April 27, 1903

LAND PROJECTS IN WEST.


The investments made by Americans in agricultural, grazing, and timber lands amount tc many millions of dollars. Only recently, a Columbus, O., syndicate purchased 600,000 acres m the North-west Territory. A Minneapolis and St. Paul syndicate has purchased a much larger area, and is promoting emigration from the western states to the Canadian Norlh-west, to which over 50,000 settlers have gone during the present year. The consul-general then specifies the following industries, either recently established or about to be started and financed wholly or partly by American capital.


?

Louis B.

Jennings, New York, has recently organized the Canadian Steel and Coal Company CpPit?^ze<^ $6,000,000. His properties consist of 4,000 acres of iron ore, and 3,000 acres of coal lands.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   LAND PROJECTS IN WEST.
Permalink
?

Claus A.

Spreckles and W. W. Cool, of New 1. ork, have made application for the incorporation of the Federal Sugar Refining Company, fp^ie caP*tal of the company is $6,000,000. The refinery will be located in Montreal.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   LAND PROJECTS IN WEST.
Permalink
?

Theodore P.

Burgess, president and general manager of the Burgess Sulphite Pulp Company, of Berlin Falls, N.H., has closed a deal with the Quebec Department of Lands, Forests and Fisheries, for the purchase of 600 square miles of timber on the Upper St. Maurice river.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   LAND PROJECTS IN WEST.
Permalink

BIG PLANT FOR TORONTO.


Another large American industry has decided to evade the duty of 25 per cent on agricultural machinery, and establish itself in Toronto. The new firm will be known as the American Abell Engine Thrasher Company ; it has taken over the Toronto Abell Works, Behind it are two of the largest thrashing-machine manufacturers in the world. Their agents have already placed orders for 1,000,000 feet of hard-wood lumber The new company is to have $1,000,000 of capital stock, and it will employ about 400 men The company will erect a large warehouse and machine shop at Winnipeg. The Westinghouse Company, of Philadelphia the Ingersoll Sargent Drill Company, of New York, the Port Huron Thrashing Machine Com-Mr. SUTHERLAND (Essex). pany, of Port Huron, Mich., and the Deering Harvester Company, of Chicago, are engaged in the location of great plants in Ontario. The Oil Exploration Company, of Canada, a new concern, has been incorporated with an authorized capital of $200,000, with the head ofiiee at Walkerville, Ont. The Canadian Coral Marble Company has been incorporated, with the head office at Toronto, with an authorized capital of $500,000, of which it is said, the largest amount is American.


AMERICANS AT ST. JOHNS.


It is stated that as a result of the investigation made by American capitalists in St. Johns, Que., an extensive plant for the manufacture of porcelain enamelled baths will be established there. The Locomotive and Machine Company, of Montreal, has Just been incorporated to carry on business. The capital stock is $1,000,000, largely American. Letters patent have been issued incorporating Robert Stuart, of Chicago, Walter Donald Douglas, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and several Cana.-dians as [DOT] The Northern Cereal Company.' The capital stock is $2,000,000, the majority of which is American. The meat-packing firm of Swift & Co., of Chicago, recently purchased the property of the Fowler Canadian Company, of Hamilton. A new porlt-packing plant is to be erected, which will be larger than any like establishment in the Dominion. The Haines Piano Company, of Rochester, N.Y., has purchased the old Hess factory, at Toronto Junction. It is enlarging the plant, and will employ 200 hands. A charter has been granted the Clover Leaf Mining Company, with a capital of $1,000,000. The head offices are at Toronto. A majority of the capital is American. The Buffalo Forge Company, a $1,000,000 corporation, has declared its purpose of establishing a branch factory in Canada.


MONTREAL GETS A PLANT.


A New York Company has in operation in Montreal a large plant which makes lumber fireproof. The American Bridge Company, of New York, has been licensed to carry on business in Ontario at a capital not to exceed $100,000. The Globe-Wernieke Company, of Cincinnati, manufacturers of school supplies and special lines of furniture, is to establish a plant at Stratford, Ont. A party of Americans is preparing to erect in Ottawa a factory for the manufacture of spades, shovels, and garden tools. The capital stock is $100,000. The company will employ ICO hands. John Critchley, representing the American Actinolite and Asbestites Company, of New York, says that his company has commenced operations in Hastings, Ont., by working some actinolite properties. Mr. Critchley intends to establish works in Canada to refine the actinolite, which is used in the manufacture of heavy paints. The Stohl Wagon and Farm Implement Company, of Harrisburg, Pa., will be removed to Toronto within the next month. Letters patent have been issued for the Northern Aluminum Company, with a capital of $500.000, organized for the manufacture of aluminum and other ores. The company has erected a building at Shawinigan Falls, and is already at work. The capital is largely American. The Montreal Novelty Company has been established here by New York parties. Letters patent of the province have been issued incorporating the Imperial Pneumatic Tool Company, with a capital stock of $25,000. The caphal is nearly all American.


TO MAKE PNEUMATIC TOOLS.


Frontier Peters, of Prince Edward Island, has an.njuced an agreement with a firm of Canadian and American capitalists, which insures for the island the most complete and modern outfit of cold storage appliances that, can be obtained. The capital of the company is $1,000,000. An important tobacco firm in Pittsburg, Pa., has written the Dominion statistician for details respecting the cultivation of tobacco in Canada, with a view, if circumstances are favourable, of establishing a large factory for the manufacture of cheroots and ' stogies.' The International Harvester Company erecting a plant at Hamilton, will employ 1,500 hands. The Altman-Taylor Implement Company, of Peoria, 111., will soon establish a branch in Canada. The Canadian Woollen Mills Company, at St. Hyacinthe, has passed into the hands of American capitalists, who will hereafter operate the industry. The Laurentides Pulp and Paper Company has an immense plant, and has built up around it the thriving town of Grand MOre. The latest announcement in connection with the incoming of foreign industries is the news that the International Paper Company, a gigantic concern, is about to utilize the areas it has secured in the Three Rivers district and establish pulp mills in that portion of the country. This, Mr. Speaker, is on the whole a splendid testimony as to the manner in which capital is being attracted to Canada. This report shows that level headed business men are prepared to risk their money in Canada; it shows that Canada is prosperous under the present tariff, and it shows that few if any countries in the world are so prosperous. Now, Sir, in my estimation, the policy of the present government has been a most skilful, statesmanlike, sane . and manly policy; and, in various ways. In the first place preferential tariff was a very great stroke of political genius for not only did it reduce taxation to the Canadian consumers and assist British trade, but it also struck somewhat of a blow at the United States, and some of us are not adverse to a little of that sort of thing if the United States do not treat us somewhat better. And. Sir, the preferential tariff strengthened the ties of the empire and increased Canada's national status. In the second place the reductions in duties were with respect to goods chiefly imported from the United States and were made for our benefit. The Liberal party draws the line against a policy of retaliation or conservatism which would simply cut off our nose to spite our face. In the third place the preference in favour of the West Indies showed a commendable disposition to help a weak member of the empire and to recognize the responsibilities of the empire. In the fourth place, the opposition were prepared to allow their resentment to cause them to go right at Germany at once without conciliation or negotiation at all; but the policy of the government was quite the reverse. The government tried conciliation, they tried correspondence, they tried every reasonable, sensible, and moderate means, and when they were not able to induce the Germans to do what was fair and right, then the Canadian government adopted a policy of retaliation which all Canadians have heard of with the greatest satisfaction. Instead of starting out with fisticuffs as the opposition wanted, the government started with correspondence and negotiations, and when that would not do we ended up with a little fisticuffs on our own account. Now, in addition to all this, and in view of the fact that Great Britain does not appear to think very much of this preference; in view of the fact that she is not very well informed as to this preference and seems to look this gift a little askance, Great Britain is now told : If you do not think the preference is any good; if you are not prepared to deal with us on a little better terms then you deal with countries which give you no preference, then we will have to consider what we will do with the preference. It is also true, Mr. Speaker, that this government lias made all reasonable and fair efforts to induce the people on the other side of the line to adopt a little more friendly and favourable trade policy' towards the people of this country, and they are given a slight intimation by this government that if they persist in doing as the Germans are doing, one of these days they may have something of the same sort happening to them. All and all, Mr. Speaker, the policy adopted by this government is in the truest and best interests of the people of the country at large. And why should we change from this policy ? Why should we change from the prosperous conditions which prevail under this policy to go back to the conditions which existed under the national policy. The national policy was reported at the start to be a wonderful policy'. We were told that it would cause manufactures to start up in tlie most marvelous way, and would bring work and wages, comfort and prosperity and happiness to the people of Canada. But we tried it for eighteen years and with what result ? Why, at the end we had made practically no progress; our population had scarcely increased. In one way and another we found that that policy was a failure. When we contrast the period before 1896 with the period from 1896 to 1902 we see in the former period a stagnant trade, an impoverished treasury, an exodus of the very cream of our population, manufacturing going on in a very slow way, and the Conservative government too busy with



its own strifes to do much for the country, i But since 1896 we see a most wonderful reverse policy; a most wonderful reverse picture. We see trade going ahead in the most wonderful way at a greater ratio than that of any country in the whole world. We see a bouyant revenue; an overflowing treasury; lower taxation; reduction of the public debt; immigrants pouring into the country; the North-west being rapidly developed ; factories working up to the limit of their capacity and railways projected in all directions. Surely no man, no patriotic man who desires the best interests of the people of Canada would want to recede from this present splendid condition of the country and go back to the conditions that obtained prior to 1896. Time and again in days past, eminent men have spoken of the possibilities of Canada. They have made predictions as to the future of Canada; they have pointed out that with her resources and the intelligence and pluck and enterprise of her people she was able to make extraordinary progress. But that progress did not come until the accession to power of the Liberal party and the inauguration of their policy. But now, when the east has commenced to know something more about the west, when the older parts of Canada are commencing to know more about the west and the Northwest; when the various parts of Canada are being brought together by railway and other transportation facilities; when the people are beginning to understand the great resources of this country; when we are commencing to be advertised at home and abroad; when we are begining to attract population and capital; now, these pictures that others have presented in times past are being realized. One eminent man who was Governor General of this country has spoken perhaps more beautifully than almost any other man of this magniflcient young country of ours, and of its great possibilities. Fortunately he lived to see the day when some of his predictions were to an extent realized. He had travelled all over Canada; he had come to know our people and to understand their intelligence, enterprise, and pluck, and he pointed to the future. I refer to Lord Dufferin who used these words From its geographical position and its peculiar characteristics, Manitoba may be regarded as the keystone of that mighty arch of sister provinces which spans the continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It was here that Canada emerging from her woods and forests first gazed upon her rolling prairies and unexplored North-west and learned as by an unexpected revellation that her historical territories of the Canadas, her eastern sea-boards of New Brunswick, Labrador and Nova Scotia, her Iaurentian lakes and valleys, corn lands and pastures, though themselves more extensive than half a dozen European kingdoms were hut the vestibules and anti-chambers to all that tell them their undreamt of Dominion whose illimitable dimensions alike confound the arithmetic of the surveyor and the verification of the explorer. It was hence that counting her past achieve-Mr. SUTHERLAND (Essex). ments as but the preface and prelude to her future exertions and expanding destinies she took a fresh departure, receive the afflatus of a more imperial inspiration and felt herself no longer a mere settler along the banks of a single river but the owner of half a continent and in the magnitude of her possession in the wealth of her resources, in the sinews of her material might the peer of any power on earth. I believe, Sir, that if the splendid policy commenced and perpetuated by this government is carried on for some years to come; if members on both sides of this House do their duty to this young country; the glowing predictions made by Lord Dufferin and others will soon come to pass and Canada will take that high rank among the nations of the world, which her resources and the character of her people entitle her to take.


CON

William James Roche

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).

The hon. gentleman from Essex (Mr. Sutherland) in his opening remarks extended his sympathies to the leader of the opposition, because that lion, gentleman (Mr. Borden) had himself undertaken the task of making a reply to the speech of the Finance Minister. Well, Sir, as an humble follower of the leader of the opposition I can assure the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sutherland) that the leader of the opposition is not at all in need of his sympathies. The hon. leader of the opposition undertook the task of replying to the Finance Minister and he acquitted himself in a highly creditable manner; in a manner which won encomiums from political foe as well as from political friend. And when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sutherland) says that the leader of a party should be relieved from such a duty, I can quite understand that if the position of parties in this House were reversed, how anxious, nay how eager lion, gentlemen opposite would be to relieve their leader from that duty because they would And him scarcely big enough to fill the bill. The hon. leader of the opposition has always been equal to the occasion when called on to speak, whether in reply to the budget speech or at any other time. We feel proud of him, and he has received encomiums from all parts of the Dominion upon having made one of the best speeches in reply to the budget speech ever delivered in thisHouse. This is but the third session that the hon. member for North Essex has occupied a seat in this House, and I think it came with rather bad taste from him to attempt to lecture the hon. leader of the opposition as to who should or should not undertake the duty of replying to the budget speech. It is true, those who have the honour to follow the leader of the opposition in this House may not be possessed of the transcendent abilities of the hon. member for North Essex; they may not be imbued with the same amount of egotism or conceit; but they have endeavoured to acquit I themselves creditably by talking from a business standpoint, unlike hon. gentlemen oppo-

site, some of whom have spoken as free traders, some as protectionists, and some as revenue tariff men, each one catering to the narrow view of the particular constituency he represents.

The hon. member for North Essex has referred to the prosperity which Canada is enjoying. This is a favourite theme of hon. gentlemen opposite. As lovers of our country, as men who put country before party, we on this side of the House also rejoice in the evidences of the country's prosperity, and at the fact that Canada has not yet entered on that down grade towards a period of depression which is bound to come in the natural course of events. The hon. Finance Minister himself admitted that two years ago, when in his budget speech he prophesied the return of a period of depression. This prophecy, he says, has been somewhat delayed in its fulfilment, and he rejoices, as we all do, that the trade of Canada is still on the upward grade. It is a fortunate thing for Canada in one respect that the Conservative party at present occupy the opposition benches. Were the positions reversed, were a Conservative government in power, and were we taking from the people the large amounts of revenue now being taken, imposing upon them the large taxation now being imposed, and piling up the spurious surpluses which hon. gentlemen opposite are gloating over, we would never hear the end of these things from hon. gentlemen opposite, who, when it suits their purpose, do not hesitate to go the length of libelling their country and prejudicing her in the eyes of the world. This has been their history in the past, and, unless they have changed greatly, it will be their history in the future. Now, you do not see Conservative speeches ornamenting American immigration literature to the detriment of our country. You do not find Conservative leaders playing the unpatriotic part of visiting the American republic and advising the statesmen of that country how best to put the screws on Canada, in order to make her subservient to American interests. Nor do you find them lauding American states as fields for settlement to the detriment of their own country, nor advocating a policy that would result in our tariff being made at Washington. We have, however, witnessed these and other things of a like character when the opposition benches have been occupied by the party of hon. gentlemen opposite, who, in their despair, have resorted to every expedient to reach the goal of their ambition, the treasury benches. We trust that the good example set by the loyal and patriotic Conservative opposition rnny prove beneficial to them, so that when again, in the course of a short time, they come to occupy their proper places on this side of the House, patriotism will bo a more prominent feature of their conduct, and that in this respect their past record will not be repeated.

The hon. leader of the opposition has so well acquitted himself in that able address of his, in which he dealt with everything of importance touched upon by the hon. Finance Minister, and he has been so ably, followed by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, that little remains to be said of an original character. But it is the duty of an opposition to indulge in legitimate criticism of the government's policy and record, past and present, even at the expense of a certain amount of repetition.

Now, if there is any body of men, in the history of this or any other country, who have laid themselves open to adverse criticism and to charges of inconsistency, duplicity, double-dealing and want of statesmanship, it is the hon. gentlemen who now constitute themselves the representatives of the Liberal party of Canada and the so-called government of Canada. Why, Sir, there is scarcely a promise which they made to the Canadian electorate, and on which they secured their support, that they have not shattered ; there is scarcely a profession which they made that they have not openly abandoned ; there is scarcely a policy which they formerly advocated that they have not turned their backs upon ; there is scarcely a principle to which they formerly gave their allegiance that they have not ignominiously violated or repudiated. This is the second parliament in which I have occupied a seat in this House ; but the time has been long enough to enable me to witness an amount of political acrobatism on the part of these hon. gentlemen to which the past history of the parliament of Canada has not afforded a parallel. Linos of policy advocated on this side of the House which at the time met with the jeers and the strenuous opposition of hon. gentlemen opposite, have been adopted by them ; and the very men who formerly belittled and decried them now uphold and applaud resolutions, clear cut and decided, setting forth the policy of the Conservative party of Canada. Questions of great national importance which formerly met with the gibes and sneers of hon. gentlemen opposite, have since, in almost identical words, been put forth at the intercolonial conference ns the expression of the views of the government of the day, in their attempt to obtain that which they formerly described as4 absurd and impossible. We all remember how the desks were pounded and how this chamber rung with the plaudits of the government supporters when a member on that, side of the House rose and said how absurd it was to expect that England would impose an import duty upon or tax food stuffs, and how they cheered when members accused the Conservative party of want, of loyalty and patriotism for even daring to ask that England should give to Canada a preference in her markets. We have seen that tax on food stuffs imposed. We have seen hon. gentlemen opposite not merely asking, but

demanding that Canada be given .a return preference in the British markets ; and these same gentlemen have applauded to the echo, not the mere request, hut the threat of the government that unless this preference were granted, Canada would hold herself free to withdraw the preference accorded to England in our markets. With so docile and subservient, though none the less inconsistent a following to the puzzled Conservatives, the skill of these hon. gentlemen as political acrobats and humbugs can scarcely be over-estimated. To the oldtime Liberal, who in years gone by was led to believe that when Canada had an expenditure of some $38,000,000 or $40,000,000. the country was fast drifting on to the shoals of bankruptcy, it must come as a rude shock and surprise to be now told by these former prophets of evil that an expenditure of $65,000,000 is justifiable and commendable and deserving of their support. Party lines are pretty strongly drawn in this Canada of ours, and the average follower will forgive his political leaders a great deal, but still I think to the honest Liberal it must be with many an inward gulp and an extra prayer for forgiveness that he attempts to mark his ballot for those who have betrayed his confidence, secured his vote under false pretenses. and who now in their Pharisaical manner attempt to justify and condone that which they formerly denounced as ruinous and inexcusable.

The policy laid down by the late Sir John Macdonald that a government should not rush into huge expenditures of public money merely because we had a buoyant revenue but should rather prosecute the necessary public works in periods of depression, when labouring men are more in need of work, is, in my opinion, a wise and judicious policy. The hon. gentlemen on the government benches seem to have reversed this policy. They are heaping huge burdens on the people and leaving to posterity the trouble of paying in periods of depression the large debts they are creating. These large surpluses which they were wont to declaim against in days gone by as an evil, they now laud as evidences of statesmanship. But these much-vaunted surpluses are really not surpluses in the proper sense of the term. They are simply moneys wrung from the people for the most indefensible purposes and to suit political and party exigencies. These hon. gentlemen will fin'd it far easier to incur large expenditures, to pile up our debt and increase our taxation in a period of prosperity than to reduce these expenditures and come back to a normal condition in a period of depression. I need only quote an authority which will be acceptable to hon. gentlemen opposite to back up my opinion. I refer to that authority, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, who, in criticising the budget speech delivered by a Conservative Finance Minister. used the following expression :

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   TO MAKE PNEUMATIC TOOLS.
Permalink
CON

William James Roche

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).

Now it is quite true so long as we continue having this prosperity the mischief of this may not be so apparent, but even the hon. Minister of Finance will hardly venture to say that he has any patent that will enable him to secure a continuance of this prosperity for ever, and the moment the check occurs, the moment times become in the slightest degree hard, then, Sir, our surplus will disappear, but unhappily our taxes will remain. And the scale of expenditure which the hon. gentleman is now fixing will remain too ; there is no more difficult task than to cut down, or materially reduce the expenditure of any country, when it has been allowed to attain a certain figure.

If these words were true and applicable at a time when our expenditure was only $40,000,000, they are doubly true and applicable to-day, when our expenditure amounts to the enormous sum of $65,000,000. Since these words were uttered, we have had an addition to our annual expenditure of $23,000,000, an addition to our taxation of some $16,000,000, and an addition to our public debt up to the 30th of June, 1902, of about 13,000,000. Or, in other words, to the burdens of each family of five there has been added an increased expenditure of $19 per year, an increased taxation of $15 per year and an increased debt of $13 per year, or a total increased burden of $47 annually. If public men are to be allowed to hold one set of opinions and views out of office and another set in office, then responsible government becomes, in the words of the Finance Minister, a farce. And if the words I have just quoted are true, when applied to an expenditure of some $40,000,000, bow much more forcible are they when applied to an expenditure of some $65,000,000 '!

My hon. friend the leader of the opposition visited last fall our western country. He met the people from the provinces of Manitoba and British Columbia and from the North-west Territories, face to face, and learned for himself, at first hand, their wants and requirements. The hon. gentleman was welcomed by all the people irrespective of politics, for if there is one characteristic for which the average westerner is noted more than any other, it is his hospitality to the stranger. Our western people admired the practical and outspoken sentiments of the leader of the opposition. They appreciated his candour and honesty.. They realized that they were not being addressed by a mere vote-hunter, but by a gentleman who was appealing to them on broad and national lines, who was not trying to secure their support on any sectional issue, who was not endeavouring to set one class against another, who was not seeking to persuade the farmer that his natural enemy was tlie manufacturer, but who was appealing to the people on a broad national policy which he believed to be in the best interest of the country. In fact the Toronto ' Globe ' was rather surprised and shocked that the lender of a great party should give evidence of what that journal considered a tactical blunder. The display by a public man of

so much candour and sincerity came upon it as a revelation. It was something which the ' Globe ' was not accustomed to witness in either the leaders or the followers of the Liberal party. Hence its surprise. Contrast the frankness of the hon. leader of the opposition with the subtlety displayed by the right hon. leader of the government. The right hon. gentleman visited that country in years gone by and proclaimed himself out there as the apostle of the new gospel of free trade. He almost made the farmers of the west weep, as he recounted to them in graphic language the great burden under which he declared they were groaning ' Death to protection,' was his battle cry, and the sonorous tones of the hon. member for Guysborougli (Mr. Fraser), as that hon. gentleman took up and repeated the cry, rolled across the verdant prairies and reverberated through the distant hills and gorges of that western country. The right hon. gentleman promised to strike off every shackle that fettered the tiller of the soil and to make this country a cheap one to live in. How was he to accomplish that purpose ? By giving the farmers free raw material, by lowering the duties on the necessaries of life, by reducing expenditure and by divers other methods-all of which would only be put into effect if the Liberal party were returned to power. Well, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman, in the course of time, reached the goal of his ambition, and he has now been some years enjoying the sweets of office. Has he kept faith with the people ? Why, there is not one promise on which he has not turned his back. His broken pledges confront him on every hand. Is it then to be wondered at that the people of that western country should have welcomed with open arms the leader of a party which has been consistent with its principles from 1878 down to the present, which has invariably been true to its policy of preserving our Canadian markets for our Canadian people.

The Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sit'ton) stumped Brandon in 1896 in the interests of the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy. From one end to the other, that county was. placarded with the motto : ' Vote for McCarthy and free agricultural implements.' He told the people that they were being robbed in order that the manufacturers of agricultural implements might amass huge fortunes. He touched their hearts and their pockets by appealing to them to return the Liberal party to power and put an end to this deplorable condition of affairs. Let me contrast this appeal with the speech made by the hon. gentleman for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis). He said that the people of the west are perfectly satisfied with the tariff as it stands.

Now, what has occurred in relation to the tariff to change the hon. gentleman's opinion since 1897 ? If the hon. gentleman will look up his speech in 'Hansard' in 3897. when the present tariff was submitted to

the House he will find that he declared against the tariff and stated that the people would not be satisfied particularly with this duty on agricultural implements, and that he himself was not satisfied with it. The tariff was the same then as it is to-day. Why, then, does he state that he is satisfied ?

The hon. gentleman said speaking of the farmer, in case of an increase in the tariff-

-he will have to pay so much for his mowing machine and his rake, so much more for his plough, so much more for everything else he uses on his farm.

Now, these were the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatchewan. The Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) during the Brandon campaign of 3S96, preached the same doctrine. He told the farmers they were being discriminated against by the manufacturers sending their machines to England, Australia and elsewhere and disposing of them at $90, whereas the Canadian farmer had to pay $140 to $150. The Minister of the Interior has somewhat changed his tune. He tells the farmers now that not only is this not a protective tariff, but the duty of 20 per cent on agricultural implements is not even an average revenue tariff. Beduce it, he says, and what condition of things will be brought about ?

Nine thousand workmen now engaged on Canadian soil will make their homes across the line, there to swell the population of the American republic and buy the products of the American farmer. And, for a while, there must be a reduction of the price of machines by the slaughtering of American goods. But, afterwards, up would go the price of machines, and the last stage of the Canadian farmer would he worse than the first. Good Conservative doctrine. What a wonderful effect the responsibilities and emoluments of office have had in changing the hon. minister's opinion. He tells us now that if you reduce tlie duty you will increase the price of goods. But the hon. member for Saskatchewan tells us that if you increase the duty you increase the price. I would advise these gentlemen- both of whom were in the Lisgar campaign -to get together and have a little re-hersal, so that when they address the people they may tell the same story. But if this is true as applied to agricultural implements, may it not be equally true as applied to other industries ? 'Why draw the line at agricultural implements ? Take, for instance the very few articles upon which there have been a reduction. They have been mentioned before, but they will stand repetition. Take the case of barbed wire and binder twine. Barbed wire was reduced in duty ; but that which was promised did not come about-there was no reduction of price. On the other hand, the farmer is paying more for his barbed wire than he did when the Conservative

government was in power, notwithstanding that tlie duty has been reduced. The simple reason is that the Canadian barbed wire industry has been crushed out, the Americans have a monopoly of our market and we are now under the domination of the American combine. Binder twine was placed on the free list by this government, although the duty was only 121 per cent. And binder twine is higher in price than it was under the Conservative government. Thus the very thing that the Minister of the Interior now tells us will come about if there is a reduction in the duty on agricultural implements has come about in the connection with barbed wire and binder twine. Now, some of our opponents, especially the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Ut. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) declared that we cannot protect the farmer. However, there is a member of the cabinet one of the hon. gentleman's own colleagues who does not agree with him. I refer to the Minister of Custom (Hon. Mr. Paterson). That hon. gentleman is at heart a protectionist. We have had a good certificate of character given him by a gentleman who ought to know the facts. ' Birds of a feather flock together '-and the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has been working in harmony with the Minister of Customs for years, and now he thanks him for having stood up in favour of keeping the tariff as high as it is. The Minister of Customs thinks the farmer can be protected, unless he has fallen from grace in recent years-which could hardly be the case in view of what we have been told about him by the ex-Minister of Public Works-but he makes his own views subservient to party interest. The hon. Minister of Customs said :

The administration should protect our agricultural interest. Such a duty would not in any way bear upon the consumer and would be of great advantage to the interests concerned. The small duty on grain would benefit the farmers of this country. It is well known that we pay* a bonus to the inhabitants of other countries to come into Canada and settle in our midst. I believe, by a defensive tariff, that you would not have to pay to bring those men here. Adopt it, and you will find that the steam whistles of our factories will be the call for them to come. The other year, the Finance Minister, in revising our tariff, gave some encouragement to one industry which it never had before. The result was that one thousand men who were engaged in that industry in Germany, were literally transported by the change in the tariff to Canada and set to work here. The cost of the article was not increased one iota, and Canada got all the benefit.

So, the Minister of Customs advocated protection not only to tlie manufacturing industries but to the agricultural industry as well. But some of these bon. gentlemen take the ground that because the farmers Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).

dispose of their products in the markets of the world it is impossible to protect them. No greater fallacy could be propounded. When it is realized that not less than 80 per cent-I think that is a fair proportion-of the farmers' products are consumed in Canada, will any intelligent man pretend to say that the home market is not the most valuable market ? Keep that market for our farmers, shut out the unfair competition of the products of the American farmers coming in here, and you will secure better prices for our farmers. X do not think anybody will gainsay that proposition. The home market is the best market. Selling in the home market does away with a great deal of the expense necessary to place our products in the markets of the world. It does away, to a large extent, with freight rates, insurance charges and other charges incidental to the shipment of our grain to a long distance. If we can protect our market properly by adequate duties we shall, as I say, afford a better market to our farmers. There wore imported into Canada from the United States during the last year, of the products of the farm, as follows :

Animals $ 751,623

Breadstuff's 7,432,530

Fruits 2,433,974

Provisions 2,257,183

Seeds and roots 1,205,435

Vegetables 370,419

Total $14,451,164

Will any man say that these cannot be grown on our Canadian farms or that they should not be ? These importations displace Canadian products which would have been, sold here had they not this unfair competition to contend against. Take also the following list of articles that came in from the American side last year :

Butter $ 179,479

Cheese 245,489

Bacon and hams 656,024

Beef (salted) 123,242

Pork, barrelled 587,784

Meats, dried 193,328

Other provisions 565,366

We have sent our money over there for these articles to enrich the American farmers, that we should have kept in our own country to go into the pockets of our own Canadian people. Now what is the key to this position ? If we compare the duties imposed by the Canadian tariff to those imposed by the American tariff upon the same articles, you will find a solution to this difficulty :

Article. American Canadian

Tariff. Tariff.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   TO MAKE PNEUMATIC TOOLS.
Permalink
?

Wheat .. ..

25 cents a bush. 12 cents a bush.Oats 15 cents a bush. 10 cents a bush.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   TO MAKE PNEUMATIC TOOLS.
Permalink
?

Barley .. ..

30 cents a bush. 12 cents a bush.Pease 40 cents a bush. 10 cents a bush.Hay . $4 a ton. $2 a ton.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   TO MAKE PNEUMATIC TOOLS.
Permalink
?

Apples .. ..

75 cents a brl. 40 cents a brl.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   TO MAKE PNEUMATIC TOOLS.
Permalink
?

Potatoes . ..@

25 cents a bush. 15 cents a bush.Beans 45 cents a bush. 15 cents a bush.Butter 6 cents a lb. 4 cents a lb.Corn 15 cents a bush. Free.Wheat flour. 75 cents a bush 60 cents a brl.

Is is at all surprising that, with this discrepancy in the tariff duties, we have so large an importation of staple articles coming into our country from the American farmers ?

But, Mr. Speaker, if there is one feature of the trade policy of the present government upon which, through their erratic course, they have left themselves open to ridicule, it is their action with regard to preferential trade with the mother country. They came into power on the promises of getting a mutual preference, promises sacredly made to the people of Canada, promises made in addresses delivered by the Prime Minister prior to the election of 1890, wherein he lauded the advantages to he derived by Canada if the products of our farmers were admitted into the English markets on a preference over the products of other countries, when he pledged his word to the people of Canada that one of the first acts of his government upon their accession to power would be to send a commission to England to negotiate a basis for preferential tariff with the mother land. The hon. gentleman was returned to power in 1897, and the Minister of Finance propounded his tariff policy, which he himself and those who followed him declared not to be a preference to Great Britain alone, of which any other country in the world could avail itself by complying with the conditions of our Canadian tariff. But the tariff was an illegal one, and though its defects were pointed out by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, the government would not be guided by our advice. The matter was) carried to the Privy Council and was there decided against them, and were it not that England came to their relief and denounced the German and Belgian treaties, they would have made themselves the laughing stock, of the world. When the Prime Minister visited England, in the very first speech he delivered after landing upon English soil, did he attempt to impress upon the pebple and government of England the necessity of granting Canada a preference in her markets ? On the contrary, he told them, in those brilliant phrases of his, that Canada did not take into consideration at all any preference to be granted in turn by England to Canada, Canada's action was taken out of the fullness of our heart, we did not ask or desire a preference. The people of Canada were astounded when they

read these remarks of their Prime Minister. They could not understand how that hon. gentleman, coming so recently from the electors, who was sacredly bound by his word that he! would endeavour to obtain a preference, immediately on arriving in Great Britain, betrayed his country and went back upon the policy he had formerly advocated. The hon. gentleman when he was in England made use of the following expressions :

Now, Sir, this is what we have done deliberately, and for this let me tell you, gentlemen, the Canadian government and the Canadian people ask nothing in return. They have done it out of gratitude to the motherland. They do not ask any * quid pro quo ' ; they do not ask for the pound of flesh ; they do not require a price for their loyalty.

Language calculated to tickle the ears of the particular audience he happened to be addressing at the time. Now the people of Canada took him to task upon his return to this country, but still the members of his government scouted the idea of our seeking a preference in the old country market. Resolution after resolution introduced by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House in favour of * a mutual preference, was voted down. The Liberal press of Canada stated that if the Conservative party were returned to power one of the first things they would do would be to repeal the British, preference, this one bright and shining act of their administration, although in the performances of which they had sadly bungled, this one feature which has since been denounced by its own friends. British statesmen like the Hon. Mr. Chamberlain have denounced this preference as entirely worthless to Great Britain. At the Intercolonial conference, Mr. Chamberlain spoke with no uncertain sound, and stated that the authors of this preference to England were themselves disappointed with it; and speaking as a member of the British government, he and the English people were disappointed at the results. Well, the English people had evidently been humbugged with regard to this preference; they did not realize that a confidence game was being played upon them by our Canadian; ministers when this tariff of 1897 was submitted, raising the duties upon importations that came over from England before applying this preference of 33J per cent in favour of English goods. The English people were deceived by the spurious cries of loyalty on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite and by their press. The members of the British government were particularly pleased when the Prime Minister stated that he was giving them a cut of 33J pei- cent on their general tariff, but they failed to understand that the Canadian government had already raised that tariff before doing so.

Now after what has taken place, what must the British statesmen think of our Canadian statesmen, so-called, when they compare these high sounding phrases of the Prime Minister in 1897 with their state-

ments committed to paper in black and white at the colonial conference ? After the Prime Minister had stated that Canada had granted this preference out of the fullness of her heart, and that she desired nothing in return, we find it laid down in black and white, in a memorandum submitted to the British statesmen by our representatives to the colonial conference, that unless a preference is conceded by England to Canada, Canada will hold Kself free to abolish the British preference. This is the only intelligent interpretation that can be placed upon that declaration. Very soon, no doubt, we may hear the Prime Minister reiterating his sentiments of 1S92, when he declared :

Our duty is to Canada, not to England. Just as the British government teaches this government that the first duty of the British government is to England and not co Canada, so I insist that in all these matters it is for any self-governing colony to look to its own interests, first, last and always.

Those were the notable words of the Prime Minister when he was advocating unrestricted reciprocity with the United States, and which probably we.will hear again in the near future.

Consider once more the government's position with regard to Germany's treatment of Canada since the abrogation of the German and Belgium treaties. Time and again lion, gentlemen in the Conservative party have pointed out the unjust discrimination to which Canada was being subjected at the hands of Germany by having the maximum tariff levied upon the products of Canada that were imported into that country, whereas German goods were imported into this country under the guise of the British preference to the amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth. Immediate action was urged by gentlemen on this side of the House, but the government refused to take our advice. In fact the hon. Minister of Finance, as recently as last session, attempted to defend and justify the action of Germany in Its treatment of Canada. The Liberal press of Canada attempted to establish the extraordinary claim that Canada was not being Injured by this discrimination. It condemned the Conservative party for advocating what it said was a policy of retaliation, and It upheld the government for not protecting Canadian interests. But, as in other respects, the government was forced to yield to a growing public opinion, and the coon came down. The government has abandoned its former position, and now we see it levying on future importations from Germany a one-third higher tax than that under the general tariff of 1897, as a result, as the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) says, of its own blunder. Now, we will hear, and we do hear the Liberal press and Liberal speakers applauding the recent action of the government, showing that there is no corner so sharp that they cannot take Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).

the turn. Take, again, the government's position in regard to the question of reciprocity. Prior to 1896, prior to the Liberal government's accession to power, it was, they said, the easiest thing in the world for the people of Canada to secure a fair reciprocity treaty with the Americans by those whose hearts were in the business. That able luminary of the government, the lion. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) stated that if his leader were in power the feat would be accomplished by the mere scratch of a pen, and that within twenty-four hours he and his friends could secure a fair reciprocity treaty. The exMinister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) followed in a similar strain and claimed that any honest man could secure this treaty. We, therefore, watched with increasing interest the negotiations that were carried on by these gentlemen for six months with the statesmen of the American republic. We thought, surely, that if in the words of Sir Louis Davies, one honest man could secure a treaty, this aggregation of honest men, representing the government of Canada, would be able to secure a treaty. What was our surprise-I will not say surprise, but it must have been a surprise to those who pinned tlieir faith to the government's declarations-when these hon. gentlemen announced their failure to secure a treaty of reciprocity with the people of the United States. The only legacy we have of the attempt of these hon. gentlemen is an account for 834,000 for the high jointers expenses. Then, we had the right hon. Prime Minister rising in his place a very few sessions ago, and declaring that after all Canada is not anxious or desirous to secure a reciprocity treaty with the United States. Now we have the negotiations again pending for a reassembling of the joint high commission in the near future, and we have this announcement following closely upon the heels of the notice that has been served on the home authorities that unless they grant a preference Canada will abolish her preference to the mother country. Can it be that we are once more to have the American dollar preferred to the English shilling ? Are we once more to hear from the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) that Canada owes nothing to Great Britain save Christian forgiveness for the bungling she has done ? Are we to hear him raising the Issue again-give me the seventy million market that lies right at our doors? I would rather that we should be excluded from the markets of the world than that we should be excluded from the markets of the American republic ? The right lion, leader of the government told us upon one occasion : It is absurd to suppose that, situated as we are. the interests of Canada will always be identical with the interests of Great Britain. Some day must come when these interests will clash, and whatever the hon. gentlemen may

be, for my part, whenever it comes to that, and however I may regret the necessity, I will stand for my native land. I, for one, when I made up my mind in favour of this policy of unrestricted reciprocity, looked first and last to the interests of Canada and not to the interests of England. Let the British subject who sits in the British parliament look after the interests of England. I do not believe in the principles of the United Empire Trade League, for the reason that that scheme limits trade to allegiance. It proposes to make allegiance the basis of trade, whilst we desire to make trade interests alone the basis of trade.

It was rather a different kind of song that the right hon. gentleman sang when he was in England, and when he based his whole policy on the question of sentiment and on what we owed to Great Britain. Stranger things may come to happen than to see these hon. gentlemen falling back upon the policy which they advocated in years gone by. These hon. gentlemen, with their devious records, have become experts in the accomplishment of turning somersaults, and they will stop at no policy in order to cater to political party exigencies. Now, we have to-day, a balance of trade against us with the United States of $67,000,000 per annum. It is true that we purchase from Germany seven times more goods than Germany purchases from Canada. Last year we exported in settlers effects to the United States, notwithstanding the stopping of the exodus referred to by the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Sutherland), $1,502,265, and this has been steadily increasing every year since the Liberals came into power. We imposed on British imports, dutiable and free a tax of 17-18 per cent, whereas, we imposed on United States imports dutiable and free a tax of 13-20 per cent, notwithstanding the British preference. This, in days gone by, would have been seized upon with avidity by our opponents as evidence of gross discrimination against the mother country. The government have extorted from the people by way of this spurious surplus, upwards of $13,000,000 during this present year more than was necessary to meet the exorbitant demands of this most extravagant government. The hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) has been starving his service and his department in his vain efforts to make a little political capital for himself at the expense of his employees, who are over worked and underpaid. We have seen the administration of justice prostituted in the interest of party ends ; we have seen political criminals released from the consequences of their crimes. We have seen members of the government resorting to all sorts of legerdemain in their efforts to create a fictitious surplus by charging to capital account that which was formerly and properly charged to ordinary expenses. We have watched with interest the declaration of the hon. Minister of Finance year after year to see if he would implement the pledges of the 60

preceding year, but all we have seen is that he has been jollying us, to use the street vernacular, and no intelligent man can say what the policy of the government is. These hon. gentlemen are always ready to trim their sails to catch the popular breeze, no matter how contradictory their course may prove to be. We have, to-day questions of great national importance to grapple with, and questions which should be grappled with in the near future, questions such as the granting of local autonomy to our great North-west Territories, so as to allow them to be more self governing and not to be hampered by unnecessary restrictions. We have the great transportation question to solve, a question of national importance, particularly to the great west, whose productions have already assumed gigantic proportions, and for the moving of which it is necessary that we shall have improved transportation facilities. . We have these and other important questions to grapple with, but the present government seems not to have the courage or capacity to cope with them.- On the other hand, the record and history of the Conservative party are a safe guarantee to show that it has within its ranks sufficient statesmanship to cope with and carry to a successful issue these great important questions involved in the building up of a great and thriving nation.

The Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald and his able and distinguished colleagues of the past securely and firmly laid the foundations of our present prosperity, notwithstanding the opposition they met at the hands of their Liberal opponents, and the criticisms and carpings they indulged in at that time. And, Sir, now that we are reaping the benefit of his statesmanship, now that we are having the great west filled with an incoming population-the country that was referred to in years past by Liberals as being a wilderness that it would be a doubtful benefit to open up to civilization-now that Canada is reaping some of this prosperity that is universal in its character ; we find these hon. gentlemen opposite attempting to take to themselves all the credit as being the originators and authors of It, thus stamping themselves as political mountebanks, whose professions are as foundationless as they are absurd.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will not intrude further on the attention of the House, but will simply say in conclusion : It is my intention to support the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition ; first, because it is definite in its policy and cannot be misunderstood ; it is based upon the underlying principle of protection that has done so much to make Canada what she is to-day. Second, because I am convinced that the people of Canada prefer and desire that a party aspiring to govern this young country should have some policy that cannot be misunderstood ; some principle underlying that policy-though certainly tour lamendmient

will be misrepresented by bon. gentlemen opposite, as would any declaration of policy on our part. And in the third place, Sir, because the government, though they have been in office for seven years and have had ample opportunity to formulate a definite policy, have lamentably failed to do so, and have simply been actuated by political expediency, and political expediency alone.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   TO MAKE PNEUMATIC TOOLS.
Permalink

April 27, 1903