April 24, 1903

FIRST READINGS.


Bill (No. 123) to incorporate the Huron, Erie and Buffalo Railway Company.-Mr. Cowan. Bill (No. 124) respecting the Hudson's Bay and Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Stewart. Bill (No. 125) to incorporate the Guelph and Georgian Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie.


OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES.

LIB

Louis Napoléon Champagne

Liberal

Mr. L. N. CHAMPAGNE (Wright) moved :

That the third report of the Select Standing Committee appointed to supervise the official Report of the Debates of the House during the present session ; which recommends a gratuity to the widow of the late N. H. Beaulieu be adopted.

Topic:   OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES.
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.


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

Charles Bernhard Heyd

Liberal

Mr. C. B. HEYD (South Brant).

Mr. Speaker, I rejoiced, in common, I presume with most citizens of Canada, when I heard the speech of the Finance Minister setting forth the financial affairs of this country. The satisfaction I experienced was doubtless felt by all on this side of the House as

1765 APKIL 24, 1906 1766

well as by our friends on the other side, though perhaps their satisfaction was dampened a little by the fact that such magnificent progress had taken place in our country during the term of a Liberal administration, and that it had never obtained while they had control of our affairs. It was also a matter of satisfaction to learn that the government had discharged their duties while they were lately in Great Britain in endeavouring to obtain a preference in the British market. That they were unsuccessful was not their fault. They evidently did all they could to obtain what our friends on at present of no use to the people of the United States as a protection, they could increase their trade, by all means let them reduce the duty. But, Sir, a preference of that kind offered to us that will not interfere with any of the protected industries of the United States, would be of such limited value to us that it would be impossible for us to accept it. The idea that the United States will ever allow us reciprocity in natural products, for a right to sell their manufactured goods in Canada under the present tariff, is expecting entirely too much. I am therefore confident that there will be

but were unsuccessful. It Was also a matter of satisfaction for us on this side of the House to learn that the government did not fail to do their duty, when it was forced upon them by the action of the German government, by retaliating in adopting a surtax on German goods. There is a misconception as to how far this surtax will operate; but if it prevents, as 1 believe it will, the importation of German goods made in England,which has been going on for a long time past, it will go far to remove the difficulties under which some of the manufacturers of this country labour at the present time. As I understand it, if 51 per cent of the pidce of a finished product represents the German portion of the work, the article comes under the operation of the surtax, and is placed on the general list to which an addition of 33J per cent is added. Therefore, if that surtax is applied as it should be applied, it will prohibit from entering into this country the German goods that are made in England, and almost prohibit the importation into this country of goods that are made in Germany. Now, I am quite willing to admit that our hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) may feel hopeful of some reciprocity arrangements being entered into with the people of the United States. That, apparently, has been the one -object of his life. Personally, I am not so hopeful as he appears to be, because in my own mind I have not the slightest idea that anything will ever come of our attempt to have reciprocal arrangements with the people of the United States. From their public men, who have a right to speak with authority because they know the opinions of the people for whom they speak, we have never yet heard one utterance which would justify us in believing that they would concede to Canada any reciprocal arrangements that it would be in our interest to accept. President Roosevelt, for instance, has distinctly laid down the conditions upon which a foreign country can have reciprocity with the United States. This reciprocity must not interfere with their manufacturing, their industrial, and their commercial interests. The late Mr. McKinley also laid down the same doctrine in a clear and emphatic manner. He said that if by lowering the duties that are 56* United States, believing that they will never offer reciprocity on such terms as it would be our interest to accept. Nor do I believe that what has recently taken place in the House of Commons of Great Britain gives us any reason to expect that we will get a preference in Great Britain for many years to come. We did hope that the imposition of the duty upon flour and wheat would give the British people an opportunity to grant us a preference without putting a tax on the British people, but I understand that that duty has been wiped out, so hostile was it to the feelings of our friends across the ocean. I see no prospect in the immediate future, either for a reciprocity treaty with the United States, or for a preferential treaty with Great Britain; and now that the grain duties have been removed, I see no reason why this government should not be able, when the necessity present itself to rearrange the tariff of this country in such a way as will be in the best interests of all classes of the people. It may be that under present circumstances courtesy demands us to wait, because Mr. Chamberlain has not had an opportunity of exerting his influence in favour of the preference. It may be judicious as well as courteous to our American friends also not to anticipate the deliberations of the commission that has been appointed, seeing that the first move towards reciprocity has emanated from our friends across the line. But after we shall have found that our hopes in obtaining reciprocity with the United States, or a preference in Great Britain, are in vain, one of the principal reasons will be removed which have made us unwilling to interfere with the preference that has existed in the past; and the government has promised us that they will exercise a free hand in that matter, and that they will abolish the preference if it is seen to be needed in the interests of Canada. I am also gratified to learn, from the papers that were brought down, that the efforts of the government to prevent the scheduling of Canadian cattle in the British market, were put forth with force, with skill, and with earnestness, and their failure to get that embargo removed was due, as I believe, and as all the members of this

House believe, to a desire on tlie part of the British people to protect the raising of animals in that country. With all these facts before us, we have a right to assume that we will be able in the near future to rearrange our own tariff, if it is necessary, entirely in the interests of our own people. I can assure the Minister of Finance and the government that their desire to build up in this country the industry of the manufacture of steel rails, and for that purpose to give a substantial bonus, meets with the enthusiastic support, not only of their supporters on this side of the House, but also of our friends on the other side.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been treated to a few addresses on the budget speech, and on what I will call for courtesy's sake, the amendment that is before the House. I regret to say that the hon. gentlemen who have spoken so far have not even alluded to that amendment, although it is one of considerable importance; but they have criticised the financial administration of our affairs, which, as was clearly pointed out last night by Mr. Speaker, is contrary to the rules of the House, but which, by the courtesy of the Minister of Finance, we are to continue to-day.

Our hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) was the last speaker last night, and he was terribly exercised over the fact that we have had a surplus amounting to some $40,000,000 during the period of our administration. He asked : What did we

do with it ? What would he expect a wise and judicious administration to do with a surplus of some $40,000,000, but to invest it prudently in the interest of the people of Canada ? He instanced as a parallel case the farmer, who, after seven years of plenty had not succeeded in paying off the mortgage on his house, and he asked what would be thought of such a person. He went on to say that this would be a very foolish farmer, but that would depend upon conditions. If the farmer had taken the surplus of his labour and invested it building new bams, in draining his ground and in improving the productive power of his farm, he would have done much more wisely than to have applied it towards paying off the mortgage, which, in the case of the Dominion of Canada, only costs about 3 per cent. The government were wise in not reducing the debt, but in judiciously expending that money. But, he goes on to ask : How long can the people stand this

tremendous expenditure ? He predicted that the day of reckoning is soon to come. Let us look and see how the people have stood it during past years, and if the present conditions obtain, how long they are likely to stand it. The best evidence of that is to ascertain what effect this large expenditure and these large surpluses of ours have had upon the welfare of our people. I presume it would be fair to direct the attention of the hon. gentleman to Mr. HEYD.

the amount of deposits the people have in the large chartered banks of tills country. In 1890 they amounted to $128,000,000. Six years after the time they were not so profusely bled as they say we are bleeding people now, the deposits had increased to $183,000,000, or in six years, only $55,000,000 had been added, while, during the last six years, while they have been paying such a tremendous tribute to the country, the deposits of the people increased from $183,000,000 to $382,000,000, or an increase of $199,000,000. It strikes me that the people are standing it, and at the same time improving their ovjn condition very perceptibly. I am quite content, myself, to believe that they are quite willing to continue such a state of affairs. Hon. gentlemen opposite appear to think that a surplus is an insuperable obstacle to the country's progress. They must remember that they also have had surpluses in times past. In 1882 and in 1883 they had a surplus amounting to $14,000,000. We have to go a long time back in order to get a surplus of that kind. After seventeen years experience, we do not find any more, but in these two years they had a surplus of $14,000,000. But, compare the conditions of the country then with the conditions of the country to-day. While they had a surplus of $14,000,000, the savings of the people in the banks of the country diminished from $97,000,000 to $95,000,000, so that the people were $2,000,000 poorer during their period of surpluses, while they were $199,000,000 richer during our period of surpluses. I think the country need have no special anxiety about these surpluses of ours. I owe my hon. friend from East Grey a slight apology for last night stating that the duty upon meat was of no benefit to the farmers of this country. I understood him to say wheat, but he was talking about meat, and I am quite willing to confess that it was of great benefit to the people of this country.

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

Charles Bernhard Heyd

Liberal

Mr. HEYD.

There is another thing I would like to draw your attention to, Mr. Speaker, and it is the few remarks that were made by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), that were not replied to by my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis). The hon. member for Bothwell alluded to the period of deficits. He appeared to feel proud that there had been deficits amounting to $5,694,758 in the three years ending the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite, and he made it a charge against us that we had $20,994,445 to our credit at the end of the last three years, and in order to get over that difficulty he condemned the system of bookkeeping. He said our system of bookkeeping was all wrong. Well, it is the system we have inherited from the old government, the system that has been carried down since the period of confederation, and though the hon.

gentleman lias been a member of this House he never before raised his voice to find fault with our system of keeping our books. But, I can readily understand why he should find fault with our system when it shows quite clearly that our surpluses amounted to $20,994,445 in the last three years, while lion, gentlemen opposite had three years of deficits. In order to get over the difficulty, he takes the expenditure, both consolidated and capital, and says : See, they had no surplus because they were behind at the end of their period of time and actually increased the net debt of the people of this country. Well, that is true, but I claim still that the present system of keeping our accounts is correct, that it has ' always been correct and it never has been objected to except by the hon. member for Bothwell and the late Minister of Finance, who also found fault with it when it continued to show surpluses as a result of the good management of the Liberal party. But, if this contention is true to-day, where would the Conservative party be a few years ago ? Their receipts in 1884 were $31,000,000, their expenditure $57,000,000, showing a deficit of $26,000,000. Where would they have been in 1885 with a deficit of $16,000,000, where would they have been in 1880 with a deficit of $28,000,000, or a deficit of $70,000,000 in three years, and with an increase in the national debt of the people of $64,691,000 ? No system of bookkeeping can get over that. We are obliged to keep our books that way, but if the hon. gentleman is right now, they must have been wrong then, and these expenditures must be explained. Hon. gentlemen opposite say they are easily explained. The old government were building the Canadian Pacific Railway, and it was necessary to exceed the income of the country. This has been the case and this is our excuse to-day, that notwithstanding that we have been in receipt of large revenues we have engaged in large capital expenditures. But, our hon. friend goes on to say that the national debt is the true balance of the account when the final summing up takes place. I say that too. I say it is quite immaterial whether you charge the expenditure to consolidated account or capital account except for certain purposes, and that in the end it all comes to the increase in the national debt. Let us look at that for a short period of time. Our friends opposite increased the national debt in the three years ending 1896 by $17,000,000. We increased the national debt in the three years ending 1902 by $5,556,000. If we take the debt as it stood in 1897 at $261,538,596, which was the time when we got absolute control of our affairs, and take the actual debt on the 31st March, 1903, which was $261,620,000, we find that it was only $82,000 more than it was when we got control of the affairs of this country. That is the position to-day in connection with the national debt. Our hon.

friend (Mr. Clancy) had a great deal of fault to find with the tariff duties, and he tried hard to convince the country that the people of Canada were not paying the duty, and that the raising of the tariff would not increase the burdens on the people. If that be true, then all our efforts to remove the preference are absolutely of no use. But we have been told time and again, and we know it is true, that the preference in favour of Great Britain has reduced the price of goods in Canada, has brought disaster upon the woollen mills, and that the manufacturers want the preference removed and the full duty restored. Do they want that in order to still further increase their tariff r no, they want it to stiffen prices and to remove the tremendous competition that they are subject to because of this preference. It is of no use at this late date to try to make people believe that by increasing the tariff you do not increase the price of goods.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Hear, hear.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Bernhard Heyd

Liberal

Mr. HEYD.

The gentlemen who spoke on the other side have kept a long way off from the amendment that is before the House. I desire Sir, to confine my attention particularly to that amendment and to see just what it means. But let me say Sir, that the hon. gentleman from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) owes an apology to the leader of the House as well to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) for the statement he made last night to the effect that Mr. Charlton was inspired by the Prime Minister to make his speech and that the sentiments entertained by Mr. Charlton are those entertained by the leader of the government. The member for Bothwell told us that he got this information from Mr. Charlton himself. I deny that. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) was told by the member for North Norfolk that he would speak at a certain time at the request of the premier, but to hold the premier responsible for the utterances of Mr. Charlton and then to say that Mr. Charlton himself was the author of the story, is something that we on this side will not believe.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

Seymour Eugene Gourley

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GOURLEY.

I thought it was the devil and not the Prime Minister that inspired the speech of Mr. Charlton.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Bernhard Heyd

Liberal

Mr. HEYD.

Well, you will admit at all events that the Prime Minister is not the devil. Now the amendment which has been presented to the House is couched in very ambiguous terms as are all the statements with reference to the tariff which are formulated by gentlemen on the other side. I have taken considerable trouble to ascertain what the meaning of the word ' adequate ' is. I find in the dictionaries that the words ' sufficient ' or ' enough ' are very fair equivalents, but when you begin to apply words to a thing of vast importance like the tariff of Canada, it is well to be definite. In

order to find out just what the Conservative party means by the word 'adequate' we have to go to a little town in Manitoba to illustrate it in a practical way. The leader of the opposition and his friends were in Manitoba last summer and a poet in that country hearing what they said, although he might have applied himself with much better advantage to something else, got off this version of adequate protection.

Through a western town called Morden Passed a famous man called Borden Who, in a tone articulate The problem tried to demonstrate That duties, that were adequate Would be a boon, as sure as fate.

To the merry men of Morden If they'd only bear the burden.

But the men in Western Morden With contempt refused the burden. Though he did his best to stimulate,

They thought he did but simulate.

So they more and more do hesitate To believe that duties adequate Would relieve the men of Morden Of the heavy useless burden.

That is an interpretation of the word ' adequate ' as used by the leader of tlie opposition. We all know that Mr. Hugh John Macdonald had promised the people of Manitoba that if the Conservative party were returned to power they would have free agricultural implements and while the leader of the opposition was delivering his speech in the town of Morden some one asked : What about free agricultural implements. The Winnipeg ' Telegram ' which I presume gives a fair report has the following account of what happened. The leader of the opposition replied as follows to the question

Question : What about free agricultural implements promised by Mr. Macdonald ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BORDEN.

I will answer my friend's question before I sit down so definitely that there will be no question about it. I will answer on behalf of the Liberal-Conservative party which has no Sifton at one end and Tarte at the other.

Question : Will you raise the duty ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BORDEN.

We will make the duty adequate and if it is now high enough, * as I believe it is,' to enable manufacturers to make implements in Canada, we will not increase it. I am informed that implements are as cheap in Canada as in the United States. So the duty seems high enough.

The leader of the opposition tells us that ' adequate ' means to enable manufacturers to make goods in Canada. It is to that interpretation of the word that I shall address my remarks. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) tells us that ' adequate ' means to enable manufacturers of cotton or wool or steam engines or anything else to make them in Canada if the duty is high enough to secure that, and that there is no Tarte at one end and no Sifton at the other end to preach a high tariff or a low tariff as the case may be. He told us that the word Mr. HEYD.

' adequate ' meant a duty high enough to enable manufacturers to make implements in Canada, and that he believed the duty on agricultural implements is high enough.

Do the Conservatives intend that the plough makers and the binder makers and the agricultural implement makers of Canada should believe that ' adequate ' means the ability to manufacture in this country. Is it for that that the manufacturers' associations are giving banquets and inducing the Hon. Mr. Tarte to make speeches. Do they not mean something else by the word ' adequate.' That word ' adequate ' is the crux of the whole question.

If the leader of the opposition is right that the word ' adequate ' means a tariff that would enable the manufacturer to make goods in Canada reserving to himself a reasonable and a fair profit; then we are all adequate protectionists. I do not think you will find on this side of the House even the most pronounced free trader who would object to that kind of adequate protection. But concealed behind that word ' adequate ' is something that we do not understand. The manufacturer believes it means high tariff, so high as to secure Canada for the Canadian manufacturers. That is what we think is meant by that word ' adequate,' and with that catch phrase, hon. gentlemen opposite will not raise the duty on agricultural implements; they say that is high enough. They go from one end of the country to the other, and, with such an amendment as is presented to this House, vague and meaningless, they fool the people, as they attempted to fool the people away up in that western town of Morden.

Now, let us see what that resolution means in its practical application. It reads as follows :

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

The hon. gentleman's first proposition is to protect labour. Well, I want somebody who has more ability than I have to devise some plan whereby labour can be protected. Labour is as free as air, and gravitates to the points where wages are most remunerative. It leaves the points where wages become less than is necessary for the maintenance of the labourers ; it is constantly shifting ; and it cannot be protected or, if it can be, then, what I hold in my hand is absolutely meaningless. I have here the proceedings of the Trades and Labour Council of the Dominion of Canada at their annual meeting held in the city of Berlin and attended by the representatives of one hundred and two organizations. Are these men entitled to speak for labour, or is our friend who leads the opposition ? That meeting passed the following resolution :

Whereas the Manufacturers' Association has declared its intention to seek an increase in the tariff, and, whereas, the injury and oppression of industry comes not from the various industries offering to exchange riches for riches, but from the extortions to which labour is subjected by the holders of the land, the forests, the mines and oljjer natural opportunities, therefore this congress would condemn any increase in the tariff, and would urge that taxes be removed as soon as possible to those values which now enable non-production to impoverish industry.

That is the opinion of one hundred and two labour organizations, met for the purpose of considering how they could advance their own interests. That resolution passed unanimously, and I say that these representative labour men in convention assembled are more entitled to say what will conduce to the interests of labour than even the hou. leader of the opposition, and this whole House along with him. I, therefore, say that the hon. gentleman's resolution, in its application to the first part of the population whom it proposes to protect, is absolutely ineffective, but, on the contrary, is injurious.

Now, let us see to what other classes it applies. In our trade returns we divide the interests of Canada into about six classes : Mining, fishing, forests, animals, agriculture and manufactures. Let us take the miners first. The exports of our mines last year amounted to $34,947,575. The resolution proposes by adequate protection to benefit them. How can the miners out in the Yukon, who have everything to buy, and who have to take their returns out of the soil, be protected by increasing the prices of their tools and their food, while in no way providing them with a market V They are a class who cannot be protected no matter how much we try. It is true, the lead miners in British Columbia are just now subjected to a terrible inconvenience ; but this is not particularly for the want of protection. It is because an organized trust in the United States will not buy their ore. If they could secure a market for their ore, they would not ask for protection ; but they are asking for protection for lead ore, because they have no foreign market for it; and so far as I am personally concerned, I will endorse the action of the Minister of Finance if he will put such a duty on everything into which lead enters as will enable these men to live, in the particular circumstances in which they are placed. At the same time, do not let us try to persuade ourselves that we can, by a policy of adequate protection, advance the interests of the miners of this country.

Can we do it with our fisheries ? They exported last year $14,143,294 worth of fish, besides supplying nearly the entire requirements of the country, and they were subjected to a competition of how much ? Six hundred and twenty thousand seven hundred and six dollars, consisting of : Oysters, $240,000 ; fish bait, $101,088 ; anchovies and sardines, $107,000 ; and forty-three other items, amounting to $172,018. Therefore, it is impossible for adequate protection to advance the interests of our great fishing industries.

Let us now turn to the lumbering industry, which is sufficiently large to warrant us in devoting a little time to its consideration. Our exports of forest products last year, amounted to $32,119,420, and our imports to $4,242,358, including $941,000 of oak and $065,000 of logs and round timber. Add the imports of fancy woods, such as we have not got in this country, amounting to $1,000,000 or $1,500,000, and the lumber required for the people of the North-west who are many miles from a lumber yard, and you have all the foreign lumber brought into Canada. Have we had any delegations from the labour interests, the mining industry, except the lead miners, the fishing industry or the lumber interest, asking us by means of a protective tariff to better their conditions ? Not at all.

The greatest industry which we have in this country is that of animals and animal products. That has taken on a wonderful development during the last few years. Our exports of animals and their products last year amounted to $59,161,209. Let us look at this question in an honest, candid way, and ask ourselves if we can improve tbe condition of the farmers by giving them adequate protection. The leader of the opposition tried the other day to show that they are subjected to a tremendous competition. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce showed that out of the $28,000,000 of agricultural products that were imported, not more than $6,000,000 came into competition with the products of our farmers. Of the actual imports of last ye*r which our cattle-growers had to face, amounting to $3,000,000, there were $1,064,988 of animals, $1,716,747 of food products and $375,515 of stock for breeding purposes, while we exported $59,000,000 worth of our surplus product, after supplying the requirements of our own people. How can you protect that great industry by increasing the protection of the farmers. They have no competition now. You might raise the duty to 100 per cent, and it would be of no benefit to the farmers, except that in an indirect sense it would produce a home market for some of their surplus products.

Take our agricultural returns, take last year we exported $37,000,000 of our surplus products and our exports of these products are likely to increase in much greater ratio than they have done in the past. But what competition were our agriculturists subjected to ? We must not forget that it is not the amount we import into this country which comes into competition with our own products, but the amount consumed in this country. It is the quantity imported for

home consumption which competes with our own products, and the hon. leader of the opposition seeks to create a false impression when he says we imported some $7,000,000 or $S,000,000 worth of wheat last year. What we imported from the west went out of this country by the east. It merely passed through this country, yet the hon. gentleman would have us believe that that importation of wheat came into competition with what was raised by our own farmers. Out of $489,000 worth of grain which came into this country, the actual amount that did enter into competition with our own products was $89,000 worth. If we included corn, which we imported at the request and for the benefit of our farmers, the whole amount of agricultural products that came into competition with the products of our own farmers was but $5,700,000. When we consider these facts, must we not conclude that the resolution of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition goes a good deal further than the circumstances justify, when it calls on us to declare that our agricultural industry requires to be stimulated by an adequate tariff. It seems to me perfectly clear that, with the exception of a few manufacturing industries, there is no industry in this country that could be stimulated by an increased tariff, and during the past six years the output of our manufacturing industries has increased from $9,365,000 in 1896 to $18,462,000 last year. Even with regard to our manufacturing industries, the word adequate production has no significance, because, with the exception of a few, they are in a fairly prosperous condition, and when such a condition obtains they evidently enjoy what the hon. leader of the opposition calls an adequate protective tariff.

*The hon. gentleman read an extract from an interview with certain miners, in which the miners contended that the duty on wheat of twelve cents, on oats of ten cents, on hay of $2 a ton, and on eggs, three cents a dozen, bore very heavily upon them. The hon. gentleman was not suggesting that the protection given the farmers was too high. On the contrary, he thought it was not high enough. He believed that on certain agricultural products the duty should be increased so that a country like Canada, possessing agricultural capabilities second to none in the w'orld, should not be obliged to import from the United States nearly $28,000,000 of agricultural products and produce of animals. But, if he had said that out of this $28,000,000 of imports from the United States, $22,000,000 consisted of bananas and oranges and other articles in which our farmers are not interested, he would have presented a truthful statement. In declaring, however, that our imports of agricultural products amounted to $28,000,000 and then proceeding to base the argument he did on that statement, he produced a false impression. In order to obtain an Mr. HEYD.

accurate idea of the facts, I have looked into the Trade and Navigation Returns and I find that our imports were as follows :

Animals $1,064,000

Grain 489,000

And so on down, giving them the benefit of free corn and every conceivable thing that could possibly come into competition with the products of our Canadian farmers. The total importation amounts as the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, to about $6,290,000. How does this compare with the total products of the Canadian farm ? It is estimated by the Bureau of Industries of Ontario that our agricultural products last year amounted to $214,000,000. It was estimated years ago by the Dominion statistician that the agricultural products of (lie Dominion amounted to over $500,000,000. I believe he was over the mark but now we have probably reached that stage. I put the question. If we raise $500,000,000 worth of agricultural products, how can an importation of only $5,000,000 worth affect our market-an importation of only about one per cent of our whole product ? To say that such a small percentage of imports could affect the prices of our gross production seems to me a patent absurdity.

Let me see how this thing works out when we apply the figures. The hon. gentleman says that we allowed wheat in subject to a duty of 12 cents per bushel, well, last year we imported $89,000 worth and this country raised $100,000,000 worth. How much benefit would accrue to the farmers by increasing the duty on wheat ? On oats the duty is 10 cents per bushel and the hon. gentleman wants that duty raised. But, I find that the total quantity of oats we imported was but $71,000 worth and that the province of Ontario alone raised $28,000,000 worth. What proportion does our importation of oats bear to the quantity we raise ? It is almost infinitesimal and microscopic. We might almost call it a specimen of bacteria which we are called on to consider in connection with this question. On hay, the duty is $2 per ton, and we imported $121,000 worth, the bulk of which I presume went into British Columbia or some of those distant territories which our Ontario farmers cannot reach. Our production of hay in Ontario alone last year amounted to $37,000,000, and we are asked to believe that this importation of $121,000 worth of hay comes into competition with the entire production of hay of this Dominion, and that to keep it out of this country would be a great service to our agriculturists. Then take potatoes, we imported last year $102,000 worth. But Ontario alone raised $7,000,000 worth, and included in that importation of $102,000 worth are sweet potatoes and yams. Are we to believe that by raising the duty from 15 to 45 cents a bushel, our people would be enabled to raise

sweet potatoes and yams, and that we would thereby introduce a new industry into Canada ? My hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, even spoke of the advantage which increased protection would give our milk and cheese. Well, we imported milk to the extent of $55,000 worth, and cheese to the extent of $42,000 worth, and we are asked seriously to believe that this importation is a danger and a menace to the dairy industries of this country, which last year fed our own population of five and a half millions, and exported $19,000,000 worth of cheese and $6,000,000 worth of butter.

1 do not see anything in that resolution which throws out much encouragement to any of our industries. But I agree with the hon. the leader of the opposition on the importance of the home market to the people of Canada. I am of the opinion that that is a market which may be cultivated and developed, and which the government can cultivate and develop by-I will not call it a protective tariff for that term might be offensive to some of my friends-but by a tariffs for revenue. I believe that a tariff of revenue to a greater extent would be useful to the people of this country, and I shall try briefly to show by the trend of our trade during the past few years, that an absolute necessity for successful farming in Canada is the establishment of a home market. If we take the two great branches of the farming industry-agricultural products and animals-we will find that we have got two countries in the world to sell to and almost three to buy from. Of our entire exports, no less than 90 per cent goes to Great Britain and the United States; and of our entire imports we get 85 per cent from Great Britain and the United States. Germany supplies, of our imports, something over $10,000,000 and takes of our exports about $1,300,000. So, we cannot get hurt very much if they put a prohibitive tariff on our goods. We can eliminate the world in considering what the future lias in store for us. With only 15 per cent of our imports coming from countries other than Great Britain and the United States, and only 10 per cent of our exports going to the other countries, the proportion is so small as to have practically no effect. I have here a short summary showing some features of our export trade to Great Britain and to the United States in 1890 and 1902. I take these years because they are a little more convenient:

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink

COMEARISON OP EXPORTS TO GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES, 1896 AND 1902.


Agricultural Products. Great Britain. United States. 1896 $ 9,551,316 $3,232,7291902 27,973,503 2,555,216$18,422,187* $ 677,513f * Increase, t Decrease. Animals and Their Products. Great Britain. United States. 1896 $32,523,070 $3,341,2751902 52,687,998 5,139,262$20,164,928* $l,797,987t * Increase, t Increase.


TOTAL EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND ANIMALS AND THEIR PRODUCTS.

April 24, 1903