April 7, 1902

CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NORTHRUP.

I am not discussing 1895 tariff but the facts of the two governments on two different occasions. It is a matter of utter indifference to me what was done by either subsequently. I am mentioning what was done at a particular time, and the government of 1894 was either right or wrong in the tariff it brought down, and so was the government of 1897. If the hon. gentleman will look at the duties in the tariff affecting the agricultural Community, he will find that they were not maintained. The hon. Minister of Customs has in this House again and again condemned the tariff of 1894. I am not saying that he condemned it with regard to jams, jellies, pickles and preserves, but he condemned it, as a whole, yet we find that practically he adopted that tariff when he came into power, except to amend it in certain respects, and in each of these he invariably amended it for the worse.

We find several reductions made with regard to agricultural products. The duty on wheat was reduced from fifteen to twelve cents a bushel, on wheat flour from seventy-five to sixty cents per bushel; but on bis-

cuits not sweetened the duty remained as it was, 25 per cent and on biscuits not sweetened at 27J per cent. Corn was admitted free, and the duty on corn meal, I believe, was reduced. I suppose perhaps that one reason why corn was admitted free was because the ministry held the idea, which was advanced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) and by the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) and others in this House, that .it was impossible to protect the farmers. Whether or not that statement be correct, it has certainly been made again and again throughout this budget debate, and I would judge that the only reason why the Minister of Customs representing Ontario-which is to a large extent an agricultural province-allowed the duties on agricultural products to be cut while those on manufactured goods were so religiously maintained, was that he and his colleagues thought it was impossible to protect the farmer. Allow me for a moment to consider that question : We had an objectlesson in 1888. 1889 and 1890. In 1888 bacon and hams and Canadian pork were imported to the extent of 31,000,000 pounds, and in 1889 to the extent of 33,000,000 pounds. Representations were then made to the government of that day that the Canadian farmer was having his home market made a slaughter market for the Americans, and the duty was increased. The next year the

33.000. 000 pounds of importations fell off to

17.000. 000 pounds, in 1891 they fell off to

13.000. 000 pounds, and in 1892 they dwindled down to 6,900,000 pounds. So you see there, Sir, a distinct object lesson. You see there an instance in which the Americans were making Canada a slaughter market, and when, after their tariff was increased and our farmers were protected, their importations fell off to a very considerable amount. Sometimes protection may work in favour of the farmer in a way that may not appear at first sight. In the riding I have the honour to represent we have the Rathbun Company establishment, one of the largest manufacturing concerns in the country. And at a public meeting held some years ago the head of that company, Mr. Rath-bun, speaking on the subject of protection, pointed out that just as long as we lay along side the United States-a country which is liable to such sudden fluctuations in its currency and to sudden panics in its markets- it was absolutely necessary that we should have a distinct protection on products raised by Canadian farmers. Only a few months ago previous there was a panic in Chicago. The price of pork had fallen a great deal lower than it could be raised for, and Mr. Rathbun could have purchased in Chicago all the pork that he required for his shanties at a lower price than he could have got it from the farmers of Hastings, had there been no duty. But the duty was there, and he told his audience that, on account of

the duty, there was no object in his buying at Chicago, but he said ; had it not been for the duty I would have bought my pork at Chicago where I could have got it the cheapest. Then turning to the farmers who were standing around, and whom he knew by name, he said, addressing one of them in particular : You brought your pork down to my establishment at Deseronto to sell last fall as usual, but had I purchased at Chicago I would have declined to buy. Having no other market you would have been obliged to take it home again, and the result would have been you would have had to suffer a heavy loss simply because you had no market at home. There is an object lesson to show how our farmers can be protected. If they cannot be protected as these hon. gentlemen say, why do they leave all these items on the tariff ? Or d.o they simply wish the farmers to believe that something is being done for them when in reality nothing can be done ? The hon. gentleman who preceded me admitted that while the farmers in his part of the country could not be protected, there might be some in some parts of the country to whom the duties on certain items afforded some protection. But we have it admitted by the Minister of Customs that the farmers have been protected, and that in Nova Scotia itself they can be and are protected.

Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) What about the fishermen ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NORTHRUP.

If my hon. friend will look into the tariff he will find that there are some nineteen items connected with the fishing industry, the duties on which are precisely the same as those in the tariff of 1894. He will find that, from numbers 104 to 122, all fish products, there is protection on every one of them.

Hon. gentlemen opposite must remember that protection can be indirect as well as direct. If it be true, as my hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Wade) has said-and I quite agree with him on that point-that the bounty given by the government to the iron industries in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia has resulted in an immense amount of capital being brought into and expended in that country, surely that affords protection to the farmer by providing him with a home market right at his door, where he can sell his products. In that respect the farmer of Nova Scotia is probably better protected than the farmer of Ontario, and the fishermen in Nova Scotia enjoys a similar protection because he too finds the local market at his doors, which owes its existence to that bounty, apart from the advantage that he gets from the tariff. But hon. gentlemen opposite are so welded to the doctrine of free trade that they close their eyes to the object lessons which are visible on every hand. Their great difficulty is that they take one item standing by itself and do not see how the tariff on

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NORTHRUP.

that item is directly going to benefit the particular persons interested. But a tariff on a different thing altogether may give an indirect protection to other interests. Let me give an illustration. The hon. members for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) and Vancouver (Mr. Smith) stands up here, as the representatives of labour, and declare themselves free traders. Nevertheless they believe in protection to labour, that being the only local industry which they are interested in having protected. But surely if they are consistent, they will say: We are here to protect labour, and we find that labour in Peterborough and Cornwall and other great manufacturing centres is losing its occupation, and therefore, without discussing the duty on woollen or other manufactures, we turn to the government to urge them that it is their duty to see that the particular classes of labour in these places are protected. They, however, take the same short-sighted sectional view, and merely ask direct protection to labour in the way of excluding the Chinese, while as a matter of fact, if they would only look over this great country from one end to the other, they would find that ten times the protection would be given labour by a tariff properly applied than by keeping out a few Chinese.

I have a list here of certain items that have been imported into this country, and this perhaps may throw a little light on the question as to whether the tariff really does assist those engaged in the production of any particular article.

Take the item of biscuits, in 1897 biscuits to the value of $11,877,000 were imported, and in 1901 only $28,871,000 worth. Indian corn in 1897, we imported to the extent of $1,230,000, and in 1901 to the extent of $6,017,000. Breadstuffs in 1897 we imported to the extent of $1,895,000 worth, and in 1901 to the extent of $8,070,000. Collars and

cuffs, on which the duty was decreased, in 1897 we imported to the value of $39,152, and in 1901 to the extent of $89,075. Thus in 1901, when the duty was reduced, the imports increased. Cottons and manufactures of cotton, in 1897 we imported $7,609,000 worth, and in 1901, $12,301,899 worth. And we hear to-day the cries of woe from the cotton industry.

In provisions, the increase was from $702,000 in 1887 to $2,315,000 in 1901. In wool manufactures the increase is from $8,056,000 to $11,357,000. Yet we wonder at the cries to Heaven from the woollen manufacturers. But I notice as a rather singular feature, looking Ut the public returns that, while our exports have increased very largely, as hon. gentlemen can rightly claim, yet, if we take the trouble to go through the various classes of exports, we find that the greater bulk of the increased -exports is in lines with which hon. gentlemen opposite cannot even claim to have anything to do. Our exports of home produce which, in 1887 were $123,959,000, and,

in 1901 were $177,431,000, an increase in favour of last year of $53,471,000. But exports of products of the fisheries-they have been amply protected, but precisely as under the old government-increased $406,000. The export of minerals increased form $11,000,000 to $40,000,000 an increase of $29,000,000. But of this $24,000,000 came from the Yukon. And hon. gentlemen opposite will not say that they discovered the Yukon. I hardly think that, in the light of the events of the present day, they will say that to their management of the Yukon is attributable any of the success of that country. The exports of the products of the forest decreased by about $1,000,000. Animals and their products increased $16,000,000. But the duties on these items are the same as they were under the late government. The exports of agricultural products increased for $17,000,000 to $24,000,000. Hon. gentlemen opposite know perfectly well that that is owing to the better harvests we have had, particularly in Manitoba and the North-west, and also to im crease in prices, so that the same number of bushels exported would show a vast increase in value. The export of manufactures increased $16,000,000. Add these together-the mines, the animals and their products, agriculture products, and manufactures and you find a total increase of $57,940,000. The total increase of exports of home products, as I have shown, is only $53,471,000. This shows that you must have a shortage of $4,000,000 in other items. But there is one respect in which there was not a shortage. And in speaking of this I shall say all I intend to say, it is the subject of the census which has been so much discussed. At page 296 of the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce last year, I find one export the growth of which I was astonished to see. In 1897, when hon. gentlemen opposite came into power, the settlers effects exported from this country amounted to $1,008,000. The following year, the export of settlers' effects was less by $15,000. But in 1899-1 suppose the new , tariff had begun to work-the export of settlers' effects amounted to $1,051,000 ; in 1900 it was $1,165,000 and in 1901, it was $1,212,000. That is to say, last year the export of settlers' effects was over $200,000 more than 1897. That proves one of two things. Hon. gentlemen opposite may argue as much as they please about the exodus being stopped, but, if $200,000 more in value of settlers' effects left this country in 1901 than 1897, it is as sure as the heaven above us that either a wealthier class of people are going out and taking more property with them, or a larger number of poor people are going. I do not pretend to say which horn of the dilemma hon. gentlemen opposite should occupy ; but it would strike one outside of this House as somewhat audacious for an hon. gentleman to stand up | here and say that the exodus is practically

stopped when we And that there is an increase of $200,000, equal to 20 per cent, in the export of settlers' effects.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

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

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. TAYLOR.

According to his own report.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NORTHRUP.

Yes, according to the official report. I have spoken longer than I intended to. But there is one other subject to which I wish to refer for a moment. In the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the opposition a reference is made to the desire for a preferential tariff between the various parts of the empire. I think that on this poiut there is a clear conflict of opinion between hon. gentlemen opposite and ourselves. I think that we can discuss this question without imputing disloyalty to hon. gentlemen who differ from us. But hon. gentlemen opposite have their idea of how to display their loyalty and we have ours. We think that they are wholly wrong and are making an absurd display of loyalty, but we can express our difference without imputing disloyalty to them, and nothing is further from my thought. We on this side are prepared to admit that all-the subjects of this glorious empire should, as far as possible, deal with one another and give one another a preference as against outsiders. And we are prepared, in any case, to give a preference to our fellow-subjects in England, or Australia, or any where as against the people outside the empire. But there are people in the Conservative ranks so blind as not to be able to see that a man who represents a Canadian constituency, for instance, West Peterborough, is bound to vote in this House to give a preference to the manufacturer and the workmen in Yorkshire at the expense of the manufacturer and the workmen in Peterborough, so that the manufacturer in Yorkshire may manufacture more and the manufacturer in Peterborough less, and the employees in Yorkshire have more work and the workman in Peterborough lose his occupation altogether. They are all British subjects and we are willing to give fair play to them all. But, if we must protect one, we hold that charity begins at home and we would protect the Canadian first. But hon. gentlemen tell us that this preferential tariff w-as given to the mother land as a matter of gratitude-that she had done so much for us that the least we could do was to give some return. I would be the last man to say that the mother land has not done much for .us ; I say that we owe her more than we are likely ever to repay. But we have all laughed at the American humorist who was so anxious to put down the war in his country that he was ready to sacrifice all his wife's relations. Has not the government gone a step further than Artemus Ward? The government come to us and say:

' The people of Canada owe a debt to the mother country for what she has done for them ; we cannot pay anything ourselves,' Mr. NORTHRUP.

we cannot even pay the expenses of our own contingents going to take part in fighting the battles of the empire ; but we will make the cotton manufacturers and the woollen manufacturers pay for it by putting them at a disadvantage as compared with the Yorkshire cotton and woollen manufacturers, and that will square Canada's debt with the empire. If we, the people of Canada owe anything to the mother country, let us all contribute to the paying of it, and not lay the whole burden upon those who happen to be in business and to be injured by the tariff. That would be a strong enough case, even if this preference were confined to the mother land. But as a matter of fact, we find that only 25 per cent of the labour necessary to produce the goods has to be done in Great Britain to entitle them to the preference. We find one after another of the gentlemen in this House testifying that, according to his own knowledge, goods manufactured in Germany and other countries are brought to England and are there merely finished or even merely parcelled and sent out as English goods and brought into Canada under the preference of 33J per cent, thus giving the Germans a preference that the Ministry would not dare to propose to give them directly. If there is to be a preference to the mother country, whatever percentage it may be, let it be for goods manufactured wholly in England, and then no outsider will get the benefit. I think it does not require any elucidation to convince the House that there is an honest difference between hon. gentlemen opposite and us on that question. And I sincerely trust that, when the premier goes, as he will go, to the old country, to attend the meeting of the Colonial premiers, where we know he will maintain the honour of this country in a manner that will be gratifying to all good Canadians irrespective of party, he will consider these questions, that he will consider the subject of preferential trade and will devote his ability to doing what he can to make such arrangements that, whatever others may do, Canada may prosper at home and may have a place of honour in the empire by bearing the share of the burden which properly devolves upon her.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

Henry Alfred Ward

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. H. A. WARD (East Durham).

I desire, like other members of .this House who have spoken before me, to congratulate the House and the country upon the prosperity that Canada is at present enjoying; but I cannot subscribe to the doctrine which has been promulgated by the Minister of Finance and his colleagues, that that prosperity is altogether owing to the beneficent government that at present holds the reins of power. I desire to point out that there is another party in this country, and there has been for a great many years another party in this country, which has, in my humble judgment, accomplished something in the interest of the Dominion ; and I think it

would have been only just for hon. gentlemen opposite to give some credit to the Conservative party for some of its achievements since confederation. Now, I do not propose to offer an excuse, as some hon. gentlemen have taunted us with doing, for the prosperity we enjoy; but I do propose to offer some reasons why that prosperity exists, and why it is not altogether due to hon. gentlemen opposite. I would not for a moment detract from the credit which is due to the fathers of confederation, and those members of the Liberal party among them who did their share in weld*-ing together the four great provinces and laying the foundation of the nation. But I would call the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to the fact that after confederation something was done by the Conservative party to enlarge the boundaries of the Dominion and to make her the nation she is at this time, and to put Canada in such a position that hon gentlemen opposite, on coming into power, found government made easy. Now, I am not going to weary the House with many figures, but I desire briefly to point out some of the achievements of the Conservative administration since confederation. First was the acquisition of the North-west Territories and Rupert's land, that was, I think, if the Year-book does not lie, accomplished by a Conservative administration. We have also the admission of British Columbia and Prince Edward Island into confederation ; and I think we can fairly claim that up to 1873 the Conservatives" di'd accomplish something in the interests of the country by welding the different provinces into a nation.

Now I regret that I have to refer to a remark which, if I am credibly informed, was made by the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) during the recent election in West Durham. I understand that when he was speaking at a little village called New-tonville shortly before the election, he made the astounding statement that all the great works in the interest of this country had been initiated and carried out by the Reform party. Following the example of other members of the government, he claims that nothing has been done by the Conservative party. Now it was in 1873 that a Reform administration came into power for the first time since confederation, under the leadership of the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie. 1 have looked through the Year-book to find, during the five years of their administration, if any important Act was placed on the Statute-book in the interest of the country at large, but I have looked in vain. There were, it is true, three Indian treaties signed during that time, a government was provided for the North-west Territories and a Lieutenant Governor appointed, and there was a large fire in the city of St. John. I think these are the only three matters of importance, or the only events that took place during the administration of our hon. friends opposite. The Pacific Railway, the surveys for which had been commenced during the administration of Sir John A. Macdonald, were, it is true, continued during Mr. Mackenzie's administration. But what is the history of the Pacific Railway during those five years ?

It is,, I think, a history of delay, of exaggeration of what that railway was likely t<^ cost, and of embarrassment generally of the construction of that great work. We all know how that party came into power. It was'because the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald had propounded a scheme for building that railway by a private company. When the Conservatives came into power in 1878, acting up to their pledges that they would introduce a protective policy, the national policy was brought into existence by the government of Sir John A. Macdonald. That national policy, I claim, though I am not going to bring forward figures to prove it, because that has been amply done by other hon. gentlemen who have preceded me-that policy, I claim has done more to place Canada in the position she occupies to-day and to provide hon. gentlemen opposite with so large a revenue to expend, than any other act of any administration since confederation. After the national policy came the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I (think no hon. gentleman on either side of the House will deny that the accomplishment of that great work has been other than beneficial to this country. The speeches made by hon. gentlemen opposite and their leaders in the House at that time, show that they were afraid to attempt that work even as a government work, that they were utterly incredulous that the railway could be built in twelve years time, which I believe was the period fixed, but that they asserted it would take an infinitely longer time, and a very much larger sum of money than was eventually expended in the construction of that work. On the 1st of October, 1880, the contract was made for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway; on May 2, 1881, the first sod was turned, and on November 7, 1885, the last spike was driven. That shows what Canada accomplished under a government that was alive to the necessities of the country.

Now I wish briefly to point out that it is the opinion of Conservatives at least, that something was done by Conservative administrations since confederation to place the country in the position it occupies to-day, and to enable hon. gentlemen opposite to pose, as they are doing, as successful administrators. Let me refer for a moment to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade). He paid considerable attention to a previous speech of the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith). I think he should have remembered that that hon. gentleman is one of the greatest authorities in Ontario in respect to fruit

growing, to which subject the hon. member for Annapolis devoted a considerable portion of his speech. I think it was only due to that lion, gentleman, especially as he was not here, that the hon. member for Annapolis should have quoted the remarks of the hon. member for South Wentworth correctly. The hon. member for Annapolis stated that the hon. member for [DOT]South Wentworth had, in his speech called attention to the fact that for the first time in the history of the Annapolis valley they had a good crop this last year. 1 do not think my hon. friend made any such statement and I will read the remarks that he really did make in that connection.

In Nova Scotia they had this year the only good crop of apples grown in the country, and the apple growers of the Annapolis Valley, who had a crop that should have brought them in a million dollars, have lost $300,00.0 on last year's crop, because of the want of proper ventilation on these staamers.

I waited anxiously for the hon. gentleman to answer the gravamen of the charge made by the hon. member for South Wentworth, but in the whole course of his speech he made no reference to that and confined himself to making a quotation of my hon. friend's speech which does not appear at all. The hon. member for Annapolis put up a straw man in order that he might knock it down again. He stated that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House frequently said that we owed nothing to the mother country, j have never heard any hon. gentleman on this side of the House make any such statement and the only thing I can remember which the hon. gentleman might have been referring to was tlie statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), who on one occasion said that we owed Britain nothing but forgiveness.

I think that must been in the hon. gentleman's mind and that he had nothing whatever to quote as against any hon. gentleman on this side of the House.

Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ward) excuse me ? In the absence of the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade), I might say that he had reference to a speech made on this side of tlie House by the hon. member for La belle (Mr. Bourassa). He was quoting something from what lie said when that charge was made. He made no reference to any hon. gentleman on that side of the House in commenting on the remark that Canada did not owe much to Great Britain.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

Henry Alfred Ward

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WARD.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Annapolis is not here. Not having heard the statement referred to liy the hon. member for Victoria. N.S.. I caii say nothing about it. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, in tlie course of his long speech in this House, which was characterized by the hon. member for

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

Henry Alfred Ward

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WARD.

North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) as being a very ingenious speech, made some of those remarkable statements which usually pervade that hon. gentleman's speeches. It was an amusing feature of the debate when the hon. gentleman welcomed back old friends. He no doubt felt that his old friends or enemies were coming back and that they would make themselves felt in this House, as they did in 1878. His speech on this occasion and the recklessness of the figure^ he produced recalled the speech which he made in 1890, when he made an attack on the farmers of the province of Ontario, in order to make a point against the national policy and when he endeavoured to show that half of the farms in Ontario were mortgaged for half of what they were worth. That statement was founded upon returns from thirteen different registry offices which he had received from different registrars, and his argument from that statement was, that each concession of which he had returns at that time, was mortgaged to the extent of $96,000. One hon. gentleman on this side of the House produced a statement some days afterwards to show that in the county that he represented at least there was only an indebtedness of $67,000 for each concession, and it was pointed out on that occasion that if the hon. gentleman who made the statement had had any knowledge whatever of the registry laws of the province of Ontario he would never have based the statement on such evidence as he laid before the House. Every lawyer who is practising knows, and the hon. gentleman should have known, that about half the mortgages that appear upon the registry books have been already discharged and that the discharges are in the hands of the loan companies who hold the mortgages at the present time upon these lands. These mortgages are not discharged upon the registry books. There is no way in which the registrars can give correct statements of mortgages existing against these lands, and it was a matter of surprise to me at that time and to many members of this House, that the hon. gentleman should have made such a charge against the farmers on such false premises. The hon. gentleman stated at that time that these mortgages might have been very much larger,-owing to interest accumulations. It was pointed out to him at that time that these mortgages had been receiving payments. It was quoted to him from the returns of the loan companies at that time that the payments had been eminently satisfactory during that very year and that mortgages had been reduced rather than increased during the time of which the hon. gentleman was speaking. The hon. gentleman charged the administration with neglecting their duty because they had not at that time, or previous to that time, provided some machinery by which it could be known what was the actual Indebtedness

of the farmers on account of mortgages in this province. The hon. gentleman has been in power sis years and I have not heard that he has taken any step in that direction. I think his figures were so effectually contradicted at the time that he thought no particular advantage could- be derived from his taking such a step. The hon. gentleman is endowed with a considerable sense of humour and he showed that humour when he offered his advice to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) in regard to the proper way to protect the farmers. I think he said that certain bounties should be given to each farmer for every product he raised. Surely the hon. gentleman had not forgotten that during the Conservative administration duties were raised on the products of the farm, that protection was given to the farmer by the Conservative administration, which raised these duties and enabled many farmers to go into mixed farming, thereby saving their financial lives. That was due to a Conservative administration, and if the hon. gentleman has forgotten it, the farmers in my neighbourhood at least have not forgotten it, and they have taken advantage of the protection given to them by the Conservative government. The hon. gentleman. when he indulges in unconscious humour, is still brighter than when he attempts real humour. He has found great fault with the Conservative expenditure of

838.000,000. and at the same time he accused every camp follower of the Conservative government of making hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the Conservative administration of that day.

If it were possible for camp followers of the Conservatives to make large sums of money by corrupt means out of an expenditure of $'38,000,000 annually, did it strike the Minister of Trade and Commerce that it must have been a perfect Godsend to the camp followers of the Liberals when they increased the expenditure to 857,000,000 a year. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was the only man on the treasury benches who had made any attempt to excuse the increased expenditure by the Liberal government. His only excuse was that there were some cross entries on each side which would reduce that expenditure by about $5,000,000. and he instanced the expenditure on the Yukon. But the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) must have forgotten that there were cross entries of the same character during the Conservative administration, and that there were expenditures in the Yukon I might almost say since confederation from which Conservative governments absolutely received no return. There has been a large expenditure in that country for years but until these hon. gentlemen who are so fortunate came into power, there never has been any feturn to the treasury from the Yukon territory. The excuse offered by the Minister of

Trade and Commerce does not in any way alter the position of matters, and the government of the day ought to be condemned for having raised that expenditure to so high a rate without justification, and in utter defiance of the pledges they made to the people before they came into power. The hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) had a good deal to say about the corruption of the Conservative government, but surely he has not forgotten that there were some little scandals during the short time he occupied the position of Finance Minister from 1873 to 1878. There were then some rumours about the Fort Francis lock, and the Neebing hotel, and the purchase of steel rails some seven or eight years in advance of the time they were required. All these things seem to have escaped the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and he could think of nothing except the terrible corruption that he alleged existed under Conservative rule.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words, if the House will pardon me, in reference to the sad though glorious news that has come to us during the last day or two from South Africa. Let me pay a brief tribute to the memory of two of the men who fell so gloriously fighting for the empire on the veldt of South Africa. One of these men came from my own town and is the son of a particular friend of mine ; the other was captain in the regiment of which I have the honour to be major. Captain Milligan was a good soldier in every sense of the word. He represented Canada at Wimbledon and Bisley, and he was in every way fitted for the duty which he volunteered to perform for his country in South Africa. Canada mourns two brave men in the two soldiers of whom I speak. I desire to pay this tribute to their memory and to express my sympathy with their relatives and friends who are bereaved by their sad loss. It will be a consolation to them to know that these two gentlemen met so glorious a death.

As regards the resolution proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition, I shall have much pleasure in supporting it. The Conservative party in Canada since 1878 have been consistent protectionists. They have nailed their colours to the mast, and in pronouncing for a declared policy of protection they are simply following the policy which was inaugurated in 1878 and bequeathed to them by their grand old chieftain Sir John A. Macdonald.

Mr. JAMES KENDREY tWest Peterborough). Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up much of the time of the House in dwelling on the issues which have been submitted to us in the course of this debate on the budget. Under the policy formulated by Sir John A. Macdonald in 1878, which built up the industries and increased the wealth of this country, the industries of Canada were

have been all right. The collar industry is about in the same condition, I believe. The manufacturers of agricultural implements, 1 understand, are not given satisfactory conditions, and I, for one, would be glad to see them put on a basis to enable them to keep out this $2,000,000 worth of machinery which is imported into this country, and make that much more in Canada. I do not say that we ought to have high duties, but they should be fair duties, duties that would enable us to compete and to pay the working people good wages. I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Customs to the smuggling of textile goods of German, Austrian, and French manufacture, which are said to be finished in England and brought into Canada. If the Minister of Customs will send his inspectors to Peterborough, I think I have a good deal of information that I could give them on that line. I do not wish to make any statements here to the detriment of anybody in particular, but there are certain goods imported by wholesale houses here which are sent to Canadian establishments merely to be finished, and the finishing of which amounts scarcely to any work at all. There is probably not 5 per cent of the cost added to these goods by the work done on them. But they are coming in case after case, by the hundreds of pieces, while our woollen industry is being paralyzed.

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

Aaron Abel Wright

Liberal

Mr. WRIGHT.

Does the hon. gentleman mean all kinds of woollen goods, such as cashmeres as well as tweeds ?

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

Aaron Abel Wright

Liberal

Mr. WRIGHT.

They are woollen goods, and I wanted to know to what particular kinds of goods the hon. gentleman was referring.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

James Kendry

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. KENDREY.

I am referring to serges and goods of that kind used for ladies dresses, and so forth. I come now to another point with reference to the wool of this country. Never in our history was the Canadian wool so cheap as it is to-day. it is only worth some 12 or 13 cents a pound, so that our farmers hardly get anything for their wool. That shows the effect which this preference against our woollen manufacturers is having on our native wool. Take the western wool which is a good wool, and which can be worked up in all the woollen mills of this country, at present there is no profit on it. Some years ago our western farmers grew a finer grade of wool, but as they are not able to get paying prices for it, they are now only growing the coarser grades. The preference, therefore, by paralyzing one-half the woollen mills, is hurting the native wool of the coun-Mr. KENDREY.

try. I remember well that in 1896, when I had my election my oponents attacked the national policy simply because wool was so cheap, but to-day it is several cents a pound cheaper than it ever was. Thus you will see, Sir, that the prosperity of the woollen manufacturing industry of this country is identical with that of our farmers. Take the town of Cornwall and a number of other towns, which I could name, which, in years gone by, granted exemption from taxes for ten years and twenty years in order to build up this woollen manufacturing industry. To-day they find that all their sacrifices have been in vain, because this government is legislating to kill the very industries to which these municipalities gave exemptions from taxes for the purpose of aiding in their establishment. Just as soon as this preference came into effect in 1899, our woollen mills began to shut down. The hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) told us how things were prospering down there, how property doubled in value, but that is only in one part of the country; and the reason is evident. It is because we have given the particular industry of that section the heaviest form of protection-a bounty of $7 per ton on their iron and steel. I think that it is unfair to give such an advantage to one province without giving an equal advantage to the other provinces. In the province of Ontario you will find nearly three-fourths of the whole machinery of the woollen industry of this Dominion. But a number of these mills have shut down and more will have to close in the next year or two, and all because of the preference we have given the ' English manufacturer. That preference has done more to paralyze the woollen business than any other. There are some industries that of course are not affected by it at all. Take, for instance, the wooden ware and furniture and-boots and shoes and food products, and other industries of that kind, they send their products into the British market, and consequently can hold their own here against the preferential tariff. But tire woollen industry has to meet the full force of British competition. That is an industry which the British manufacturers for long years have made peculiarly their own-so much so that they can face competition even in those parts of the world where a high protective tariff is in force.

I did expect that the government would have applied some remedy to that particular industry. They certainly should have done so, for as Canadians they should have taken care not to legislate against any particular Canadian industry. If they were alive to our interests, they would have sent around commissioners to examine into this question. Deputation after deputation has waited on this government for years to show the condition of the trade, and surely it was an elementary duty of the government to send some one or some number of gentle-

men to examine and see in what position that industry was before legislating it out of existence. I have nothing further to add except to say that so long as 1 hold a seat in this House, I shall condemn any preference that does not work to the benefit of Canadians.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Aaron Abel Wright

Liberal

Mr. WRIGHT.

I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the -woollen machinery cost 40 per cent more in this country than in the old country.

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

Aaron Abel Wright

Liberal

Mr. WRIGHT.

And also that the woollen manufacturers in Canada were paying much higher wages to their men than are the English manufacturers ?

Mr. IvENDREY. Yes.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Aaron Abel Wright

Liberal

Mr. WRIGHT.

Is that the case with reference to the American manufacturers ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

James Kendry

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. KENDREY.

No, the Americans are paying higher wages than we can afford to pay under the conditions existing here.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Aaron Abel Wright

Liberal

Mr. WRIGHT.

Supposing you find upon your counter a piece of tweed or worsted which is of English manufacture, how are you to know whether it is all English manufacture or whether one portion was made in Germany.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink

April 7, 1902