April 21, 1903

FIRST READINGS.


Bill (No. 117) to incorporate the Hudson's Bay and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Sproule. Bill (No. 118) respecting the Canada Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Belcourt.


MEMBER INTRODUCED.


David Wardrope Wallace, Esq., member for the electoral district of Russell, introduced by the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and Mr. D. C. Fraser.


WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.


The House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Minister of Finance : 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.


LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).

figures of our imports from Great Britain will show :

Year. Imports.

1893 $43,148,000

1894 38.717.000

1895 31,131.000

1896 32.500,000

1897 29,412,000

1898 32,500.000

1899 37,060,000

1900 44,789,000

1901 48,000,000

1902 49,250,000

We liacl gone down from $43,000,000 to $20,000,000 before this preference was adopted, between the years 1893 and 1897 ; and we had gone up from $29,000,000 to $4S,000,000 between 1S97 and 1902 after the preference had begun to work, showing an increase of $19,000,000, or 40 per cent in those five years, against a rapid decrease in the preceding term which these figures reveal. Now, this proves that Mr. Chamberlain is wrong, this proves that there was a decline in trade with England, that that decline was progressive and regular. These figures prove that the preference, or something else, arrested that decline, and that there set in an expansion, which amounted to $19,794,000 in five years. Surely Mr. Chamberlain should have been satisfied with this record, and certainly he was not possessed of the facts with regard to trade when he made the assertion that the Canadian preference was a matter of small moment to England, and had produced no tangible results worthy of consideration.

The idea of English statesmen, Mr. Speaker, is one that, in my opinion, we can never meet. I assert again that it is my firm conviction that we should never have given a preference, that one in return cannot be given, that the condition of England's trade with foreign countries renders it impossible for her to do it, and regard for her own interest will prevent her doing it. But there is an idea abroad about a zollverein, free trade within the empire. Well, we could arrange matters probably upon that basis, absolute free trade, the admission of all British products to her colonies free of duty. But, if that is a scheme that meets with the approbation of the British people, it is one that cannot be wrought out. In my opinion, we can never accept it, certainly we cannot accept it under present conditions. I do not; believe we ever can. It is not a matter, at all events, that looms up in the near future as one that can be arranged.

Now, with regard to the preference on grain, amounting in round numbers to four per cent, I assert, Mr. Speaker, that the free admission to the American market for our wheat and other cereals would be worth more to our producers than an English preference of four per cent. I assert that the free introduction of American competition on the part of American grain buyers and millers with our own grain buyers and

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

millers, to the wheat fields in the Northwest and to other portions of Canada, would result in greater advantage to our producers of grain than a prefereneee in the English market to the extent of their tax upon bread-stuffs would do. I think that we may conclude that our aspirations for an advantage in the form of a preference will never be realized, that we come up against the hard-headed common sense of English statesmen and public men, who realize that it cannot be. given. She will not permit a considerable tax upon raw material. The competition between England and her commercial rivals is too keen; the competition with Germany, the competition with the United States, is so keen that a due sense of what is necessarv in England's interests will deter her priblic men from saddling upon her people this or any additional burden in the shape of a tax upon raw material represented in the shape of a tax upon bread. We had better dismiss our dreams in this regard, our hopes of realizing what is impossible, and let the preferential question drop, it will drop in my opinion, for under the conditions of trade as they exist, I believe that we can never realize it. The present preference is purely sentimental, it is a sentiment that is not convertible into current coin. We have not even been able, in return for this sentimental preference, to get the cattle embargo removed. We liave not the slightest concession granted to us in return for the preference of 33J per cent ; and its one only good effect, if it has a good effect at all, is that it lessens the burden of customs taxation upon certain lines of imports.

I should not, Mr. Speaker, follow to-day the example of the hon. gentleman who spoke last night, and enter upon an extended discussion of the question of protection. I do not think that at this juncture in our public affairs a discussion of that question as an abstract theory will have practical results, because it is nothing more than academic in reality. As I said before, we have the decision on the part of the government to let the matter of revision of our tariff stand over until we know what developments will take place, what the conditions will be when we are called upon to act. That being the case, it is unnecessary, and a waste of time, in my opinion, to enter upon a free discussion of the principles of protection versus free trade or a revenue tariff policy.

I shall have something to say, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, upon the question of reciprocity with the United States. That question has filled a large place in the history of Canadian fiscal discussions, since long before confederation and down to the present time. The desire for closer trade relations led to a treaty securing for us reciprocity in natural products away back in 1854. We enjoyed the benefits that resulted from that treaty until 1866.

It was then abrogated. We know, those of us who will take the pains to look up the history of Canada during that period, what the practical result of reciprocity was so far as it affected the interests of Canada. We might draw from the experience of that period lessons as to what would be the probable result of a similar line of policy if entered upon again. And so satisfactory, in the opinion of the Canadian public, was the result of that period of reciprocity that Canada has earnestly sought for a renewal of that condition of affairs for many years since then. We sought strenuously to avert the abrogation of the treaty in 1866. Emissaries from this country visited Washington a few months after the treaty was abrogated. After the Liberal party came into power in 1874, one of its first acts was to despatch a commissioner, Hon. George Brown, to Washington, who, in conjunction with Lord Thornton, the British minister, negotiated with the State Department a reciprocity treaty which was not ratified by the Senate. Various other attempts were made, and we have only been debarred of late years from making these attempts by the apparent hopelessness of the efforts which have been put forth. The question is one which has sunk somewhat in public estimation as to its importance for the last two or three years, but it is a question which is as important to-day to Canada, perhaps, as it ever has been. It is a question which has probably to receive again the consideration of the government of this country, and the consideration of the government of the United States, and if it does receive that consideration, it will do so under circumstances, in my opinion, more conducive to a favourable result than have existed since the abrogation of the treaty in 1860. The hon. leader of the opposition, in his speech a day or two ago, asked the reason of the enormous expansion of American imports. Well, the reason is quite obvious. We have maintained a moderate tariff policy towards the United States and the rest of the world ever since this Commonwealth, or Dominion, came into existence. Our duties have from time to time been advanced, but they are stiill at a moderate rate, at a rate which does not materially impede importation from the United States or any other country, at a rate which, of course, has afforded some protection, which has led to the development of large manufacturing interests, but still at a rate which is not at all a prohibitive rate, under which imports may steadily increase from the outside world, and under which they have steadily increased. Now, our frontier stretches alongside of the United States for 4,000 miles. The people of the United States are our neighbours. They have a very thoroughly developed manufacturing system, the most extensive in the world. Although England exports more manufactured goods, the supply of the domestic1

market of the United States amounts to much more than the total manufactures of Great Britain. They have an enormous manufacturing interest, and they have reached the point where they are capable of supplying their own requirements, and have a large surplus available for export. Now, necessarily, they are seeking foreign markets. Their conditions as to soil and climate and as to the wants of the people are similar to our own, and they have succeeded in making a long list of articles which exactly suit our wants and which cannot very well be obtained elsewhere. The facility for getting goods there is so much greater than across the ocean that this in itself would act very powerfully in the direction of securing the trade to them. Our merchant can call up by telephone, in New York, or Boston or Philadelphia, his correspondent, asking him to make a small shipment of goods, they will be on their way in a few hours, and they will be here in two or three days. To sort up his stock he can buy as little or as much as he pleases. The advantages are so great, because of the facility for placing orders and shipping goods, and because of the juxtaposition of the wholesale man and the consumer that an enormous trade would naturally grow up and for various reasons, these amongst others, we have developed an enormous import trade from the United States. If the Americans had afforded us the same facilities and the same reasonable kind of treatment that we have afforded them there would be no question raised to-day as to whether our trade relations were on a satisfactory basis. There would be no question raised as to whether we should enter upon the kind of policy that they have been pursuing towards us. The hon. leader of the opposition says that our tariff should be put up as a preliminary to negotiations. Put it up and then you will have something to offer the Americans, put it up, and if they do not give you what you ought to have we would then have the very tariff we ought to have. It is my conviction that this course, adopted at this juncture, would have exactly the opposite effect from that which the hon. leader of the opposition supposes it would have. If we were to enter upon a revision of the tariff such as we would perhaps desire to do in case we should get no adequate concessions from the Americans, it would be a tariff of a character which would create irritation, it would be a tariff of a character that would very likely defeat the object we had in view. It would be flouted in the face as a menace, it would be practically saying to them : Here we have done this ; you do

what we want or we will keep this tariff in force. I do not think that would be prudent or politic. We should approach the United States in a different manner. The time is near at hand when, in my opinion, we are certain to get

very material concessions. I am quite optimistic about the matter. I believe that we will get concessions that will be entirely satisfactory, and so I am thoroughly convinced that it would not be .prudent in our interest to enter upon a course such as we might enter upon, in all probability such as we would be justified in entering upon if no concessions were made.

Our relations with the United States must necessairly, largely govern our tariff policy. It is the country with which we have the largest amount of trade, it is the country with which our trade relations at the present time are most unsatisfactory and our relations with that country must largely govern our tariff policy, and the adjustment of this tariff policy is a matter of so much importance that we do not want to enter upon that adjustment rashly without a full knowledge of the conditions. We want to move slowly and cautiously, we want to move with certainty. In regard to my own feelings about this matter, I am pretty well known in this House to be an advocate of reciprocity. I commenced it long ago. I dare say my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will remember that I was chosen by Mr. Mackenzie in 1875 to defend the Brown draft treaty when the attack was made upon that treaty in this House by the opposition, headed by Sir John A. Macdonald, and since that time I have been undeviating in my support of the policy of enlarged trade relations with the United States. I have always believed, I believe to-day that nothing will secure greater results or greater advantages to Canada than to remove the absurd restrictions which exist between those two countries, and to enter upon a broader and more reasonable policy as to trade affairs between the two great Anglo-Saxon Commonwealths of the North American continent. But, I have felt, and that feeling grew stronger when the Joint High Commission met at Quebec and Washington, and when I, in common with my brother commissioners, was brought more fully into contact with the question of the trade relations between Canada and the United States, that we have not been fairly treated. I realized more fully than ever before the unfair character of American fiscal legislation towards us, and I have felt a sense of resentment at the character of the American policy towards Canada. I have been actuated in the course I have advocated and in the position which I have taken upon this question by the belief that if we could not get what was fair from that country, that if we are to continue to live under the conditions that have existed during the past, we had better set up housekeeping for ourselves, and adopt a policy which we under normal conditions might not deem it advisable to enter upon.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

It was not, Sir, that I was in love with protection as an abstract proposition, it was not that I was dissatisfied with the condition f affairs that existed under our present tariff rates, provided that we were met in the same spirit by our customers, it was not this that prompted me to the course that I believed the proper one to pursue; but it was primarily the conditions that existed between this country and the United States. Last session I introduced a resolution in this House. I introduced it for a two-fold purpose. In the first' place, I believed that what was set forth in that resolution represented the feelings of the great majority of the Canadian people, and I thought that the formulating of this resolution would have a tendency to demonstrate as to whether my view upon that matter was right or wrong. I thought in the second place, Sir, and perhaps this was the consideration that had the most weight with me, I thought in the second place that if that resolution did represent the feelings of the mass of the Canadian electors, that it would be very well to) have the United States public meu in a position where they could consider the resolution, make inquiries if they chose as to whether it represented any considerable degree of public sentiment; whether it represented a public sentiment that was likely in the end to crystallize into legislation if they did not meet us with fairer terms. I put this resolution upon the ' Hansard ' largely for the purpose of bringing to the attention of the United States the fact that Canada realized that their treatment of the United States was unfair; realized that we had submitted to that treatment for many years without protesting, and proposed in the future to reverse the action we had pursued; and in the event of failing to secure concessions from the United States that were reasonable and just, that we proposed to adopt the policy foreshadowed by this resolution.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

Would the hon. gentleman pardon me. Did the hon. gentleman endeavour to get an expression of this House at that time in order that the United States would know that that was the policy to be adopted.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

I may say to my hon. friend that I did not; that I did not introduce that resolution with the intention of asking the House to give an expression. On the contrary, I definitely stated that the resolution was tabled for the purpose of having mature consideration by the House and by the country; that it was a matter of so much importance that I did not ask hasty action, and that in fact we had not reached a position for action to be taken with that clear conception as to what was the best course under the circumstances, and under circumstances that might develop. The resolution was as follows :

That this House is ot the opinion that Canadian import duties should be arranged upon the

principle of reciprocity in trade conditions so far as may be consistent with Canadian interests ; that a rebate of not less than 40 per cent of the amount of duties imposed, should be made upon dutiable imports from nations or countries admitting Canadian natural products into their markets free of duty ; and that the scale of Canadian duties should be sufficiently high to avoid inflicting injury upon Canadian interests in cases where a rebate of 40 per cent or more shall be made under the conditions aforesaid.

Or, that our minimum rate of tariff should be high enough to afford as great a degree of protection as was afforded at present; and that 40 per cent to that rate which was sufficient to protect our industries, should he added in the cases of all countries, without discrimination or naming any, that failed to admit our natural products free of duty.

Now, I think, Mr. Speaker, that resolution outlines in the rough the course that it would be proper for us to pursue if conditions continue as they are. It outlines in the; rough the very conditions we have adopted within a few days with regard to Germany, and even if we were to make a reciprocity treaty with the United States, and that country placed itself upon the same footing as England does in admitting our natural products free of duty. I think the same resolution could with propriety still be put on our statute-book, discriminating against other nations that failed to treat us in the manner in which we would be treated by the United States and Great Britain.

And with regard to this position, Mr. Speaker, while I advise, as Mark Hanna said some time ago : To stand pat on the tariff question; yet, I will state that I think ' pat ' is inclined to make a move unless things take a reasonable and desirable shape. And while I am a strong advocate of reciprocity; while I sincerely desire to secure a treaty which will be to the advantage of this country and the United States; yet if we fail, if we are to have meted out to us the same treatment that we have had meted out to us in the past thirty years; I go for drastic measures and I think that I may point to the highly significant remarks of the Finance Minister who said : That the government, would be governed by existing conditions, and while he believes in free trade yet they must be governed to some extent by what was done by their adversaries-and I give the Finance Minister credit for being too good a politican to resist a great popular movement for the resenting and punishing of a line of conduct perpetrated towards us such as has been perpetrated for many years past.

The repressive policy entered upon by the United States in 1866, I wish to say a few words about. I noticed in the ' North American Review ' the other day, an article from the Attorney General of Nova Scotia which gave the exports and imports from and to the United States during the period of reciprocity, which will require some revision by the Attorney General of Nova Scotia before he has them just right. When the reciprocity treaty went into operation in 1854, we had the governments of Prince Edward Island, of Nova Scotia, of New Brunswick, and of the two Canadas; four different provincial governments, and I have had the returns compiled from the American sources of information and from the Canadian sources, and in the Canadian returns I found it impossible to secure the returns from Prince Edward Island. This, of course, would be inconsiderable and would not materially affect the result. The import and export statistics for the period from 1854 to 1866 inclusive derived from Canadian sources are asi follows :

Imports from the United States, 1854

to 1866 inclusive $332,927,000

Exports to the United States, 1854 to 1866 inclusive 259,875,000

Balance of trade in favour of United

States $ 73,052,000

The American returns for the same period give somewhat different results. According to the American results the imports from all British America, Newfoundland and British Columbia included are as follows : Imports from the United States, 1854

to 1866 inclusive $343,326,000

Exports to the United States, 1854 to 1866 inclusive 318,760,000

Balance of trade in favour of United

States $ 34,566,000

The balance of trade by the American returns is $34,566,000 and by the Canadian returns $73,052,000. Now, the American people in abrogating the treaty in 1886 were governed to some extent by the impression that the treaty was working against them; that the balance of trade was against them and in favour of Canada. This was the case in the last year ; it was the case because the notice of the abrogation had been given a year in advance, and there was great pressure to rush into the United States everything that it was possible to get in during the time that was left, before August, 1866. But the operation of the treaty during all the period it was in force was to the advantage of the United States, and gave to that country during that period a substantial balance of trade in its favour-seventy-three millions, according to our returns; thirty-four millions, according to their returns. No reason was given for the abrogation of the treaty, which was really to the advantage of both countries, and would have been more advantageous as the years went by. The abrogation was an act of folly on the part of the United States and an act of unfriendliness as well, and the policy pursued since that time and up to a recent period has been one dictated, in my opinion, by the belief that the inflicting upon us of a repressive policy would drive us into the arms of the republic.

The truth was, Mr. Speaker, that we were obliged to seek new markets. The truth was that the abrogation of the treaty revolutionized the trade of Canada. The truth was that this act of the American government gave a new face to the history of this continent, and turned aside the tide of the forces that were setting powerfully in the direction of bringing these two peoples together, and put in place of these forces other forces that repelled them from each other, and brought them to the position they occupy to-day. In 1866 our direct exports of farm products to Great Britain were $3,544,000, and to the United States, $25,042,000. In 1002 our direct exports of farm products to the United States were $7,694,000, one-third of what they were in 1866, while to Great Britain they were $80,661,000, a twenty-two fold increase during the same period. And so our whole fiscal history was reversed. Now conditions were introduced, conditions which the Americans were not aware of, which they have only recently become'aware of. All this time they have been living in a fool's paradise, supposing that we were dependent upon them for a market and that they could exercise the same influence on sentiment in Canada which they did in 1SG6. Our total export trade last year in animals and their products was $59,161,209; and in agricultural products, $37,152,688, a total of $96,313,897. Of this amount Great Britain took $80,661,501, or 83-7 per cent of the whole amount; the United States, $7,094,478, or eight per cent of the whole amount; and all other countries, $7,967,918, or 8'3 per cent. So that England last year took over four-fifths of our total export of farm products to all the world. This is a condition of things greatly different from what existed in 1866, when the United States took twenty-five millions and Great Britain less than four millions.

Under these conditions it is not surprising that the Canadian farmer has practically forgotten about the American market. The benefits that he enjoyed by free access to that market during the existence of the reciprocity treaty are largely a matter of history to him. He has had no practical lessons of those benefits. He realizes in a sort of abstract way that two markets are better than one, that it could do no harm to have access to the American market, that it would indeed be quite beneficial to him; but he has not that keen desire for access to that market that he would have if he were aware of the conditions that would exist if the restrictions were removed. So that, in debating this reciprocity question to-day, we have to recognize a certain degree of apathy with regard to it existing in Canada as well as in the United States.

We have opposed to this treaty, I think me may say, the manufacturing interest; we have probably opposed to it the transporting interest; and we have opposed to it the political influence which is represented Mr. CHARLTON.

by the people in this country who believe that nothing good can come out of the United States, and who do not want to have anything to do with the Americans. We have in favour of this treaty a sort of passive feeling on the part of the agriculturists, and keen desire for it on the part of the lumbermen and the fishermen. These are the forces arrayed for and against the proposition to secure better trade relations with the United States.

We have some developments of our trade in farm products-for I am dealing with this question largely from the farmer's standpoint-that are rather singular, rather unexpected to those who have never examined the question, and are rather suggestive. Last year, while we exported to the United States $7,694,478 of farm products, we imported from that country for consumption, according to the unrevised list which I have, and which will not be varied very much by the revised list, $15,437,213, or somewhat more than double the amount we exported to that country. Among our imports of agricultural and animal products where our purchases for consumption exceeded our sales to the United States, were the following articles : Corn, oats, wheat, wheat flour, corn meal, oatmeal, seeds, small fruits, tobacco leaf, broom corn, hemp, flax seed, horses, hogs, poultry, eggs, butter, cheese, lard, bacon, hams, salt beef, salt pork, hides, skins, wool, and so forth. All that list of articles we imported from the United States for consumption in excess of our exports to the United States for consumption in that country. Well, that is rather a suggestive list. Very few people would imagine that this country, which was believed to be dependent on the United States for a market, which was supposed to be a suppliant for access to that market, would show such a condition of trade in farm products. But such is the case ; so that if we were to adjust the commercial relationship of the two countries upon the basis of free trade in natural products, the advantages would be by no means all on one side. Upon the basis of free trade in natural products the balance advantages would perhaps not be on our side. We have west of the Rocky Mountains, the great provin.ce of British Columbia, a productive mining region, which has its most economical source of supply of farm products in Washington and Oregon. We have in the maritime provinces a million people who would derive their food supplies from American territories if they could sell their lumber, potatoes and other articles 'free of duty there. We have a great market for farm products in the mining and lumber regions of Ontario and Quebec. If natural products were on the free list, and there was free interchange between the two countries of all the products of the farm, the balance of trade would be very slightly, if at all, in favour of the one country or the other.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

Does the hon. gentleman's proposition involve that Dakota and Washington Territory should supply British Columbia rather than our own western provinces ?

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

Seymour Eugene Gourley

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GOURLEY.

With reference to Nova Scotia, we would not have the agricultural trash they raise in the United States if it were given to us free.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

Patriotism would have a good deal to do, of course, with arriving at that decision. Now, after this period of more than thirty years of trade relation such as I have described, we had a culmination of affairs in 1902 in our trade with Great Britain and with the United States, which I will briefly allude to. Last year our total imports from the United States were $129,000,000. In 1860 they were $28,794,000. Last year our total exports to the United States were $71,177,000, and the apparent balance of trade last year in favour of the United States was $58,592,000. Last year our total imports from Great Britain were $49,435,000, and our total exports to that country were $117,-

320,000, and the balance of trade in favour of Canada was $67,8S4,000.

But a revised statement of our trade with the United States and our trade with other countries, taking into account the imports and the exports of precious metals, would vary that statement, and it is interesting to hear how our trade with the United States would stand on that basis. Last year we imported from the United States $6,062,000 in coin and bullion, which left our total imports from that country, less this coin and bullion, $123,732,000, and our total exports to the United States were $71,177,000. Our exports of precious metals were :

Coin and bullion $ 1,635,000

Gold dust and nuggets 19,677,000

Silver and silver ore 2,055,000

Or a total of precious metals of $23,367,000, which, deducted from the total exports, left our exports of domestic products and products not the produce of Canada, $47,829,000. If we deduct the $2,894,000 of exports not produced in Canada, it leaves our exports $44,825,000.

My hon. friend from South Oxford yesterday afternoon, in criticising the statement of the hon. leader of the opposition with regard to this very point, wanted to know what difference there was between the exports of precious metals and farm products and anything else. It was, he said, an exchange of what we wanted to sell for what we wanted to buy, which was true enough. But all the nations treat the precious metals on a different basis from ordinary exports. We raise wheat, corn, bacon, cattle and all the products of the farm for sale. We have to dispose of them. They are raised for that purpose. But gold

and silver are quite different in their character, and all the nations are seeking to strengthen their gold reserve. There Is not a nation which does not look with disfavour on the exportation of gold. They look at that in quite a different light from the exportation of what they have raised for the express purpose of selling. We may at least make a distinction between the class of products we raise for the purpose of selling and the precious metals, which it might be in our interest to reserve here as a financial basis-a basis for credit and banking, and the various purposes for which gold is used.

After deducting this export of precious metals and counting the $47,829,000 as our actual exports, we have a balance of trade with the United States against us of $75,-

925,000. That balance of trade has swallowed up our $67,000,000 of favourable balance with Great Britain and left about $8,000,000 to provide for somewhere else. This is not a healthy and desirable condition of trade. The United States, year after year, have had enormous balances of trade in their favour, and the result is they are one of the wealthiest nations in the world ; $600,000,000 is no unusual balance in their favour. I look upon it as disastrous to our interests to permit the present condition to continue.

These tables then present the following salient points : First, we have an enormous expansion of exports of farm products. Next, we find that Great Britain takes over four-fifths of the farm products of this country. We are dependent from Great Britain for the sale of $83 out of every $100 we raise. Next, we find a great shrinkage in the export of farm products to the United States-a shrinkage of two-thirds of the amount exported in 1866. Then we find there has been nearly a five-fold expansion of our import trade from the United States since 1866-from $28,000,000 to $129,-

794,000. We find next that we have, had a stationary export trade with the United States. If we deduct the precious metals we exported to the United States in 1866 including inland short returns, $44,000,000 worth, not including the precious metals we exported last year of the products of Canada, not including precious metals, $44,825,000 worth. So we have on the one hand an import trade from the United States five-fold greater than in 1866, while our export trade to the United States remained at practically the same amount. We find that in the thirty-six years that have elapsed since 1866, we have increased our imports from Great Britain $9,370,000, or 23J per cent.

It will be interesting to glance for a moment at our free list, which is a large one. It amounted last year to $84,314,877. Of this amount the United States had $60,879.347, of which $6,000,000 was coin and bullion. Now, we must take from the United States raw cotton, anthracite coal, hides probably, flax seed and some other articles.

But we can reduce that free list by one-half if we desire to do so-reduce it to the advantage of our own industries and to the disadvantage of American industries. The United States had 72 per cent of our total free list with the entire world last year- rather favourable treatment of a nation that has treated us as the United States has done for a generation past.

Now, a word or two with regard to the import of manufactures. The question may be raised-it was raised yesterday-of the classification of manufactures imported. In the tables X have referred to, whether the classification is entirely right or not, it is the same in the case of both countries, so that the comparison must be reliable as though something were taken from or something added to the list for each. The following figures show the amount of our imports of manufactures from Great Britain and from the United States for the years given :

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink

IMPORTS OP MANUFACTURES.


Great Britain. United States. 1898.. $26,243,651 $41,510,3121899.. 31,187,387 49,362,7761900.. 37,328,311 60,473,2211901.. 36,469,135 62,643,6401902.. 41,675,602 69,536,613 Now, Sir, in the last year, 1902, the manufactures free of duty from Great Britain amounted to $7,988,819, while the manufactures free of duty from the United States amounted to $21,195,092. This latter sum goes to swell that enormous free list of $60,000,000. The increase in our imports of manufactures from Great Britain in the four years I have quoted, amounted to $15,- 432,000, or 51 per cent, while the increase from the United States was $28,026,000, or 67 per cent. And this increase has gone on, notwithstanding the operation of preferential duties, and the United States manufacturers are obtaining a stronger and stronger hold upon our market, their natural advantages enabling them to do so. And all this time the United States have refused to give us the consideration which our liberality towards them would naturally call for, liberality which they have availed themselves of to bring about the results I have shown.


CON

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Charlton's) argument, but I am not quite sure whether he proposes to reduce the amount of free goods coming into Canada by a system of protection or by a system of reciprocity.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   IMPORTS OP MANUFACTURES.
Permalink

April 21, 1903