is only one tiling the government could do and that was, to withhold from that steamship company the subsidy, and we are told that the subsidy has been withheld. But this is not all that this Furness-Whithy Company did. They ran these three splendid steamers for a part of the year; they sold two of them, withdrew the third from the service, and filled their places with inferior steamers without first getting the sanction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce as provided for by this contract. That is the cause of complaint throughout the Annapolis valley-not against the government, but against this Furness-Whithy Company which has violated its contract.

What can the government do ? All that they can do is to withhold from the company the 'balance of the subsidy that has not been paid. I have not approached this matter, Sir, in any controversial spirit, aud neither has the hon. Dr. Borden, the representative of King's county, nor Dr. Russell, the representative of Hants. But, after listening to what has been stated by these representatives of the fruit growers, we have bad conferences with the minister and we have asked him, in order to secure the proper carrying out of such provisions as we deem necessary, that in the next contract which is entered into between the government and any company that is to carry this fruit from Canada to the other side, certain stipulations shall be incorporated in that contract. The conditions that we have asked for and which meet with the approval of the representatives of the fruit growers are these :

That if the fruit trade, in the opinion of the minister requires it, the minister would insist upon the company increasing the service to intervals of every ten days instead of fifteen, days. Such steamships when carrying fruit shall he run at an average of twelve knots an hour.

Many people have demanded that the steamers shall be run at a higher rate of speed, but after a great deal of discussion it was shown, that a steamer running at twelve knots an hour will make the trip in something less than ten days, and that is considered to be all that is necessary.

Said steamships when carrying fruit shall be ventilated by forced draft in the most effective manner, to the satisfaction of the Minister, and so as to secure as uniform and cool a temperature as possible. And the Minister may require the company to instal in and upon such steamships theographs to record the temperature.

The handling, loading, stowage and unloading of fruit shall be under the supervision of an officer appointed or named by the Minister, if he deems it desirable.

Said steamships shall not carry between any decks more than five tiers of barrels of apples, that is, there shall not be resting on any one tier of barrels of apples more than four others, unless the same is arranged in such a manner as to relieve the barrels of the extra weight.

I may say in this connection, that the dangerous months in the transhipment of fruit are the months of September and October. During the month of September the temperature between the port of Halifax and the port of London averages something over 59 degrees-I think it is 59 7. During the month of October the temperature averages slightly over 58 degrees. Now, the fruit growers are of opinion that without any cool air chambers and without any refrigeration, but with simply forced draft taking the- cool air from outside and circulating it through the vessel, there can be a temperature maintained of about 60 degrees, which is all that is necessary in order to carry the fruit without any loss or damage. That is what they are asking. They are asking simply that these conditions shall be imposed upon the parties to whom ithe Dominiou subsidy is granted. If the subsidy which is now granted is too small, then we make bold to ask the government to make it somewhat larger; and if we are met by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) in the spirit in which he has met all applications on 'behalf of the agriculturists of this country, then we have every reason to believe that our request will be granted and that the fruit growers of the Annapolis valley will be satisfied with the

result. At any rate, our people are 'willing to give this forced draft air circulation a fair trial for a year or two, and then if it proves not to he efficient they will come back to parliament and say: We were mistaken, and we ask to have something else done. I submit that it is not fair, in view of what has been done by the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the interest that has been taken by himself personally and .by the government in this matter, to censure him or to censure the government, or to say that there is the slightest dissatisfaction with the minister or with the government so far as the people in the valley of the Annapolis are concerned.

There is one other question which is of somewhat vital importance to the people there, and that is the question of railway freight rates on apples. The statement was made by this same delegation to the Minister^ of Railways ; or rather it was at a hearing before him, and what they desired was placed before him by myself in a letter. They are asking that the classification so far as apples are concerned shall be changed. It is now ' three ' and ' five,' and they ask that it shall be made ' five ' and ' eight,' the same as flour. Of course, the request for a change in the classification of fruits on a railway is a matter of great importance, because that classification is made for the whole Dominion, and we could scarcely hope that the fruit growers of the Annapolis valley could of themselves come here and secure a classification for' the whole Dominion unless they were supported. I requested the Minister of Railways to forward this application of mine to the clifferent transportation companies interested ; and, after receiving their replies, I hope that other agricultural societies interested throughout the province of Ontario would take the matter up and press the government for this change. I believe that what they ask is fair and reasonable. I can see no reason why apples should not be carried at as low a rate as flour. That is the whole apple question, an$ a correct statement of the feelings of the people in tne county of Annapolis. Last winter there was an Act passed here in reference to apple inspection. That Act has given a great deal of satisfaction. I do not care to discuss it to-night. There is a good deal of divergence of opinion as to whether certain amendments should be made to that Act this year or not ; but the consensus of opinion is that we had better try it for another year to see how it works. It is a step in the right direction, and the people are grateful to the Minister of Agriculture, who introduced it. So much for the apple question.

There are one or two other matters which I wrould like to say a few words about. I wish to remark upon some of the statements made by the hon. leader of the opposition when he moved the resolution now Mr. WADE.

under discussion. I will not dwell as long as I intended to upon that matter, but there are some things I must refer to. There were two statements made by the hon. leader of the opposition which struck me most forcibly. He stated that it was necessary for us to have a declared policy-, notwithstanding the fact that we have a declared policy which we have been acting upon for five years, a policy which has stood the test of a vehement political contest and has come off with flying colours ; and why does he say so ? Because, he asks, * without it how can we expect men to put their money into the industries of the country with any confidence ' ? Surely the hon. gentleman must have forgotten himself for a moment when he made this remark. Afraid to put their money into the industries of the Dominion of Canada ! Why, Sir, to-day we have men tumbing over each other to secure the industrial and other stocks of the Dominion of Canada. In the province of Nova Scotia this year I have seen property after property sell at 4 or 5 or 6 or even 10 times what they would have sold for in 1897. We have the great industries in the province of Nova Scotia developed as no man had any idea a few years ago that they would be developed. Look at the great Dominion Cnal Company. I remember when the premier of Nova Scotia, our present Finance Minister, introduced the legislation of 1894 which brought into existence that great corporation ; and what was he met with ? The Conservative press of the province of Nova Scotia united in saying that he was handing over the coal mines of Nova Scotia to American speculators, who would close them up and destroy our whole coal industry. A short time previous to that the whole revenue derived by the province from minerals amounted to $120,000. To-day the revenue from the same source has reached over half a million dollars. We have seen the value of the

stock of the Dominion Coal Company rushing up 10, 15, sometimes 20 points in a day. And yet the hon. gentleman tells us that people will have no confidence in our industries. Look at the record of the Dominion Steel Company and the Nova Scotia Steel Company. Look at the fact that capitalists have been coming from the United States to buy our railroads. Some gentlemen say that they are coming over to buy everything we have. And yet the hon. leader of the opposition says that in consequence of this policy of ours no one has any confidence in the industries of the Dominion of Canada. Never since the Dominion has been a Dominion has there been even a percentage of the confidence that the financial world has in Canada to-day. It was only a few years ago, I remember it well, when, if you went into the financial markets of New York with a scheme, no matter how tempting it might be, the mo-

ment you mentioned tliat it was from Nova Scotia, that moment you were turned down and never considered. But to-day, ' Nova Scotia ' is the gilt-edged scheme that takes.

I am free to admit that the great iron and steel industry of Cape Breton has been fostered to a certain extent by this government. The government has given it a bonus, and properly so. Cape Breton island is the great storehouse of the mineral wealth of this Dominion. We are not in a position to estimate what the future holds for that island. The people of Cape Breton have for years contributed their part towards the building up of manufactures and it was but a measure of justice to grant the bounty on iron in order to give their industries a start.

Another thing- seemed to trouble the hon. leader of the opposition. He told us that unless we changed our policy and adopted a declared xiolicy, we should become a pastoral and agricultural people. When he said that, it did convey some horrors to my mind. I would not like to live in a purely pastoral community. I think the only animal I have that I could lead to pastures green has seen some thirty winters. I would not cut much of a figure with a shepherd's crook. I believe the hon. leader of the opposition is one ahead of me, because I understand that he has a cow. In this connection I was looking at Ely's Political Economy,' in which he tells us :

When, hunting tribes begin to domesticate animals they enter usually upon the pastoral stage. The earliest chapters of the Bible give us vivid pictures of peoples living in this period of economic development.

He goes on to cite from the Scriptures a passage which, if reports be true with regard to certain dissensions on the other side, would, with a slight change of the names of the principal parties, be appropriate to this occasion. He cites from the 13th chapter of Genesis these words :

Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver and

in gold And Lot also, which went

with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents. And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together : for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together. And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle And Abram said unto Lot, Let

there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee and between my herdmen and thy herd-men. Is not the whole land before thee ? Separate thyself, 1 pray thee, from me : If thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.

If my information Is correct, this has an application to-day ; though I am prepared to learn that I have been misinformed. But it is rather a startling proposition to us members down by the sea to he told that we have to become a pastoral people-we with our great fishing industry, our great mining industry, our great farming and

lumbering industries, our great steel industry-unless, forsooth, we have a ' declared ' policy. We have been living in hopes and have now the almost certain assurance that our old ship building industry-the wooden ship building industry-will, in the near future, be revived in the form of steel ship building, and to-day I am informed that there is in the province of Nova Scotia a representative of one of the largest and most influential ship building firms on the Clyde, who is there for the purpose of arranging for the building of steamships in that province. Why should we not build steel , ships ? We have there all that is necessary. We have inexhaustible mines of coal and iron and all the things necessary in order to produce steel cheaper than it can be produced anywhere else in the world. I am informed on the very best authority that before August of this year the Dominion Steel Company will be producing 1,000 tons of steel per day which will yield to that company a profit of $8,000 per day, or over $2,000,000 net profit per year. Yet we are told by hon. gentlemen opposite that if we do not resort to tariff tinkering, we are going to become a pastoral people.

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

Fletcher Bath Wade

Liberal

Mr. WADE.

That includes the bounty, and the people of Cape Breton are very grateful for that bounty, and I repeat that the giving of it was only what they deserved. They have given bounties to manufacturers, and were entitled to receive from the government some recognition, and they have received it. And in consequence of that bounty, this great industry has been built up in their midst, which has not only benefited Cape Breton and Nova Scotia but the whole Dominion, and is lifting the Dominion into the gaze of the world to-day ns thte possibly greatest steel and iron producer in the world.

And I say that the bounties which have been given to create this industry has been one of tlie wisest provisions ever made by any government of Canada.

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

Edward Hackett

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. HACICETT.

Is that steel suitable for the making of steel rails ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink

April 7, 1902