April 7, 1902

LIB

Fletcher Bath Wade

Liberal

Mr. WADE.

I never made a steel rail in my life, but I believe it will make the very best kind of steel rails. However, if the hon. gentleman has any doubts lie can go down there and have a steel rail made and see how it works.

I wish to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell). I believe that the House looks upon the hon. member as one of the ablest men who sits on that side. Certainly his speeches are very clear and forcible. I believe that he has been in advance of his party all along, because in 1891 he discovered and declared that the national policy was a delusion and a snare and that what Canada required was a large measure of free

trade. And the other night, after he had spoken for an hour or two, he came to the conclusion that he had not much, if any, fault to find with the present tariff, and that we should be grateful for it to the government. His actual words were :- Although I am prepared to say this, as a protectionist, that I am not altogether disposed to find much fault in the gross with present system, which is very fair in its effects, and it has done a great deal to maintain the interests of the country.

When we find one of the leading members on the other side giving such an endorsa-tion of the policy and tariff of the government, we need not worry very much about what some of the others opposite may say. I might go on and quote further from the remarks of the hon. gentleman in the same connection, but he fell into one serious error. He declared that every man in this House was a protectionist, to ' some extent or other. That is absolutely not correct. There are men on this side who are protectionists to a certain degree and there are others who wish to be free traders as far as they possibly can. They have to meet upon a ground of compromise. And if a readjustment of the tariff has to take place in the future, I suppose that a compromise will be necessary. And when that readjustment takes place, I wish to say that if I then have the honour to be in this House,

I shall be here asking for a further reduction in the duty on kerosine oil and some reduction in the duties upon tobacco and sundry other things, and I believe that we will all have to meet each other in the spirit of mutual compromise and do the best we can to satisfy each other, consistently with serving the best interests of the country.

The hon. leader of the opposition made some reference to reciprocity and retaliation. The hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) said that all good things were going the way of hon. gentlemen opposite, and he instanced the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who believes in reciprocity and retaliation. But the leader of the opposition took good care to declare that he did not believe in reciprocity or retaliation, and his words in this connection are somewhat peculiar. He said I am not prepared to say that we want reciprocity in natural products with the United States at the present time. In that I disagree with my hon. friend from North Norfolk. There was a period during which such reciprocity was desirable, and during which it wouJld have been a benefit to this country. That period may or may not have passed away. That period probably has passed. What I object to, in any principle of reciprocity of tariffs or retaliation of tariffs, is, that it may bind us- to put our tariff down.

That is what was troubling the leader of the opposition. He thinks that reciprocity or retaliation, one or the other, may cause us to lower our tariff in the future'and so Mr. WADE.

admit American goods. There is no spirit, I believe, in Canada to-day in favour of reciprocity. I believe that this Dominion has grown until it has become so lusty that we do not care whether we have reciprocity or not. We feel that we can live without our neighbours to the south. There was a period in the past when it seemed to us in Nova Scotia to be our only salvation. But happily that moment has passed away. When the hon. Minister of Finance was premier of Nova Scotia he inaugurated and carried through such a policy as placed that province on a basis of independence to the United States, and to-day we are prepared to meet the United States on a fair basis, but we are not going to plead for reciprocity now because we can live without them. At the same time I doubt whether it would be wise for us to throw down the gauntlet and say we are going to inaugurate a policy of retaliation. It is not necessary that we should do so, it is not seemly or dignified or statesmanlike. We must meet the conditions as they arrive, and I believe that the present condition will be remedied by the Americans themselves. They are beginning to feel that the consumers of the United States are being bled by the manufacturers, while 85 per cent of our people are being benefited by getting goods cheaper in consequence.

I wish to say a word or two with regard to the Intercolonial Railway, directing my remarks to one or two statements made by bon. gentlemen on the other side. These gentlemen have asserted that this is the only railway in the Dominion of Canada that is not paying to-day. Does any of these hon. gentlemen speak for the Conservative party ? And is he prepared to urge the government to impose the condition that will make the Intercolonial Railway a commercial success-that is to increase the freight rates to make them equal to those of other roads ? Is there a man on the other side who will take that stand ? If that is done, the Intercolonial Railway can be made a paying concern. But I believe the country will back me up when I say that we are under great obligations to the present Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) for the change that has taken place in the administration of that road. It is but a few years ago when the service on that road was most wretched, such a service as the travelling public would not submit to to-day. The deficit of the road-then some 863 miles in operation-was larger than the deficit to-day. Everybody knows that the deficit can be wiped out if you make the service less efficient than it should be. To-day, we are operating over 1,300 miles of railway on the Intercolonial Railway system. We have a service on that road that cannot be excelled on the continent, I do not care where you go-a perfect road bed, magnificent engines, beautiful parlour cars, a splendid dining car service, and every possible convenience.

It is known by every one that the freight rates upon that road are very low, lower than a commercial rate. But, Sir, who is profiting by that low rate ? Do not let it be supposed for a moment that the maritime provinces are profiting by it. I tell you that the upper provinces profit most by it, because it enables them to bring their products down to the maritime provinces and sell them in competition with those of the people there. Now, as to this deficit, let me point out one or two items. For instance, the fuel in 1896 cost $408,861, and in 1901 the fuel cost $973,268, an increase of $564,407. The repairs in 1896 cost $815,044, and in 1901 this item amounted to $1,322,001, a difference of $507,957. These two items alone represent an increase of $1,072,364. Then there is the difference in wages. Of course, there had to be an increase in the wages bill with the increased mileage. In 1S96 the wages bill amounted to $863,057, less than in 1901.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER.

Wages have gone up, too. [DOT]

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Fletcher Bath Wade

Liberal

Mr. WADE.

I was just going to remark, that, in consequence of the increase of wages in other vocations, occasioned by the great wave of prosperity that has swept over this Dominion, the Intercolonial Railway is obliged to pay larger wages. We find that the increase of expense in running that road was $1,925,000. But, Sir, upon the other side we have an increase in earnings of $1,993,000. Therefore, while the cost of running the road has been increased, the earnings of the road have been increased still more. In connection with this matter of the Intercolonial Railway, I have a word to say which may not be pleasing to the government. There must, in the near future, be a largely increased expenditure upon that road. I am going to ask the government to take this matter into serious consideration. The bridges upon that road were built years ago when the locomotives were not half the weight that they are today. As a matter of simple precaution a large expenditure should be made in the way of strengthening these bridges. I believe the country will bear the government out if they undertake this expenditure.

Now, a word as to public works. This Dominion is in its progressive stage, its stage of development. I believe the most important portfolio in the government today is that of Public Works. Fortunately for the Dominion, we have as the holder of that portfolio a progressive man, a courageous man, a man who is intelligent enough to see the wants of the country and who will push forward to accomplish what is necessary in order to develop our resources. Let me for a moment, contrast the policy of the late government in this connection with the policy of the present government, taking examples from the county I have the honour to represent. I will select only two places, both on the Bay

of Fundy shore. One is Margaretville. At that point, the late government had built a breakwater. A storm came and damaged it, and the government refused to rebuild it, allowing it to go down. And what was the reason given ? The reason given was that a majority of the people in that section refused to vote for the government. But since this government came into power, and while the county was represented by my predecessor, who was an opponent of the Liberal party, this government rebuilt this work, and the country round about is in a state of great prosperity in consequence. Then there is the case of Parker's Cove. In 1890, the government commenced the erection of a pier. Previous to that time, I am perfectly certain there were not $500 worth of fish sold from that hamlet in a year. But, during the summer and spring when this pier was under construction, the fishermen were able to take advantage of it, and that year their sales of fish amounted to between $5,000 and $6,000. Next year, when the first section of the pier was completed, their sales amounted to between $15,000 and $16,000. To-day, tenders are called for a contract to add a hundred feet to the length of the wharf and also an ' L ' of fifty feet, to complete it; and the best authorities tell me that, when it is done, the sale from that community will amount to between $50,000 and $60,000. There is a direct result of public works. And when a government that can get the money as cheaply as the government of Canada can, expends its money in works of that sort, I think it is accomplishing a great good. The other night I had the honour to present a petition from the counties of Annapolis, King's and Hants, and the counties on the other side of the Bay of Fundy, asking for the construction of a harbour of refuge upon the Bay of Fundy on the south side. There is no spot where a vessel can be sheltered if caught in a storm on that shore. In 1894, the member then representing Annapolis brought this matter to the notice of the House and urged the case upon the government of that day. In that he was warmly supported by the representative of King's, the present Minister of Militia (Hon. Mr. Borden). But nothing came of it. I am going to urge upon the government that steps be taken to inquire into this matter during the recess, and I am going to try to convince the government that they should construct this much-needed work. Had the work been constructed years ago, it would have saved the government of this country almost as much as the construction would cost. I believe that all the counties on both sides of the Bay of Fundy are interested in this work. I may say there are a few things in the county of Annapolis that I am going to ask for, amongst others an ice pier and bridge on the Annapolis river. I ask for these things with confi-

dence, because I know that it is the policy of the government to expend whatever money is necessary in the construction of these works. While hon. gentlemen on the other side are worrying and fretting because the expenditure is so high, and getting up past the $60,000,000 mark, I hope' to live to see the day-^and say this advisedly-when the expenditures of the Dominion of Canada will exceed $100,000,000 per year ; and when these expenditures have exceeded $100,000,000 per year, then the prosperity of Canada will have been fairly started.

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

Fletcher Bath Wade

Liberal

Mr. WADE.

land says it is very painful for a Canadian to realize the crushing burden of taxation which has fallen on struggling people in Britain, and the uncomplaining way in which they face it, while we Canadians have practically not touched the burden at all, though it is, as it were, for our sakes, as colonials looking to Britain for defence, that it is being incurred. We think the great majority of Canadians feel exactly as this man does, or would do so if brought, as he has been, face to face with the facts.

Sir, I believe that the day is not far distant when, as a matter of simple justice and right, the people of the Dominion of Canada will say : We wish to sliai'e a portion

of this burden, we wish to have a voice in controlling the destiny of the empire, and its policy towards other nations. A great deal has been said on the other side of the House as to the position taken by our honoured leader with regard to the preference that is given to Great Britain. I am but a young politician, and cannot suppose that my words will carry very much weight ; but 1 do wish to say that the statement made by the right hon. gentleman in Great Britain with regard to that preference, sounded the key note of true imperialism. I believe history will prove that this is the case. Further than that, I believe that statement, acted upon as it has been, was the means of provoking-I should not say provoking- was the means of engendering the first spark of national spirit we have ever had in the Dominion of Canada. There is a national spirit abroad in the Dominion of Canada to-day, and that national spirit we upon this side of the House do not claim, belongs exclusively to ourselves. We say that that spirit is abroad on the other side of the House and on the other side of politics as well as it is on this side.

Now, Sir, I wish to conclude my imperfect remarks, and in doing so I would like to touch for a moment upon a ground where there can be no difference of politics. I refer to the South African war. I wish to, pay a tribute to the noble men, the Canadian heroes of Hart's River, those men who chose death rather than surrender. They have added lustre to the name of Canada that will be as enduring as time. With such deeds before us, and with the records of the other contingents that have gone to Africa, may we not regardless of political party, feel proud to-day that we can call ourselves Canadians ? I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the attention which you have accorded me, and I apologize for the time I have taken up.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).

While the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) was speaking, and his friends about him were hanging so intently upon every word that fell from his lips, I could not help thinking that the innermost feeling in the hearts of every one of them, if they had the faintest sense of logic, was ' almost thou

persuades! me to be a protectionist.' The hon. gentleman commenced his remarks by giving us a tabulated statement of the people of Canada engaged in the various industries. He showed that those engaged in agriculture were about 790,000; whereas those engaged in manufacturing industries were about 320,000 ; and he drew the conclusion that it was a monstrous absurdity that we in this country should endeavour to protect a minority of simply 10 to 15 per cent against an overwhelming majority of 80 to 90 per cent. Surely when the hon. gentleman was speaking he must have spoken unwittingly, or he would not otherwise have given this House such a conclusive proof of the sublimest ignorance of the first doctrines of protection. Surely the hon. gentleman must understand that in this country every line of industry, every occupation, is so interested in all the others, that the ramifications of business are so intricate and so widespread, that you cannot benefit any industry without benefiting all others as well ; and it is equally true that you cannot injure any industry in this country without injuring all others as well.

Now, we on this side of the House take a broader view than that of my hon. friend. We take the broad view of national protection for every industry, and while I would agree with him in the principle he laid down that legislation should be based on the principle of doing the greatest good to the greatest number, we say that by adopting a protective policy it is perfectly competent for this House to do the greatest good to the greatest number. The hon. gentleman seems to think that the duty of this House is to protect one solitary industry and that is i,he mining industry of Cape Breton. I was rather surprised that in the course of his remarks my hon. friend admitted that not only were our miners protected but that the bonus system had helped Cape Breton, Nova Scotia and the whole of the Dominion. Nobody on this side of the House takes any exception to the bonus system, but we do take particular exception to an hon. gentleman discussing a question about which he is so profoundly ignorant. Surely that hon. gentleman must be aware that if the bonus to the mining industry of Cape Breton and of Nova Scotia were doubled it would be of no effect unless its permanency were assured. The Conservative party lays down the principle which the hon. gentlemen are beginning to understand that it is just as essential that the protection given to any industry shall be a complete and adequate protection for the time being as it is that that protection shall be a constant protection so that those who engage in that industry need not be afraid that every session they may have all their stocks and profits swept away, but shall know that the government is going to give that industry the protection it requires. My hon. friend, in speaking of his friends on the

other side of the House, said that some were protectionists to a certain degree, that some were free traders to a certain degree, that there would probably be a revision of the tariff and he presumed that a compromise would be necessary. If words such as these were uttered by the Finance Minister of the country, it would have a most injurious effect on the industry of this country. If the manufacturers of this country and the capitalists of adjoining countries are given to understand that the revision of the tariff is not to be considered as a matter of principle but is to be entirely a matter of party advantage, of compromise between the free traders and the protectionists, it will be a sad day for the industries of Canada. The hon. gentleman in referring to the remarks made by the hon. member for South Wentworth (Mr. Smith) the other day was good enough to prove up to the hilt everything . that my hon. friend said, so that it will not be necessary for me to do more than merely call the attention of the House to the proof he gave of the remarks of the hon. member for South Wentworth. The charge made by the hon. member for South Wentworth was that the government had not done its duty, had not done what it should have done for the fruit growers of the Annapolis district and my hon. friend read resolutions passed by different associations in that part of the country, which resolutions entirely bore out what he said. But, the hon. member for Annapolis said that he, himself, was perfectly aware of the complaints that were made. He said that the ministers could do nothing except to give a bonus to some line of steamships to induce it to assist in the transportation of fruit from the Annapolis valley, and then in five minutes he read a suggestion that he had drawn up that he had left with the minister and, if practical effect had been given to these suggestions these grievances would have been removed. The very statement shows that the minister, requiring to have some matters called to his attention, although five years in office, has failed to grasp the necessities of the case and that he has failed to do what he might have done. The hon. gentleman, in triumph, speaking of the policy which he and his friends opposite are supporting, referred to the late provincial elections in the province of Nova Scotia, and he said that although at the last election the policy of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) in this House was well known, and I dispute the fact that that policy was well known or was laid before the people of Nova Scotia, the government swept that province by an overwhelming majority. As me people of Nova Scotia vote on local, not on Dominion issues, surely the hon. gentleman would not have us believe that the premier of Nova Scotia is such a wholly unimportant factor in the national life that it is a matter of indifference what he thinks, so long as

the views of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who leads this House, are in accord with those of the majority of the people. We claim in the province of Ontario to have disassociated provincial politics from Dominion politics and we hope that when the election comes on in the near future the people of Ontario will condemn the present administration on its own acts and not on the acts of the hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. gentleman concluded his speech by a reference to the subject of imperial defence and he gave us some very interesting figures in connection with that. I ' would like to speak at length on that subject.

I would like to call attention to the fact that while many of the colonies are contributing very largely of their means to assist the home government, the Dominion of Canada not only contributes nothing but even declines to consider the question at the approaching meeting of the colonial premiers. But, though I would like to discuss this question I feel that on this particular night it would be utterly out of place in the shadow of the disaster which has fallen on our friends in arms in South Africa and I would prefer to postpone my remarks to another day. As this debate has proceeded, as day followed day and speech succeeded speech, though many passing impressions have faded away I believe one deepseated and abiding conviction has been left on the minds of the hon. gentlemen in this House and on the minds of the people of this country and it is that from the time the world dawned to the commencement of this debate there never were such varied, such grotesque, such bewildering opinions on any political questions advanced before any body of men as those advanced by the hon. gentlemen opposite in the progress of this debate. X have listened carefully and patiently to the speeches as they fell from the lips of the hon. gentlemen opposite and I have studied with some care the ' Hansard ' report of these speeches in order to see if I could discover any theory, any feeling, any idea, any determination in common on the part of the hon. gentlemen opposite, and after some consideration it seems a fair conclusion to be drawn that one can find a common theory, a feeling, an idea, a determination. X believe that a fair rendering of these speeches of the hon. gentlemen opposite, is that it is the theory of free' trade. Their idea is that free trade is pretty nearly played out. I think they have the feeling that it is about time to abandon free trade and seek some other refuge, probably the protective harbour and it is abundantly clear that there is a determination, no matter what the government may do, no matter how the hon. gentlemen may differ or how the people suffer and that determination is to keep the government in power at any and all costs. I believe that for years back the hon. gentlemen opposite have been kneeling before the shrine of the goddess of free trade, Mr. NORTHRUP.

that they have been sadly and grudgingly making sacrifices on the altar of free trade and; that while they are inquiring in their own hearts if these sacrifices are really necessary, their minds are beginning to be enlightened by the irresistible logic of facts. They see the conclusive results which have flowed from the application of protective principles and while their hearts were faltering their minds were suggesting that it was well to leave this falling shrine and seek the temple of protection over and beyond. Their consciences politically stifled in their dying throes urged them to set aside all that they honestly believed to be in the interests of the country and so the hon. gentlemen opposite separated by these conflicting forces present the variance which we see to-day. It is said that the hon. member for Victoria, Nova Scotia (Hon. Mr. Ross) whom I see before me now, and the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) are still kneeling before the altars of free trade.

Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I have not spoken yet.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NORTHRUP.

I have not said that the hon. gentleman has spoken In this debate. But we know his opinions perfectly well, and if the hon. gentleman has left that altar I will be very happy to withdraw my remarks and to say that he has ceased to believe in the doctrines of free trade. But, until the hon. gentleman does contradict me, I will assume that he still retains the opinions he has so frequently and eloquently expressed. I repeat that the hon. gentleman from Victoria (Hon. Mr. Ross) and the hon. gentleman for Russell (Mr. Edwards) are still worshipping at the altar of free trade. But there are other gentlemeu on that side who differ from them. We have for example the hon. gentleman for Vancouver (Mr. Smith); the hon. gentleman for Westminster -(Mr. Morrison); the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) who are still worshipping there, but with one eye on the altar of free trade they are casting another eye over their shoulders to watch the procession of all the peoples of the world marching into the temple of protection on the other side of the road. We have others, such as the hon. gentleman for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) who has not only looked over his shoulder, but is turning around and is blindly groping to find his way into the temple of protection. So we find that among these hon. gentlemen there are all sorts and varieties of opinion on this interesting question. But, Sir, whatever the varieties of opinion may be among these gentlemen, there are one or two respects in which their ideas touching protection differ entirely from the ideas on that subject held by hon. gentlemen on this side. We on this side of the House believe in 'a national protection. We believe in the protection of every industry in the Dominion of Can-

ada. We Relieve that it is possible to protect every industry, and we say that under such a policy as the Conservative party inaugurated and maintained, andi under sucn a policy as it will maintain if again called to take the reins of power, every industry in this country will toe protected; every artisan, every employee, every labourer in this country will toe protected, and we say that the goal of our policy is to see not only capital protected, but that every free labouring man who is willing to' do an honest day's work in Canada shall have an honest day's work to do, and an honest day's wage for him at the close of the day. But, hoii. gentlemen opposite, as against our ideas of national protection, have a sectional, a local, an individual idea of protection. I appeal to the speeches we have heard from these hon. gentlemen to prove this. The hon. gentleman for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) is a free trader, tout he believes In the protection of horses. The hon. gentleman from New Westminster (Mr. Morrison) is a free trader, but he believes in the protection of lumber and lead. The hon. gentlemen from Vancouver (Mr. Smith) and from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) are free traders, but they believe in the protection of labour. The hon. gentleman from South Brant (Mr. Heyd) is a protectionist, and he believes in the protection of everything except the woollen industry apparently. And Sio as we go along the line we find that almost every gentleman on the other side of the House believes in the protection of a particular industry in which he personally, or the constituency which he represents happens to be interested.

Now, Sir-, if ours is a national protection and hon. gentlemen opposite are advocating a local, or sectional, or individual protection, are we not justified in saying that ours is a patriotic protection while theirs is a purely selfish protection. Perhaps, Sir, this is the reason why hon. gentlemen on this side of the House have been ready and willing for the past twenty-five years, not only in this House but wherever they may be, to advocate -the cause of protection, whereas hon. gentlemen opposite advocate their cause in such a way that no man in the Dominion of Canada knows to-day what the position of the government is on this question. Let me give practical proof of what I state; that no person in this country can say to-day where the government is on the question of tariff reform. I start first with the Liberal platform adopted by the party convention in 1893. I have no intention of reading the whole of this interesting document, but one or two sentences on the subject of protection are germane to the matter in hand. I find it laid down as a plank in the Liberal platform :

That the tariff shall be so adjusted as to make free, or to bear as lightly as possible upon the necessaries of life, and shall be so arranged as to promote freer trade with the whole world, more particularly with Great Britain and the United States.

I find also that the Liberal party there assembled in convention said this :

We denounce the principle of protection as radically unsound and unjust to the masses of the people, and we declare our conviction that any tariff changes based upon that principle must fail to afford any substantial relief from the burdens under which the country labours.

That was the platform of the party which came into power in 1896. In 1897, the following year, it was the duty of that party to lay a tariff before this House. Their position was this : They came before the

people as advocates of free trade; they had supplanted a government which was avowedly a protectionist government. They had on the one hand the tariff laid down by the Hon. Alex. Mackenzie in 1877; a free trade tariff; a tariff framed by that noble man who told us what he professed, and was prepared if necessary to -suffer for his belief. Looking at the tariff of 1877 and the tariff of 1894-opposites as two tariffs could be-it became the duty of the present government to frame their tariff, and in 1897 they brought their tariff down. If these hon. gentlemen had adhered to the principle which they laid down at the convention of 1893, the tariff of 1877 is the tariff to which the tariff of 1897 would have been most closely assimilated. But I find that in this Liberal tariff of 1877, there are only four pages all told of dutiable goods, whereas in the Liberal tariff of 1897 they have been spun out to twenty-nine pages. I find that in this tariff of 1877, there were thirty-two items of specific duties besides sugar and tobacco-specific duties that have been condemned by hon. gentlemen opposite from the day the Conservative party came into power in 1878 even down to this date. And yet on a reference to the tariff framed and carried out by that grand old Liberal, Alex. Mackenzie, who lived and died a free trader, we find among the small number of items in his tariff that there were thirty-two items bearing specific duties, besides sugar and tobacco. There were twelve items of this tariff of 1877 bearing 25 per cent; twenty-one items bearing 10 per cent and thirty-one items bearing 5 per cent. There you have the whole tariff of 1877. I do not for a moment contend that this government wrhen it -came into power were -bound to 'pass exactly the tariff of 1877. The Minister of Customs would be the first one to consider the point if I did not admit that the circumstances of this country had changed, and that a tariff that might be reasonable in 1877 would be admitted to be a monstrous tariff twenty years later. I admit that. But there must be an underlying principle even under a tariff, and I merely call attention to the fact that a certain principle underlaid one tariff to which these gentlemen were bound according to their pledges, and there was an altogether different principle underlying the Conservative tariff of 1894, which they did follow. I have taken a glance

through the Liberal tariff of 1897, and 1 have compared the tariff of 1897 with the tariff of 1891. Certain changes of course were made in the tariff of 1894, while the late government was in power, and certain changes have been made since 1897 in the tariff by the present administration, but these are immaterial since it is a question of principle I am discussing. I have therefore taken the two tariffs, the Conservative tariff of 1894 passed by a Conservative administration giving what they thought was proper protection to the various industries. I then take the tariff of 1897 passed by a Reform administration giving what they honestly believed-because of course they must have intended to carry out their pledges to the people of this country-giving what they honestly believed a tariff so adjusted as to make free, or to bear as lightly as possible on all the necessaries of life and from which the principle of protection had been wholly expunged. I find in looking through the Liberal tariff of 1897 that a number' of classes of articles are grouped together. The first class is, 'ales, beers, wines and liquors.' There are ten items in that class and this free trade administration, not considering that they. came under the head of necessaries of life, left the duty on all of these articles as it was in the tariff of 1894, save one and they raised that. The next class is, ' agriculture, animals and dairy products.' There were ninety-three items under this class, in the tariff of 1894, and these hon. gentlemen opposite who contend that it is impossible to protect the farmer or to protect any products of the farm might well have relieved all these ninety-three items from any duties, if these gentlemen believed what they professed.

Rut 1 find, on comparing the 1894 tariff with the 1897 tariff, that out of these 98 items 81 remained unchanged, 5 were decreased, 0 were increased, and one was changed from specific to ad valorem, the result being, I think, about the same. The next class is fish and the products of the fisheries, of which there are 19 items. Every one bore a heavy taxation under the Conservative regime, and not a single one in the whole 19 was reduced under the able generalship of the finance Minister, although he comes from a fishing province. The next class is books and paper-18 items; 12 unchanged, G changed. Class 5, chemicals and drugs-14 items; 9 unchanged; 4 increased, 1 lowered. Class G, opium-3 items, all unchanged. Class 7-colours, paints, oils, varnishes, &c-21 items ; 14 unchanged, 3 increased, 4 decreased. Class 8- c al-2 items; 1 unchanged and 1 decreased. Class 9-earthenware, cements, slate and stoneware-20 items ; 11 unchanged, 1 increased, 3 decreased; 5 changed from specific to ad valorem. Class 10-glass and glassware-11 items; 5 unchanged, 3 increased, 3 changed from specific to ad valorem, probably increased. Class II-leather,

rubber and manufactures of-11 items; 8 unchanged, 3 increased. Class 12-metals and manufactures of-99 items. The wording of these items was so changed that not being conversant with them I have left out the 99 items. But this I may say, that bonus-ing would afford a tremendous protection outside of the tariff protection, and perhaps the last item of the class will shed a light on the spirit in which all the changes were made, the last item being goods not otherwise provided for, on which the duty was raised from 27J per cent under the 1894 tariff to 30 per cent under the 1897 tariff. The next item is class 13, vehicles; 4 items; 3 unchanged, 1 changed slightly, so that it lets shoddy buggies come into this country. Class 14-manufactures of wood, cane and cork; 19 items; 14 unchanged, 1 decreased, 3 increased, 1 compromised, but it discriminates against Canadian wood. Class 15-jewellery and material therefor-8 items; 6 unchanged, 1 increased, 1 decreased. Class 16-minerals- 3 items; no change. Class 17, musical instruments-2 items; 1 unchanged, 1 partly raised and partly lowered. Class 18-textiles, hats, furs, &c.-51 items; 22 unchanged, 17 increased, 6 decreased, 6 readjustments. Class 19-sundries-26 items; 21 unchanged, 3 decreased, 1 increased, 1 new. Class 20-sugar, syrups and molasses

7 items; 1 unchanged, 6 raised. Class 21-tobacco and manufactures of-5 items; 5 increased. Class 22, unenumerated goods- 1 item, unchanged. The sum total of all this is that, excluding the manufactures of iron, some 99 items, there were in the tariff some 348 items, of which 244 were untouched, 54 were increased, 34 were decreased, and the remaining 16 were adjusted between specific aud ad valorem; I cannot say whether these were increased or decreased. And that, hon. gentlemen opposite profess, is the carrying out of their promise to the country to lower the tariff, to bring about freer trade, and to entirely expunge from the tariff the radically unsound principle of protection.

But let us see how it has worked out in actual practice. When hon. gentlemen opposite sat down to frame this tariff, I presume the Minister of Finance would be a leading spirit at the board. The Minister of Finance is a life-long free trader; he has had no hesitation in announcing that fact to the House again and again; and so, as an ardent free trader coming from the pro-vice of Nova Scotia, he sat down at the board to see that his native province secured those benefits of free trade which he had advocated so long and so eloquently. How did he do it ? There were three great industries in the province of Nova Scotia- the fishing industry, the coal industry, and the iron industry. In the fishing industry there were 19 items, not one of which was changed; on coal there was a duty of 50 cents a ton and he left it at that, affording ample protection; and in the iron industry

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NORTHRUP.

the miners were given bonuses which I need not comment upon, since the hon. gentleman who has preceded me (Mr. Wade) has admitted that owing to the bonuses the iron manufactures of Nova Scotia aud Cape Breton have attained a success which they could not possibly have attained without those bonuses. We have here a prac-' tical proof that the Finance Minister, the head of the board, was careful to see that a full measure of protection was given to his own province. Of course, the Minister of Customs, from the province of Ontario sat down at the board. I presume he must have done so, because Ontario had some items increased and some left alone. The wicked Tories in passing the tariff of 1894, thought that 25 per cent was a sufficient protection on biscuits, and the Reform government thought the same in 1897. But on sweetened biscuits the Tories in 1894 thought 25 per cent was sufficient, but the Reform government in 1897 did not, and they increased the duty to 27} per cent. On pickles the Reformers in the old tariff of 1877 thought 17i per cent a sufficient protection; in the tariff of 1894 the wicked Tories increased the rate to 35 per cent, and in 1897 the Reform Minister of Customs did not cut that down, but left it as it was. On jellies and jams there was a duty under the tariff of 1877 of 17} per cent; the Tories in 1894 made it 3 cents per pound, but the Reform free trade government in 1897 increased it to 3i per pound. Then, somebody, I presume, was looking after the interests of the farmers on that board.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

What did the Tory government make the duties on those articles in 1895 ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NORTHRUP.

I think they raised the duties in 1895.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

It would be fair to say that.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NORTHRUP.

I have no objection to saying that they did. But it is a question of principle I am discussing, not the question of a paltry change of 1 per cent or 2 per cent. It seems impossible for lion, gentlemen opposite, even ministers of the Crown, to consider these questions on any higher ground than a paltry 1 per cent or 2 per cent a pound on jellies, jams or pickles. We on this side of the House are prepared to discuss this matter as a question of principle; and if the government came into power pledged to remove the principle of protection, they did not do it if they imposed a higher duty than what the Conservative government considered sufficient in 1894. I am quite prepared to admit that in some cases the duties were raised in 1895, but precious good care was taken that they were not put back in 1897.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

Is that correct ?

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

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

The hon. gentleman should remember that there was 33} per cent taken off all the articles he has enumerated, large amounts of which come from Great Britain.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NORTHRUP.

I am coming to the question of the preference; the hon. gentleman need not think that I am going to evade it. But the hon. gentleman must understand that when the duty is raised, it is raised against all the world except one country, and he and his friends claim that there are patriotic reasons why this should be the case. He took precious good care to protect himself against all other countries. The hon. gentleman specially disapproved of what was done in 1895, and if the preference had not been given, he would not have put the duty so high in 1897.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

Did he

say so ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NORTHRUP.

The hon. gentleman takes precious care .not to say so. He called attention to the fact that although apparently the duty is as high as three-quarters of a cent a pound, it is less on account of the preference, but if the preference had not been given would the hon. gentleman have raised the duty ? I pause for a reply. The hon. gentleman declines to answer. Then the raise was made because the preference was given, and the hon. gentleman stands in the position of having to admit that he first raised the duty and then gave a preference, so as to give an advantage nominally to England without hurting the manufacturers here, on that particular article, to the extent of a single dime.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.

What was the duty in 1895 ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink

April 7, 1902