April 27, 1903

?

Mr. WM@

ItOCHE (Halifax). Mr. Speaker, those fortunate mortals who had been summoned to a banquet of the gods, on their return reported that the bill of fare was very scanty, and that the nectar had made three or four rounds of the table before they were called upon to take a sip. My hon. friend from Essex (Mr. Sutherland) made an allusion to my hon. colleague the leader of the opposition which was of a highly complimentary character. He said that several other gentlemen on that side had been selected to criticise the statement made by the Minister of Finance and that they had not been found adequate to the task. He said that the leader of the opposition, not having anybody behind him capable of ably criticising the speech of the Finance Minister, took that duty upon himself. My hon. friend (Mr. Sutherland) intended it as a compliment and in no way as disparagement of or a flaunt at the learned leader of the opposition. The leader of the opposition was well within his rights when he challenged the speech of the Minister of Finance, but he incurred a great responsibility in doing so. No living mortal could fathom what was the intention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax). Perhaps he was actuated with the desire of heading off some of the divergent opinions of his supporters ; perhaps he wished to prevent the policy of the Finance Minister from being too largely expatiated upon or too much explained before he promptly presented his amendment. Now, let me ask : What has the learned leader of the opposition left out by his resolution ? His amendment is, that after the word ' that ' the whole of the motion should be struck out, and his amendment substituted. Now, Sir, the leader of the opposition has left out of consideration our gross trade of $423,000,000. the largest trade enjoyed in the history of Canada ; he has left out a revenue of $58,000,000, the greatest in our history ; he lias loft out a surplus of $7,000,000 ; he has left out a reduction of $5,000,000 in the debt ; he has left out of consideration also the generous provisions for all the services of the country and for all the public works throughout Canada-a more generous and sensible provision than ever was made in the history of the Conservative party. That the statement of the Finance Minister was satisfactory to the country, we have the opinions of bankers, of capitalists, of investors in stock companies and savings banks, of merchants, of labourers. The manufacturers of Canada

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

William James Roche

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).

i

have generally admitted that they are prosperous and that their warehouses 'have grown in order to provide ample space for the goods which they produce. All this was admitted, even by the speakers on the other side of the House. In connection with this state of affairs we have a tariff comprising schedules of duty with exact sums set against certain articles, definite and intelligible.

Now, Sir, those gentlemen of the opposition who contended that the tariff was not exactly that which they would approve, and those who contended that the tariff was not the cause of the prosperity, did admit that the country was prosperous. If the tariff was not the causa causans of prosperity it certainly was not hurtful; it certainly was not powerful enough to counteract the growing trade of the country and its rising prosperity. If the tariff did not assist that prosperity; if it did not conserve that prosperity, it was certainly harmless to prevent the energy of the country exerting itself and achieving beneficial results. But what did the leader of the opposition give us as a substitution for our present fiscal policy ? He gave us an exceedingly nebulous and indefinite resolution. He gave us no statement of specific duties. He did not give auy tariff rate that he would have levied upon articles if his motion were to prevail, but he simply submitted that very stretchable policy, which might mean something in the west, and could be stretched to mean something else in the east. He gave something to awaken the hopes of manufacturers and others in order to obtain votes, it may be-although I believe he has not the slightest hope of obtaining votes by it. However, he gave us a policy which might be made so flexible and so adaptable to certain localities that it might be supported by his followers and declared to mean something in one direction and the very reverse in another. Now, Sir, we on this side of the House prefer that there should be a policy definite and intelligible, and we also realize the acceptance of the poetic lines in their application to this case :

'Tis better to bear the ills we have, than fly to others we know not of.

My ethymological and orthoepical and philological friend from Brant (Mr. Heyd) when he read the resolution of the leader of the opposition, and the term ' adequate protection,' in it referred to that source of consolation on this and every occasion, the dictionary. There he found that the term adequate meant something that was equal to the occasion, something that was enough, something that was sufficient. Now, we all know, without the dictionary, the acceptation of the term adequate. We know that it is something operative, something that answers the expectation, or the purpose, what is effectual, what is conclusive. AVhat does that term adequate mean when inter-

preted in this way ? Does it mean a duty of 20 per cent or of 30 per cent, or a duty within any moderate limits i Does it not mean, when interpreted in its entirety, that if a duty of 20 per cent, or 40 per cent, or 50 per cent, or 100 per cent, is not sufficient to keep out the goods on which this tariff is levied, it shall be made effective to the utmost extent of the word, and that a prohibitive tariff must be put in force in this country ?

The learned leader of the opposition is under no obligation to me whatever. I do believe that I have never given him any of my votes in this House, and therefore I have no right to call upon him for information or for anything else. But I think he intends by his resolution to gather together the votes of all those behind him, and I believe also he wishes to appeal to the ingenuous band of moral reformers on this side of the House, and endeavour, if possible, to secure some of them for the support of his resolution. Besides, and outside of the Conservatives and the Liberals of the House, amongst the Conservatives and amongst the Liberals, there are plain men ; on their behalf I call on the learned leader of the opposition to make an explicit declaration, not in legal or metaphysical phrases, but in plain and sufficient language, what specific duties he will apply, if his policy is carried out, to the articles enumerated in the tariff, so that merchants, business men, and plain men of all classes throughout the country, may know what they are to expect and may give their approbation or disapprobation to the proposals of the hon. gentleman.

The tariff is a complex instrument. It goes much further than mere verbiage, because it applies itself to various interests and various articles throughout the country. It has not an arbitrary application, but it is a system of balances, adjustments and allotments of certain duties to certain articles, with regard also to the localities in the country where those articles are consumed, so that the taxation will not bear more heavily on one quarter of the country than on the other. A tariff of that kind cannot be summed up in general business phrases; but to have a general understanding and comprehension of it, it is necessary that its elements should be specifically mentioned, so that the people at large can understand what they are, and judge whether it is an acceptable and proper tariff, or something that ought to be rejected. The learned leader of the opposition, by the terms of his resolution, is not to wait for anything; but he has proposed his resolution as an amendment to the motion to go into Committee of Supply, in order that the House may take up his proposal to revise the tariff and put a new tariff into operation, without any delay, without any time being given for consideration, without any reference to men expert in the construction

of tariffs, without any regard to the present interests of the country, without any reference to what the future interests of the country may be. But, my learned friend the leader of the opposition may say : I am not a trader; I have no right to mention articles and to state what duties may apply to those articles; I am not conversant with mercantile affairs; I am not a buyer or a seller of goods, my duty in this parliament is to gather up the opinions of those behind me, and express them in the most forcible and telling way as parliamentary questions; I have framed my resolution so that its corners cannot be cut off, so that it cannot be headed off. But my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has behind him gentlemen who are skilled in the work of analysis, in the decomposition of tariffs, in the enumeration of goods and of the duties that should be laid upon them. He has behind him my hon. friend from Bast Grey (Mr. Sproule) with his encyclopedic mind; and he has behind him the gentle and insinuating revealer of truth, my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy). If these gentlemen were not sufficient, he has behind him a gentleman who lias taken the ground that a tariff of 17 per cent must have been a protective tariff, and who two sessions ago delighted the House with a list of all the articles under the sun and everywhere else, which read like the inventory of a Newfoundland store. He could have informed my hon. friend the leader of the opposition precisely what articles ought to be charged with certain definite duties, and how those duties would bear with reference to other duties. He could have given him all that information with cheerful power and persuasiveness, with the comprehension and approval of members on this side of the House who are supposed to have protectionist proclivities, and with the cheers and support of the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who are so ready on every occasion to pay a tribute to his parliamentary skill on all other subjects brought forward from time to time. But my hon. friend the leader of the opposition did not present his case in this way. Therefore, because of the indefiniteness of the resolution of my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, I shall be compelled to vote against his proposition. We have heard a great deal of argument, in this House and out of it, to the effect that a tariff higher than 171 per cent, or at any rate, higher than 35 per cent, must of necessity be protective. But I think that I can demonstrate clearly that the present tariff, while giving sufficient protection, is mainly a tariff for revenue. Exigencies may arise under a revenue tariff which call for the imposition of a higher scale of duties. Exigencies will arise of a public nature which can only be met by a large revenue than would be obtained under an ordinary protective tariff, so then the rates levied under any tariff is no indication of its being purely protective or purely

60J

for revenue. Sucli a tariff must be judged by the intentions of those who put it in force. On the other hand the national policy although intended to be protective to some industries, although professedly protective, was really the highest conceivable grade of revenue tariff and the highest amount of excise which could be extracted from the people to meet the requirements of the government. This is proved by the increased importations of goods and the increase in our revenue following the introduction of that policy.

Hon. gentlemen opposite complain that we pay too much attention to the argument derived from the Increase of exports and imports, as indicating the beneficial character of the policy of the government. But you will remember, Sir, that in days gone by, the Conservative government and its followers always pointed to the fact that under its regime, our exports and imports were increasing. This they pointed to as an indication of our growing prosperity, and this they gave as a reason why the electorate should retain them in power and reject the appeals of dishonest free trade Liberals. In addition to that argument, they urged that the Liberals were utterly incapable of administering the affairs of the country and moulding its destinies. They said that the Liberals had not the requisite experience, that they were not men of proved business abilities, that they had not a sufficient acquaintance with public affairs to control the business of a great country like Canada, and that if they should be returned tot power, one calamity after another would arrive as the result of their mismanagement, and the country would very soon hurl then from their places again. They dilated on the disappearance of the tall chimnies and the sorrowful wail which would arise from the poor starving children and wives of the labouring people deprived of work. They predicted all sorts of direful calamities which would follow the election of the Liberal party to office. When, we remember these prophesies, are we not justified in pointing to the increased prosperity on every hand, to the factories running over with orders, to labour abundantly rewarded, to merchants and traders prosperous to an increasing public revenue, to the service of the government amply provided for, and to the smiling, content and satisfaction prevailing throughout the land, as a flagrant contradiction to these dismal forebodings. Hon. gentlemen opposite are very fond of crediting my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce with certain utterances made bv him on previous occasions. Well, Mr. Speaker, my memory runs back a little further. I remember when the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the late Alexander Mackenzie had to contend against the charge of woeful extravagance and wastefulness of the resources of this country, levelled against their Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).

administration. I remember how they were denounced for taking $23,500,000 out of the hard won earnings of the consumers of this country. Put us back into power, they cried, and we will conduct the affairs of this country economically, we will make ample provision for all our public works and requirements, and we will do it on $22,000.000. Well, Sir, the people took them at their word and put them back into office. What then happened ? Did they confine themselves to an expenditure of $22,500,000 ? No, Sir, they did not. In the first year of their administration, they spent $24,500,000, in the next, $25,000,000; in the next, $27,000,000; and in the following year $31,000,000. And so their expenditure kept on swelling and soaring ever since. Such were the promises against which the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce had to contend in those days, and it were well that hon. gentleman opposite should remember those broken pledges. Let me remind these hon. gentlemen that the phrase they are so fond of using : Wrung from the pockets of the

people,' is neither novel nor original.

At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. ItOCHE (Halifax). Mr. Speaker, the method of argument used by the leader of tjie opposition reminded me of the method of the Rabbins. They did not give an authoritative statement of their own upon which to found an argument, nor did they state any facts positively; but they said: I, M say, on the authority of N that so and so is so and so ; and on that they based an argument. That is the method pursued by the leader of the opposition. He takes, for instance, an extract from the speech of the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) and on that lie proceeds to build up a scale of figures, tables or elaborate argument to prove to a demonstration or to his own satisfaction on that hypothesis that certain things are untrue and that certain things are condem-nable. The hon. gentleman should not take the statements he quotes from the Minister of Trade and Commerce as being absolute ones, definite and limited, and complete of themselves. He should give the accompanying circumstances. He should give the context of the speech and the circumstances under which the speech was delivered, the contentions made and the position taken which he was rebutting. Then we could understand the full force of the argument. But why base it upon the hypothesis of the statements of the Minister of Trade and Commerce ? Why does he not go back to the foundation of the matter and establish what is the first truth ; establish his proposition as a universal one and then go on to make his argument. By

these tables which he has submitted the leader of the opposition hopes to make out his case that the tariff is unsatisfactory to the country, and he gives certain quotations from the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce as tests by which we would acquire a knowledge of popular opinion, on this subject. Now, I would be content that we should rest our case entirely upon the speech and upon the - tables presented by the Minister of Finance, taking in addition to the very excellent speech and very conclusive tables which have been submitted by my lion friend from South Brant (Mr. Heyd). But the leader of the opposition when he gave his tables and when he arrived at his conclusion, lest he should be taken to task for having opposed votes for some of the services which make up the total of the vote, said that as to some of the details, he approved of them and wished that the expenditure under these headings had been greater. So, his argument that these expenditures were excessive falls to the ground. And so, whether he relies for his argument upon the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce or upon the tables prepared by himself his argument that the government have taken too much money from the people will not stand.

In the course of his very excellent speech this afternoon, my hon. friend and namesake from Marquette (Mr. Roche), condemned the government for not negotiating, at the time when the preference was established in this country, for a similar reference to be extended to Canadian goods when brought into the British market. A great deal of ridicule has been thrown on the government for its course in huckstering, now, when before, they were so very open and generous in allowing British goods to come in under the preference, exacting nothing in return. Now, a number of those opposed to the government in this House have plumed themselves on that fact, as they allege it to be, that the preference tariff was a failure. Some of them contend that it was futile as a means of introducing British goods. I do not understand exactly their attitude with regard to preferential tariff, whether they wish British goods to be introduced or whether they wish the British goods to be kept out. But, however, if they wished the British goods to be imported under this tariff the resolution proposed by the leader of the opposition is against that end, because he proposed to lay heavy duties on the goods imported so as to practically prohibit them and give the market to the producers of Canadian goods. So, I count that the leader of the opposition is against preference treatment. The examination given that tariff is entirely superficial and entirely inadequate. You cannot, by contrasting the amounts of money set forth in columns of figures say exactly what articles might have been brought in or the quantity of

articles there were brought in. You have to examine the cost of these articles that you may learn whether there were more brought in. That of itself may not in this case make a very essential difference. But certainly, the mere inspection of a column of figures will not show you whether the preference tariff had an influence in bringing in these goods and allowing them to be consumed in Canada. But what is the fact? These imports from Britain are the precise qualities of goods, the veritable articles which are duplicated by the manufacturers of Canada. The Canadians have aimed at manufacturing such articles as were brought in under the preference tariff. Therefore, as our manufacturers increased, as they improved the quality of their goods, more and more of British goods have been kept out. It is a proof of efficacy in the preference tariff that, where the amount of British goods imported into Canada was declining by a regular process, after the introduction of Ihe tariff, the amount of these imports which had fallen from $43,000,000 to $22,000,000, a decline of $21,000,000, rose again. Thus the preferential tariff checked a decline of importations and changed it into tin increase. But how much would have been the decline of importations without the preferential tariff? How far would the manufacturers of Canada !~nve displaced these British goods, and how much would the manufactured goods of the United States, made of a similar material and perhaps of better quality, perhaps with finer adaptation for our wants have displaced these goods, if the tariff had not been such as to lower the price in our markets of the British goods and so prevent the American goods entering ? If I had been in this House when the preferential tariff was introduced I do not know that I would have voted for it. I do not know that Canada was bound at that time to pass a measure which favoured the introduction of British goods. But the tariff, including this preferential feature being in force, and desiring that British goods should be introduced, desiring to cultivate British trade, certainly that preference had a good intention and it was effective in carrying out the object by preventing the decline of British importations and converting it, on an ascending scale, into increased consumption in our markets of these articles. Now, I do not know that it is the function of the Liberal government to stand by inactive when a movement takes place by a combination of manufacturers in a foreign country, or when, by any legal enactment of a foreign government any industry in the country is menaced, I do not think the Libejt-al government will stand by and say it lias no duty to discharge to manufacturers or the people in the encouragement of any energy which was overborne by any adverse influence outside of the ordinary competition of one manufacturer with another. If there be governmental action, if such action is needed, government is erected for

the purpose of controlling these combinations. The people have entrusted the gov-ernmeut with the function of regulating these matters. It is one of the duties and powers of government to interfere in questions of that kind, and to aid struggling manufacturers, struggling industries or struggling interests, to overcome obstacles so far as governmental action can do so.

Now so far as my opinion goes, I believe that a revenue tariff, by its uniformity, gives such proper inducement and such proper attention to the various interests of the country, that they all flourish and are all equally treated under it. But if the government should think it necessary to encourage any of the industries of the country, if the government should think proper to develop any of the manufactures of the country, I think it ought to be done along economic lines. If encouragement is afforded, it should be to industries which are beginning. I do not think that an economical policy should specially favour those industries that are well established, after their products have obtained currency in the country, after they are well known. I do not think that such industries should be assisted by increased duties on competing commodities imported from other countries. I think that goods made from the raw material of Canadian origin might be a subject of this protection and this ecouragement, so as to spread the benefit over a larger number of people, that producers of the raw material might benefit as well as the manufacturers, and that the business of transportation might also partake of the benefit which is given by the government. Such public contributions ought not to be monopolized or absorbed by the capitalist who runs the factory, irrespective of any other interest or industry which may exist In the country.

Secondly, when government aid is afforded it should be in favour of those goods which have an economic value. It is no advantage to make goods that require an enormous assistance so great as to deplete or exhaust the country; there is no public advantage in giving such assistance to manufacturers, industries or employments of any kind which have no natural hold upon the people, and which cannot be economically managed or carried on to the advantage of the people. It would be better to employ the people in some other industry; because in imposing enormous protective duties we are fighting against the arrangements of Providence, we are fighting against natural laws, we are fighting against the diversity which nature has established in the productions of the various countries, and against the natural law that the productions of one country should be exchanged for those of another, all tending to that end so much condemned by my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean), the brotherhood of man. Now, Sir, there are compensations to be con-Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).

sidered when manufactures are encouraged and assisted by government funds or by tariff arrangements, there should be compensation given to other industries and to other localities where those industries do not exist, because if one locality is benefited by money taken from the whole country, and if there be no counter-balancing advantage to the various sections who contribute to the individual section, evidently there would be injustice. [DOT]

I think that under the present conditions in this country, due encouragement should be given by the government to the manufacture of iron, because iron enters into the manufacture of the machinery used in all the various industries of the country. So many employments, so much mechanism depends upon the cheapness of iron that any encouragement that is given in that direction is certainly justifiable and is part of the duty of a paternal government. Another thing that might be done is to improve the style and quality of the fabrics, to introduce artistic excellence, to patronize artistic schools of design whereby the nature and symmetry of the articles produced might be improved. The quality of all our Canadian manufacture ought to be improved so that they may be equal to the best productions of other countries which enter into competition with ours. Our Canadian manufactures should not be made out of shoddy, should not be made of adulterated or inferior material; but all the articles that are made in Canada should be stamped * made in Canada,' and that stamp should be a guarantee of the excellence of the material and the artistic nature of the workmanship. In the next place, provision should be made that all the benefits should not inure to the capitalist, or to the manufacturer, or the company that owns the factory; but the workmen should equally enjoy a portion of the benefit of the protection afforded by the government, either in the encouragement of new industries or in the sustentation of old ones.

Some hon. gentlemen on the other side in talking to us about suffering industries which ought to be the subject of public assistance, have mentioned the article of woollens. Now woollens is a very general term, and comprises a great deal. I would like to be instructed on the subject of woollens. I think there are some gentlemen in this House who are familiar with woollens. But what is comprised in that article ? Ought not any woollen factory which obtains benefit from the tariff, or any encouragement from the Dominion treasury, enter into a stipulation that the product of that factory should be made from Canadian wool alone, so that the Canadian raw material may be entirely used in the composition of the article ? Would Canadian woollens thus made be as good as those made of imported wool ? Would they be as en-

during, would they be as acceptable to the people ? Now what do we mean when we speak of woollens ? Do we mean that every woollen factory, every industry in that line, should receive benefit by the tariff ? There are cloths, for instance. Now we know that the cloths made in Canada are made to the appearance of English cloths. Are they as good in quality ? For instance, there is the article of underwear, shirts and similar articles that are comprised under the name of woollens. Then there are carpets, and a great variety of similar articles. Now we ought to trust to Canadian sentiment to some extent to patronize goods produced in Canada. If the articles are of equally good quality as those imported, I have no doubt that they would be extensively used in Canada. In my own province, those woollen factories which make cloths and other articles, have more orders than they can fill, and the reputation of those articles is very high. They are made of good material, they are well made, and they are durable.

Then again we must remember that in Canada these articles of Canadian tweeds, Canadian cloths, &c., have displaced the imported clothing which formerly came from England and as the taste of the people has now moved in the direction of accepting these articles which are made in Canada, great care should be taken that in their manufacture they reach the very highest artistic perfection and that they be composed of genuine materials made in Canada. There is another article, which cries out, I believe, for protection, and I ask this House and particularly hon. gentlemen opposite : Should protection be accorded to it V I refer to the article of cotton. There are gray cottons and printed cottons. The printed cottons come from England, and, to a very large extent, from the United States. We know this is not an article that is grown in Canada. Should cotton printers and those who manufacture cottons have the same assistance as those who manufacture woollens V Again, taking this as an illustration, should not the line be drawn between those factories which work up American and foreign goods and those which work entirely upon goods or material of Canadian growth and which articles are used by the Canadian people ? I think there are other articles the manufacture of which should be encouraged. I refer to manufactures of wood. Wood largely grows in this country, it is very useful in the manufacture of furniture and other products and an advantage might be given to these articles under the tariff. To me it seems that the articles most susceptible to the application of government favour should be those in the manufacture of which iron enters, because, this is one of the greatest industries of the new and the old worlds and is an industry in which Canada should participate and which Canada could pursue with great advantage. The raw material is here, the refining can be done here, the application of the arts can be made here and all the combinations into which iron enters can be readily carried out in Canada. Therefore,

I think it should receive government assistance. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will not think it mock modesty in me if I announce to you, in confidence, that the right lion, the premier has not called upon me to speak. If I could gather anything, not being exactly a mind reader, from the indications of the government I sometimes imagine that they often say : I wish to gracious he had never

got up, and when he is going on, I wish to gracious he would finish soon. It was a very interesting incident in which the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) and the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) figured the other day. The gentle and insinuating way in which the hon. member for Bothwell extracted from the hon. member for North Norfolk an intimation', as to whether or not he was to speak was highly amusing, and also the efforts of each to get before the other and make his little pirouette before the footlights. I have to say that if the policy outlined by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) should be carried into effect, if we had a strong prohibitory tariff, if we should think it would be to the advantage of Canada, to adopt the enactment that the hon. leader of the opposition has proposed, it is quite manifest that a heavy loss would be inflicted upon some portions of the country. I think a very large proportion of the loss would be suffered by the extreme west and the extreme east. No doubt if a prohibitive tariff were adopted against the United States they would retaliate against us. How do you contemplate the compensation which ought to be given to the lower provinces for the loss of the lumber trade which might follow ? That amounts to the sum of $7,000,000 annually. Then, again the American tariff might be elevated so highly that the American people would not take the fish which are caught in the lower provinces of a valuable character and that mainly find a market there. They might prevent our fish from being admitted to the United States and if we suffered the loss of that market it miglitj be that we would look to the government for compensation. Suppose that the duty on coal, which is now suspended in the United States, should be reimposed and increased, suppose we should lose the market that we at present enjoy in the United States and the coal owners of Nova Scotia be compensated for the loss which they would sustain through, this tariff ? Suppose we were to lose the market of oor plaster in the United States which is at. present a large one, would we be compensated for that ? Suppose, for instance, that a duty should be placed on the salt, which is used in the fisheries, and I under-

stand there is a movement on foot to place a strong duty on salt, should not the maritime provinces be compensated for that V Suppose that we should lose our market for deals in England ? A very large amount of lumber, both timber and deals, is shipped to England. We have only a market on the west coast of England, the Norwegians and Swedes have the market on the east coast of England, they are penetrating more and more to) the central parts of England, and they are likely to come over to the west. They are also competing with us in pulp wood. Large mills are being erected in Norway and Sweden, and they will place pulp on the English market in enormous quantities and probably at better rates than we can supply them. Suppose a high tariff should prejudice the British people against us, suppose that we -should lose that market, suppose that the additional cost that the lumber men have to pay on their supplies and provisions would make the cost of lumber higher than that at which it can he produced in Norway and Sweden and with the lower freights and shorter distances to carry the Norwegians and Swedes should exclude us altogether from that market and thus destroy to a great extent the lumbering industry which is one of the largest Industries in Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces-suppose these things happen, I would like to know if, under this scheme which is being proposed, parliament wotild be prepared to impose a duty of a dollar a ton or more on the anthracite coal which is imported into the province of Ontario. I want to know if the manufacturers of Ontario, as compensation, would submit to pay the increased cost of those articles which we are told enter so largely into the cost of these products. If we were to lose the American market and if we are to be put under the disadvantage of the increased cost of the production of the article of coal, the coal miners will naturally look to an increased market in western Canada. Are the farmers, the manufacturers and the coal consumers in any part of western Canada prepared to pay a very large additional amount for that necessary article ?

Again, Sir, the loss of the carriage of these articles to Europe would cause an increase in the price of freight, and the reduction of the quantity of articles brought to the west from Europe, would cause an increase in tlie price of freight charged for carrying these bulky articles from the place of production to the place of consumption. England and other parts of Europe. I want also to know what compensation would be given to the labourers who handle these goods which are brought into this country. Would there be any provision made for them ; would there be any scheme of superannuation when they grow old; would there be any scheme of weekly allotment of wages to compensate them for the loss of the employment which they have all along oh-1 Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).

tained ? Would the miners, the exporters, the steamboat men and all others be content that their employment should suffer, and that they should lose their great industry, lose their great employment, lose the labour of their people, their wealth, their maintenance, for the sake of charging an additional tariff on goods in order that the consumption of these goods may increase. These questions are quite crude, as I have put them down, they need elaboration, and they might be elaborated by the skilful mind of the leader of the opposition. At all events, they would have to be considered. They are of living interest in the country; there are a large number of people who are concerned in them and they want to know. We are told by gentlemen on the other side that the tariff is unsatisfactory, but is it not true that with the adverse conditions which an increase in tariff would bring about, there would be a great deal more dissatisfaction. My hon. friend from St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) compared the United States with Canada, and he said in effect: that

the United States had been built up by a high tariff; that it had become a manufacturing country mainly, that Canada could imitate it, that Canada would become a second United States if the tariff was increased and if we were to become a manufacturing people. Well, there is no analogy between the United States and Canada. There can be no just comparison formed between them. The United States front on two oceans ; it is almost a square block of territory; it is intersected by great rivers; it has the most wonderful productions in the soil and it has all kinds of minerals in rich profusion. It lias a great quantity of cultivated land; a great quantity of rich soil. It has advantages which Canada does not possess in that it is a part in the semi-tropical regions; the greater part of it, of course, being in the temperate zone. Furthermore, it is a continent, it is a continent in itself. It enjoys free trade throughout the whole of it; it enjoys its own market. There is no legislative restriction on the interchange of goods between one state and another. They have every facility of transportation; they have cheap transportation by river and canal and quick transportation by railroads and every such appliance that can be invented. The United States cannot repeat itself. It was brought into being at the most favourable epoch. The manufactures of the United States, its agricultural interests, its resources were built up in the trying times of the Napoleonic wars. They were matured and encouraged by circumstances which can never be paralleled. They obtained their vast extent, their predominance, simply because the rival nations were engaged in cutting each others throats, and destroying each others resources, and the United States at that time went on to build up her resources and to flourish. There is no comparison

possible. Canada must now enter into competition with the most highly developed nation in the world. If we take the line, not of utilizing our natural resources in which we excel; not of cultivating the design of being a great user of raw material; if we take the line that we shall not aim at sending our grain, our cattle, our deals, our flsli, all our products to these highly cultivated countries in Europe, and if we are to aim at rivalling them, we have undertaken a great contract. My contention is, Sir, and it is the contention of this side of the House, that we should largely follow the lines of developing our natural resources. We should not destroy ourselves by emulating our rivals or by competing with them in things in which they have a great predominating advantage. On the contrary, we should use our own resources in which we have advantages and use them for the benefit of the whole people of Canada. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that a short time ago when you and I were boys, there was a very popular economic work called ' Poor Richard's Almanac,' and Richard complained that his trade of almanac making was very much interfered with by a rival almanac-maker. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition is a constructor of tables and he has great rivals in the construction of these very useful implements. There was some time ago a very interesting discussion in this House, and my ears were wringing with the eloquence of the member for Simcoe, who announced in very emphatic terms that this government had increased the duties on the articles which were consumed by the poor-cottons and other fabrics-while they had reduced the duties upon the silks and ribbons of the wealthy classes. Our rival table-maker from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) in making up his list of the articles which formed the necessaries of life on which duties were increased by the tariff in 1897, charges the government in the opposite direction, for he says: That the duties were increased from 30 to 35 per cent on ribbons of all kinds. Well, I do not think that ribbons are necessaries of life. And then, as a further necessary of life, he quotes $7,000,000 of sugar on which the duty was increased from 50 to 06 cents. I quite well remember the exhaustive and learned argument of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) on the establishment of the sugar industry, in which I believe he went the length of saying that the duty on sugar should be very much increased for the benefit of the sugar industry; while the table-maker from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) denounced the taxes which were levied on the necessaries of life by this wicked government. Mr. Speaker, we send $107,000,000 of our productions to Great Britain. How are the British people to pay for these enormous quantities of goods which they import for consumption, if the countries which send those articles do not take in

exchange the products of British labour ? How are they to continue to be the great absorbing market of the world, if they can give nothing in exchange ? Their money would soon become exhausted. They would either have to abstain from importing those articles or they would have to convert their surplus land into wheat fields and produce for themselves many of the things which they now import. How could they find employment for their vast and teeming population if the products of their factories could not be sent to all lands with which they trade 1 Unless they are treated with reciprocal fairness, how can their resources continue ? How long can England continue to take freely our wheat, our timber, our cheese, our cattle and everything else we choose to send, if she cannot pay for these articles with the productions of the labour, the skill and the enterprise of her own people ? We know, Sir, that the great resource of England is not her army or her navy. These are her outside defences. We know that Great Britain has often in war perpetrated great blunders. At the commencement of many of her campaigns, from imperfect strategy or from lack of preparation, she has suffered defeat and discomfiture, and her resources have sometimes been reduced to a very low ebb by the military successes of other powers. But through all her wars, the war with Napoleon, the American war, the Peninsular war, the war with Russia, the resources which Great Britain accumulated from the labour of her mechanics, from the produce of her mines and the savings of her people, have carried her through all her struggles, and have brought her out triumphant at the last. Not alone her armies or her fleets, but the subsidies she was able to give to the other countries of Europe, enabled her to come through with unimpaired resources, and to spread her power and influence to all quarters of the globe, the triumphant, respected, venerable empire to which we pride ourselves to belong. And will Canadians now refuse to take a portion of her goods ? Shall we put up a prohibition against British goods ? When the British people take so much from us, shall we take offence at the rebuff we have had from Mr. Chamberlain, or from any one else who knows nothing about our circumstances or our affairs ? Or, shall we act in a generous spirit as children of the empire, and aid Great Britain in her great financial problems ? The lion is at bay, beleaguered by all the nations of Europe, ready through their protective tariffs or their governmental arrangements, to snatch the bread held in his hand. They are gathering around him, but he can fight them all; he can meet them all and vanquish them all, provided America does not combine with the nations of Europe in commercial rivalry or military operations to destroy the prestige and power of the empire. I wish my hon. friend from North

Victoria (Mr. Hughes), the Wallenstein of Canada, were here. I would ask him, although he feels himself to have been griev-iously treated by the British government, if he would stand up and vote for such a resolution as that proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition, knowing that the effect of it would be to aid the enemies of Great Britain in refusing to receive British goods, and to minify the resources of that great empire which depends on the labour and accumulations of her people during many years of peaceful industry.

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

Adam Carr Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).

Mr. Speaker, I have had a great deal of pleasure in listening to my hon. friend and fellow countryman (Mr. Roche, Halifax), but I find it somewhat difficult to determine which side of the question fye is on. I was glad to know that so far as protection to all the native industries of Nova Scotia is concerned, he was sound, and I presume that, generally speaking, he will be found not to be a local politician, but a gentleman of breadth, who is prepared to support not only the industries of his native province, but those of the Dominion generally. I was inclined to think that he was a little severe on the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) in passing over the argument which I understood him to say the hon. leader of the opposition cited on the authority of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, as to what was the proper rate of expenditure for this country, so carelessly and lightly as he did. We are inclined on this side of the House to regard the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce as a very weighty authority; and I was a little surprised to find my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Roche) disposed to pay very little attention to that authority. As I said, I am somewhat at a loss in attempting to reply to or criticise the speech of the hon. member, because I failed to grasp very clearly what his attitude on the question of protection was. From what I heard, I rather supposed that he was inclined to support the amendment moved by his colleague from Halifax, the hon. leader of the opposition ; and perhaps for that reason we should not criticise him at all, but rather welcome him to our ranks as an ally. The discussion which we have had in connection with the budget has been, as usual, one which has taken a somewhat wide range. I suppose, strictly speaking, we should confine our arguments in this debate entirely to the amendment of my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition ; and tvhile I shall no doubt be permitted to avail myself of the same liberality and kindness as the House has extended to other speakers, I shall endeavour to do so as closely as possible. It is somewhat difficult to fasten oneself down to what is more particularly the object of our debate at this moment, and it is almost inevitable that one Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).

should wander more or less over the whole range of subjects introduced by the Minister of Finance in the course of the speech.

Generally speaking the result of the discussion so far has not been to emphasize any great difference of opinion between the opposing parties. I do not think that any one at all speaking from the government benches, with the exception probably of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) has pronounced any strong opinion in favour- of free trade or a reversion to a low tariff. Generally speaking the trend of the speeches made from the other side has been not to declare for any present increase in or revision of the tariff, but rather to discuss when is the proper time to make that revision. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance certainly did not very definitely lay down any opinion on the subject of protection or free trade. I know of no one in this House who, during this debate or at any time, has advocated what is strictly free trade. While the hon. Minister of Finance did not announce himself as opposed to the revision of the tariff, either this session or last, neither did he in either session advance any reason why this tariff revision should not be made at the proper time. Naturally he used the opportunity given him t,o bring prominently to the notice of the country-which I think it was perfectly legitimate for him to do-the fact that Canada is to-day in a highly prosperous condition. I now repeat what I have said on every occasion when we have had the pleasure of listening to a budget speech made in the exceedingly prosperous times in which the lot of this government has been cast, that we are as delighted as are our hon. friends opposite over this prosperity. In fact we are more so because it enables us to demonstrate to any reasonable audience that the abundant prosperity now prevailing in this country is due entirely-so far as it may be said to be due to the legislation or the efforts or the foresight of any administration-to the foresight and the wisdom of the administration which preceded the present one. Generally speaking, the country is much interested in the facts and figures given on the occasion of our annual stock taking. As a rule, the average citizen looks more particularly to the facts and figures showing our trade and the ratio in which that trade is expanding. The average citizen looks to the general impression prevailing in his own mind and to be found in the opinions of the people as well, as showing the existence of good or bad times. But he does not, as a rule, make as close and careful an estimate of our circumstances in exceeding good times as he does in those which are less cheering. He is not disposed to be so critical when times are prosperous, work plentiful and wages good, as he is at other times. Still if he will give his atten-

tlon to tlie condition of affairs in the country generally, he will find every reason to admit that while the government has its lot cast in prosperous circumstances, on the other hand this prosperity is largely offset by the fact that he is contributing to a very large extent to the revenue and the resources of the government. Our population is increasing at a fairly good rate. It is estimated by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, and no doubt fairly, that we had in Canada in April of this year about 5,500,000. At that time we were collecting from those 5,500,000 some $65,000,000. A year ago we were taking from the same people-or some 50,000 less-some $58,000,000. A year ago these 5,450,000 people had expended for them by the government nearly $64,000,000. In the course of this year, as nearly as I could estimate the expenditure for the current year-the hon. Minister of Finance did not give the exact figures in his speech-the expenditure of this country will be something like $58,500,000 down to the 30tli of June. That is to say, to put it into the form in which it will come home to every man, our revenue of 1902 was $10.55 per head of the people and in 1903 it will be $12 per head. Then our expenditure, which in 1902 was $11.80 per head will this year, 1903, be $11 per head. If you multiply these figures by five and a half-taking five and a half to be the average number of a family-you will arrive at the exact amount, or nearly so, which every head of the family contribute in taxation, in one form or other, to swell the revenue and resources of the government. And on the other hand, you will find, by the same process of calculation, just about what this government is expending per head of the population. The result shows that in good times the amount of money which the government collects from the individual citizen, in one form or other, is largely increased, and that the amount which our paternal government is expending for him is still more largely increased. The net result is that just as in the case in a period of inflation, the business of the whole country is approaching the point where depression is bound to begin, so this increasing expenditure is bound, in the course of a few years, to bring about that change when the individual citizen will begin to realize that the times are not so good and that he is being taxed too heavily.

Now,, though, two years' ago the Finance Minister expressed the opinion that we could not always have good times, that we could not always be upon the crest of the wave of prosperity, that, under the operation of natural laws, hard times would follow the good times, yet I do not find any evidence in the financing of the present government of any great preparation for these hard times which they say they expect and which we know they must expect. We have the fact that this year there is an attempt, or a tendency to prepare for a

rather more limited expenditure. But I am inclined to suspect, and I think my suspicion will prove fairly well founded, that this is not so much an evidence of a change of heart with respect to the matter I have just referred to as it is an evidence, which we may well take to heart, that the country may expect to be in the throes of a general election at an early date. It seems to me that the tariff bears evidence in several particulars to convince any disinterested person who looks at its provisions that this government will appeal to the country before long, probably before another session. I may be mistaken in my judgment, but I do not think I am. Therefore, I do not attribute to any desire on the part of the government to relieve the burden of taxation upon the people, any diminution of the tariff that we may see; but I look upon it, rather, as the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) said in drawing a distinction between the ways a government may manage its business, as politics, not policy. Now, the reasons assigned by the Minister of Finance for not favouring the country with a revised tariff at this time were three. First there was the prosperity of the country, which he said was a sufficient reason why matters should not be disturbed. The second was that this government had made application to the British government for preferential treatment. The third was that negotiations were to be resumed with the United States with a view to negotiating a reciprocity treaty with that country. We have to admit, and we admit with pleasure, the fact that we have prosperity in the country. We must admit that we have rather abnormal prosperity in this country. If we look back over the years the government has been in power, we must see that this is a government that has had an exceedingly great share of good fortune. There was a series of years, when the late government was in power, when we had not one go id harvest. In that I speak particularly of my own province. On the other hand there has not been a year since this government came into power when we have not had a good harvest. And, if my hon. friends opposite want an argument, an argument such as I have heard them use in the past, they have it in this fact. They may ask, as they have asked : What can be said against

a government so blessed by Providence as never to have known a bad harvest ? But not only have we had exceedingly large increments of wealth from the hands of Providence in the shape of large harvests, but we have had the special advantage that, almost uniformly, we have been able to sell these large harvests at high prices. Since 1897, we have had good prices. But we are not willing to allow the government to use the argument that these good times, these great harvests and favourable prices, are to be attributed to the fact that they are in power. We are quite willing that they should make these statements to their

friends. They may form themselves into a mutual congratulatory society for that purpose. But we cannot allow such a statement to pass here unchallenged. We must recall to the minds of the people the fact that while times are exceedingly good in Canada, times are exceedingly good everywhere throughout the world. To this, I presume, we may, to a certain extent, attribute 'the fact that we have good prices. Not only have we customers abroad who can buy- what we want to sell, but those customers are in easy circumstances and cau pay good prices. A good deal of time has been spent in this House arguing as to the effect of the British preference. But that preference is about to undergo the experience which generally comes to every visitor who outstays his welcome. It looks very much as though the British preference, which was hailed by the friends of the government as one of the most cherished and beloved of all the products of the brains and heart of this administration, is to have its face turned toward^ a cold outer world and the door closed behind it. There has been, however, a great deal of argument addressed to the consideration of this very matter. It has been argued upon the government side that the British preference has resulted in increasing British trade with Canada. And the speakers upon the government's side point to the fact that, while British trade with Canada had sunk to a point when the imports amounted to only $29,000,000, those imports have increased to $12,000,000. And as this has synchronized with the period of the British preference, so they have assumed and stated very freely-led by no less a person than the Minister of Trade and Commerce-that this very desirable result of increasing the trade of Great Britain with Canada is due to the . operation of this preference tariff. Unfor-tuuately for that argument, British trade f with Canada began to increase just at a time * when not only the British preference was i introduced but Britain's trade with every ' other country commenced to increase. And, i while I think it would be idle to argue that i the British preference has had no effect In i increasing British exports to Canada, yet, ] when we see an increase in the volume of j Great Britain's business with every other i country going on regularly from 1897 to the ; present time, we see that it is absolutely i impossible to hope that the Canadian pre- j ference was the cause of the increase that < has actually taken place in Great Britain's i exports to Canada. Hon. gentlemen opposite ( say that Canada's purchases in Great Bri- 1 tain since the preference tariff was intro- i duced have increased, and, following that i form which has always been held as a < model of defective reasoning, post hoc ergo i propter hoc, they say that the fact that this i increase follows the introduction of the pre- ( ference is of itself proof that the increase i was due to the preference. The history : of the trade of the world goes to show, I ( Mr. BELL.

think, conclusively that this is not a sound contention. Nevertheless I am not at all disposed to say that the British preference has had no effect whatever in increasing the trade of the mother country with Canada. We on this side of the House, I think, looking upon it as a compliment, looking upon it as an act of grace, and kindness, and friendliness, are not disposed to find fault with that preferehce; but in view of what is likely to be the treatment of that preference by the government, we are disposed to repeat what we said many times in the past, that in respect ofl this preference the action of the government was hasty, without due consideration, and that we are not unjustified when we assert that the government of 1897 blundered into the British preference, and will probably now, in some ungracious fashion, blunder out of it.

Now, the question whether we should revise our tariff, the question whether we should increase our protection, must largely be finally decided by considering what it is that makes times so good in Canada to-day. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance holds that because we have prosperity in Canada, the tariff requires no interference. That is to a certain extent a fairly workable theory on the old principle that you should let well enough alone. But if you look carefully into the conditions which are making trade good in Canada to-day, and I suppose are making trade good elsewhere as well, you will find that a statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the course of his speech the other day, was, I think, absolutely erroneous. He cited as an instance of the good working of the present system, which he described as a revenue tariff system, the fact that the imports of this country were increasing out of all proportion to the exports-if I did not misunderstand him, and I looked over his remarks again. Now. what have been the distinctive features of the trade of Canada during this period of prosperity since 1897 ? Whereas, during the whole history of Canada, from 1867 onwards, the imports of this country exceeded the exports by an average sum of about $14,000,000, during the present period of the regime of this government, for the most part the exports of Canada have largely exceeded the imports. We are not living in a normal condition of affairs. We are not living in Canada to-day as is the mother country habitually, in a condition of affairs in which our imports are equalled by our exports with some other resources. On the other hand, we have a condition of affairs in which the prosperity, activity and industry of Canada are producing commodities, largely natural commodities, but in some cases manufactured commodities, and in others what we might call quasi manufactured commodities, the products of the farm, largely in excess of the average imports; and we are therefore building up for ourselves a credit upon which we may draw for some

years to come, and which will help us to tide oyer that period of depression which I think is undoubtedly in front of us, in common with all the other countries of the world.

Now, in addressing himself to the consideration of this question of protection, the Minister of Trade and Commerce confined himself altogether to a consideration of the condition of the agricultural industries, and he thought he had made a suflicient argument against protection when he said : You cannot protect the farmer. He said, The farmer ships his wheat to Great Britain, where he has to sell it in an open market in competition with farmers in every other part of the world. He has to take the market price, and we cannot protect him in the price which he receives for his wheat; and therefore, as he assumes, the whole argument is complete, and protection must be condemned because in respect of this one of the smaller items-certainly not one of the larger ones-you fail in that specific instance to protect the farmer. But how about all the other products that go to swell these exports ? How about all these other products which go to constitute that enormous stream of exports which fill the treasury of Canada, enabling us to buy from the world abroad all that we require for our comfort and luxury ? What about the products of the mines, the products of the fishery, the products of the forest and the manufactures of this country ? In respect of every one of these you will find that between the years 1901 and 1902 there were large increases, except in respect to the mines, which show a diminution, owing to a curtailed output in the Yukon :

1901. 1902.

Millions. Millions.

Mines

41 35Fisheries

11 14Forest

30 32Animals and products

55 60Agricultural products 39 48Manufactures

18 21

I maintain that in so far as these are concerned, there is room for a good government to do a great deal to benefit the condition of tiie producers, and to help them. I am not willing for a moment to limit the great principle to that one line of protection in respect of which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has told us that we cannot protect the farmer. I think you can protect the farmer in assisting him to send his grains abroad to the most open market in the world. All the expenditure that Canada is making for purpose of improving the mode of farming in this country, of expediting the passage of the crops to the seaboard, of assisting the farmer in the preservation of his perishable products, in teaching him and showing him how best to place those products on the market in order to acquire the highest possible price-ail that work is

of the nature of protection, and it is done for that one class at the expense of all the other classes of the country. Now, that kind of work can be greatly increased. Who is there in this House that would raise his voice against a policy of the government to double or treble the expenditure made in this country to-day to enable the farmers to produce their products at a lower price, to market them at a less cost, and to attain, by any reasonable government expenditure, the highest possible price in the market ? No one, I am sure. But that would be protection in the proper sense of the word. There are two ways in which you can benefit the producer and the man who has goods to sell. First of all, you can help him to get the highest price for his products. Or rather before that, perhaps yau can help him most of all by assisting him to reduce the cost of his products. That work has been done in this country, and is being done to an enormous extent, by the assistance which the government of to-day, following out the course laid down by the government of yesterday, is affording the farmers of Canada.

Now there is another cause to which are largely due the good times that we are enjoying to-day. That is, putting it in a more concrete form, the matter to which I referred a few moments ago, when speaking of the general prosperity. It is measured by the prices at which the commodities of this country and of other countries as well were selling in 1896. Take breadstnffs and other leading commodities. The prices in 1896 were 67 per cent of an assumed normal price represented by 100. In 11902, in March of that year, these prices had advanced from 67 per cent of the normal to 85 per cent. They have made an advance of 27 per cent, or nearly one-quarter above the point at which they stood in 1896. That was a time in our history when we had reached a low point of depression, a point in our history at which the government of the day were not in a position to say that their lot was cast in very happy times, and scarcely a time when the sunshine of prosperity was shedding its rays very fully upon them. But, we must remember that while we have a tremendous increase of products from the mines, our forests, and our agricultural lands, that our prosperity is not altogether owing to this great mass of products which is being placed at our disposal for sale, but it is to the favourable condition of the market to-day, and we must realize that we cannot always have plentiful harvests or good times, and that when the bad times come, when shrunken and shrivelled harvests occur, we will have shrunken and shrivelled prices as well. It should be the policy of the government not to live up to the full income which is given to it by the favourable times we are in at present, but to a certain extent, to be prepared for the bad times which unquestion-

ably will be ours before very long. Generally speaking, the manner in which the people of the country ought to estimate the advantage of their position, ought to measure whether or not they are being favoured by the government, ought to estimate whether it is a good government, is to measure it by the way in which it touches themselves personally. It is in the end inevitable that the general prosperity is represented -by the individual, that the wealth of the country is the wealth of the individual, that if too large drafts are being made on the individual purse, in the end it will be found that the common purse is depleted, and that the country, instead of being as prosperous as it thought itself, has not maintained and has not the power of maintaining the standard to which it has, to a certain extent, grown accustomed. Measuring it by the individual experience, you will find that these good times in which we are at the present time, have been accompanied by a tremendous draft upon the resources, the patience and the patriotism of the tax-payer. In 1896 the average taxation for customs and excise, the branches from which the government derive the largest part of its revenue from the people directly, was $5.46 per head. I am only taking the figures to be found in the ofllcial books, so as to leave the matter beyond criticism. In 1901 it had risen from $5.46 per head to $7.19 per head, or an increase of $1.73 per head, or over $10 per family.

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

Matthew Henry Cochrane

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COCHRANE.

They are bleeding the people white.

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

Adam Carr Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL.

I am sorry to find that one of my hon. friends on this side of the House (Mr. Cochrane) is recalling one of those old speeches which I think we in all charity should try to forget. He is reminding us of a speech in which an hon. member of the government spoke of bleeding the people white. It seems to me that the contrition which the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) must have felt hundreds of times in this House when this speech has been referred to ought to have produced for him a certain amount of forgiveness and a charitable desire to forget the old, unhappy words, and while they never cease from rankling in that hon. gentleman's mind and heart, it would be a kindness on our part not to remind him any further of them. There is, I must say, a certain amount of justification for my hon. friend who recalls that remark, because, in so far as the government of the country is concerned, the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce does not seem to make very ardent efforts to stop the process of bleeding. He does not seem to be so much opposed to whitened countenances as he was at one time. It almost seems that he had become a patron of vivisection, and was rather enjoying this bleeding process in order to ascertain how

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

Adam Carr Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL.

much bleeding a Canadian citizen could stand without absolutely expiring. The expenditure per head, which was $7.26 in 1896, and that was a time, when, according to our friends opposite, it was $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 too much for the good of the country, had increased in 1901 to $8.70. The revenue has gone up from $7.20 per head, to $9.55. Measured by these figures, which are put in such a form that every citizen, every householder, every head of a family, can 'decide for himself what was the relative advantage which he received from that protection loving government, that government which was said to favour combines and combinsters, which was said to be impoverishing the poor man and enriching the rich man, which was said to have nothing in its conscience or in its convictions, to check it from carrying Canada along on a course that was bound to end in its destruction, and what are the benefits he derives from the present government ? He now has an opportunity of measuring by these simple figures, by this yard stick, that I am putting before the House, which government has been the more satisfactory, and of determining to what extent one party or the other is more deserving of his confidence. Let us, for a few moments, see what results from the process which this government is carrying on. It is not economizing, it is spending money more freely, it is not reducing taxation, it is rather increasing taxation. It is not content with being a protectionist government, as it really is, but it is a revenue tariff government as well. It cannot get enough money out of the people with a protectionist tariff alone, and therefore it adds to it a revenue tariff as well. In the mother country, today, the government levies taxation for revenue and it does not exact anything out of a protection tariff. It takes its tax upon sugar and tea, and it, in a great emergency, took a tax upon corn, and it collects in general a large amount of money from these Indirect sources, but it is a revenue tariff government, and it does not take protectionist rates as well. In that respect our friends in Canada have learned not only from the government of the mother country, but from the United States, and to-day, while they _ are maintaining tariff rates of from 35 to 40 and often a higher percentage, they are in addition, maintaining in full force and effect every one of those great imposts which they placed upon the people when they came into power in 1897, and they are doing it in the face of the fact that they do not require it according to their own showing for the use of the country, and are simply undertaking to extract these vast sums from the pockets of the people in order that they may be able to wave over their heads a flag inscribed with the figures of the great surplus that they have heralded in order to mislead the citizens of this coun-

try as to the source from which that surplus has come, and which gives the present government the credit of being the greatest tax gathering government that Canada has ever known. The surplus in 1902 was $7,291,398, and the hon. Minister of Finance was proud of it. He has not for the first time boasted of his surplus. Two years ago he and his friends in this House were cheering and jubilating over the fact that they had the largest surplus that Canada had ever known. It was my duty on that occasion to recall to the mind of the hon. Minister of Finance and his friends the fact that they were shouting before they were out of the woods. I reminded these hon. gentlemen that they were not in possession of the largest surplus ever known, but that away back in 1883, when Canada was a comparatively small and poor country compared to its condition to-day, Sir Leonard Tilley had a surplus of $8,060,000, considerably in excess of the boasted surplus of to-day, and considering the condition of the country, if not in excess, it must be considered quite equal to the surplus which these hon. gentlemen anticipate at the end of the current year.

Our friends opposite are inclined to forget these things, or perhaps they do not take the trouble to know them. They do not seem to think, as has been well observed, that there is much profit to be derived by them from any study of the history of the parties in this country. For a time after they came into power, it was their fashion to devote all their ability to pointing to the prosperity of Canada and to citing this as evidence of the heaven born statesmanship of the gentlemen in power. All their speeches in this House year after year contained nothing of argument, contained nothing but a simple vaunting and glorification of the fact that these gentlemen were in power, that they had a tremendously increased trade and a tremendously increased surplus. To some extent age is bringing to them wisdom and experience is correcting the pruriency of youth in this respect. Latterly there has not been so much evidence of a constant desire on their part to call attention to the fact that times are good and to claim the credit for it. But to my great surprise and regret, the Finance Minister- and I take a great deal of pride and interest in him, he being a fellow-citizen of mine from Nova Scotia-much to my regret, the Finance Minister, in his budget speech, lapsed most fearfully into the old fault. In his speech he takes the four greatest years of expansion of trade that this country has ever known ; he adds together the surpluses acquired in these four fat years, and he boasts that he is able to show in these four immensely prosperous years a net reduction in the debt of Canada amounting to $94,000. I suppose that the Minister of Finance may be admitted to be at least, if nothing else, a good politician, and I presume

that he thinks that the recital of such figures as these, added to the fact that a Liberal administration has been in office during the time that all these good things are happening, will be a sufficient reason for the people of Canada to want to keep that particular brand of politician in office as long as possible. I presume that is his intention and purpose. Well, I do not know that it is a very convincing argument so far as I am concerned, and I do not know that it will be a convincing argument with the country. I can scarcely believe it possible that in our province of Nova Scotia, where the schoolmaster is abroad, and where we enjoy the blessing of the parish school which the Scotchman used to boast of ; I can scarcely believe it possible that the Minister of Finance will be able to persuade the people of Nova Scotia at all events that because there has been a large trade in the last four years, and because the government has been unyielding in extracting the last drop of blood in the shape of taxation, and thereby rolling up an immense surplus ; I can scarcely think it possible I say that that will pur-suade any reasonable Nova Scotian to be thankful for the fact that he has been ground under the force of the wine press to such an extent as to enable the government to boast of the fact that out of the taxes of the people the government has reduced the debt of Canada by $94,000 in these four abundant years. But even if our education in Nova Scotia were not so advanced as it is, I think that in the Scotch county of Pictou, or in the Scotch county of Victoria, whence my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Ross) comes, our knowledge of Scripture would help us to give an answer to the boasts of a government with such a record as that. We would be able to avail of the instruction we received in the Sabbath school and at our mother's knee, and we would recall the experience of Pharaoh, whose Finance Minister had administered fat years and lean years. If Pharaoh's Finance Minister would come to him and say : Look what a wonderful Finance Minister am I ; In these four fat years I have actually cut the expenditure of the country down by $94,000 under the receipts ; I have accumulated a genuine surplus of $94,000, or about $23,000 a year ; what do you think Pharaoh would answer to such a Minister of Finance ? In the face of the fact that Pharaoh and the rest of his people knew that the four fat years would unquestionably be associated with four lean years. Pharaoh would say to such a Finance Minister : Surely thou tallest me for a sucker.

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

Arthur Samuel Kendall

Liberal

Mr. KENDALL.

He would vote all right, though.

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

Adam Carr Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL.

I cannot believe he would vote all right. I cannot believe it possible that the people of my province would not be saved either by their knowledge of Scripture or by their knowledge of arithmetic,

and that they would not agree with Pharaoh that the Finance Minister should have been able to report something better than that. If in a condition of things which has been unparalleled in Canada, and during a time when there were no great public works to construct, no unusual demands made upon the treasury ; if during these times which are absolutely unexampled in their prosperity, and when conditions exist that might have justified the claim of this government to being the greatest administrators Canada has ever known ; if in the presence of all these things they can only keep the expenditure of this country under the revenue by $23,000 a year, I say, Sir, that they have failed to establish the fact that they are an able, or a competent, or an economic administration.

Now, Sir, the amendment which lias been moved by the leader of the opposition is to the effect that we should at once proceed to change the tariff ; not to change it radically, because to my mind that is not necessary. We are to-day, on both sides of this House, either supporting or opposing, as the case may be, an administration which is a protectionist administration. I cannot for a moment see how my hon. friend from Victoria (Hon. Mr. Ross) can sit with any kind of comfort or quiescence on his side of the House at all, because he is undoubtedly, as he takes occasion to let the House know, an ardent free trader.

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

William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. NORTHRUP.

He used to be.

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

Adam Carr Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL.

How can my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Ross) content himself to sit under the administration that is now in power, and be content to believe that he is a free trader ?

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

William Ross

Liberal

Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).

Where would I go ?

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

Adam Carr Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL.

Well, if the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Ross) is going to support a protectionist government at all, he should support one that has the proper brand of protection to offer. Let him come to this side of the House and assist us in getting a little more protection-not a bit more than this government professes to be willing to give- but to get it at such a time as it will serve the interests of the country. Then, if my hon. friend is anxious to know where he must go, I would suggest that he must form a government of his own. My hon. friend is very fond of telling stories. I remember one which I think would fit his case. A preacher was telling about the two great roads- the narrow one which led to salvation, and the broad one which led to perdition-and a coloured brother who was listening said: ' In that case, this coon must take to the woods.' My hon. friend, I think, will have to take to the woods to get comfort, for in my opinion he has not a very happy home on the side of the House where he is now.

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

Adam Carr Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL.

The motion before the House is substantially that the protection which we have in Canada to-day is not adequate or sufficient, and we should at once adopt increased protection or modify or change the protection which we have in such a manner as to make it more effective. There is no doubt that the Finance Minister is right when he says that at present a great number of orders are coming to the manufacturers, and that their difficulty is in procuring labour and in filling orders. He is not as entirely right in that respect as he was a year ago or two years ago; because any one who is in contact with the manufacturers in this country must know that the day is comparatively past when orders were thrust upon them, when it was not a matter of price, but how to get the! goods. If I am not mistaken, the time has come when the old forms have to be gone through, when the producer has to seek the customer instead of the customer chasing after the producer. The fact is, judging this matter entirely from an economic standpoint, it is impossible to deny that this government is logically in a position to give the country more protection. It is impossible to doubt what their duty is to-day. There is no reason why they should balk at or shrink from giving the country protection. To my mind the rather apt expression of my hon. friend from St. Mary's, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) applies to the whole position of Canada to-day, when he said that the course followed by the administration did not represent policy, but politics. Why should the government hesitate to give the country a little more protection ? The government of Canada is in a far better position to give an increased rate of protection to-day than it was in 1897 to give the rate of protection whicn we have now. This government came into power in 1896 fully pledged to do away with protection. It had gone through a great many changes of mind as a party. It had wooed the public of Canada under a great many guises. It had been a commercial uuionist, it had advocated unrestricted reciprocity, it had worn the clothes of the advocate of continental free trade, and finally it approached the last election, at which it was victorious, in the garb of an advocate of a revenue tariff of the brand they have in England. When the government came into power in 1896, it was pledged so far as a party could be pledged by the utterances of its leading men, to do away with protection in Canada^ There could be no question about those utterances. The right hon. leader of the government, when he visited Winnipeg, told the people of the west that he was there to preach to them the gospel of free trade, that it was the message that would bring them relief from bondage, that it was not an imaginary bondage, but as real as that which had existed in the United States, and that he would lead them out of that bondage to a land

flowing with milk and honey, the land of free trade. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, too, exhausted the resources of the language in pronouncing the protective system as one which was, not human, as one which was inhuman, and he posed as the St. George who was going to pierce the dragon of protection with his spear. If we wanted examples to place in our school books and to put into the hands of our children as everlasting warnings against a disposition which was irrational, insincere and nnsound, we conld do nothing better than take extracts from the speeches delivered by tbe Finance Minister and the lion. Minister of Trade and Commerce, and other members sitting in the government of Canada to-day. These hon. gentlemen came into power in 1896 pledged to abolish protection. Did they abolish it ?

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

Matthew Henry Cochrane

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COCHRANE.

Not much.

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

Adam Carr Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL.

I think that is a very good answer; it exactly summarizes the situation. They could easily say that they had nd mandate from the people to abolish protection or to introduce free trade, and we are bound to say that that is true. They were not elected in 1896 upon their tariff policy. It was not a decision of the people that they wished to turn from protection and revert to free or freer trade. Hon. gentlemen opposite were put into power largely as the result ofl an agitation and a movement which drew a line across the tracks which the two parties had been following, and which had created the most extraordinary alliances, and out of the action of those extraordinary alliances the present government came into power. Therefore, I feel grateful that they did not give us free trade in 1897. Between the contending forces in the government, some for free trade, some for revenue tariff, and others for common sense and protection, if I were not convinced that common sense and protection would be successful, I would regard the hon. gentlemen as benefactors, because they have failed to do what they pledged themselves to do. They might have taken the reverse course; they must have said: AVe must be consistent; there are people who supported us because we professed ourselves ready to bring about free trade.

I do not, in my own heart, believe that they had a mandate from the people, when they were elected in 1896 to change our policy. They had ample excuse for doing so. They had claimed for years that the Conservative policy was a mistaken and damaging one which they were going to change. They did not change it in 1897. On the contrary they gave us the same policy that came down form the Conservative party since 1879. All they did was to make some small reductions in the tariff. According to some statisticians on the other side, the reductions they made ranged from one to one and a half per cent

not very far from one per 61

cent. Contrast this with what was done by previous administrations. The Conservative administration, which previously held office, never for a moment denied that they were protectionists, yet they often made greater reductions in the tariff, when they thought it was in the interests of the country, than have been made by the present government. So that so far as regards the extent to which they have reduced the average taxation of the country, these gentlemen had every example from the Conservative government to warrant them in going to the extent they did. But now when there is undoubtedly a demand from the country and from the manufacturers for greater protection, t^is government hesitates to give that for which the people are clamouring. How is it that this government, which did not hesitate to incur the charge of shameless inconsistency by keeping intact in spite of all its professions, the system it had denounced for years in opposition as one of oppression, ruin and tyranny, which the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce was wont to stigmatize as responsible for all conceivable ills, real and imaginary, refuses to-day to act one way or the other. We now find the hon. Minister of Finance resorting to any and every kind of argument as an excuse for not doing anything. My own opinion is that in this case hon. gentlemen opposite, if without a policy, are not without a following. You will find to-day that the forces of this country are making for increased protection. Go over the proceedings of parliament since 1879, and you will find that there has ever been a conflict between the partisans of a high and a low tariff. You can see it iu our debates and in our legislation. The live question which divided the two parties has always beeu the question of protection to our industries. That question is still paramount. There is still a great demand for increased protection, and that demand is largely due to the fact that in 1897 the government plunged into the British preference. If they had not thrown that little sop to the free traders-for that is what it was-the people and the manufacturers to-day might have been fairly well content. But the result of the operation of that one feature, in respect of which they departed from the protective system, is the trouble they now suffer. I was not much amiss last session when I compared the government to Sinbad the sailor staggering along under the weight of the old man of the sea whom he had unwisely taken upon his shoulders and of whom he could not get clear. What is the position of the government to-day on this question? No one can tell. Last session there was agitating in the country, delegations were here waiting on the government, but the Minister of Finance shelved the question for the moment and gave the country to understand that the tariff revision would take place this year. He never said that tariff revision would never take place. All he said was

that the time was not yet opportune. And j Ue left the impression that in another year he would revise the tariff. What do we find to-day ? We find a change of wording but the very same plea used for doing nothing. The policy of the hon. Finance Minister is a do nothing policy. His policy is to borrow another year from the future. He is not pressed at the moment very hardly, but he might he if he undertook to decide the question. Therefore his argument to-day is exactly in the line of his argument a year ago. He furnished reasons why nothing should be done now, but he does not say that he will never do anything. Just look at the beautiful position in which this policy leaves the government. When in opposition these hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches had the support of the free trade element and also the support of those who were in favour of reciprocity with the United States, as well as of those who advocated reduced taxation and cheapened living. And we have the authority of the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that, at the last moment, in 1896, they also secured the support of the manufacturers by giving them the promise that if returned to power they would keep faith with the manufacturers and break faith with the free traders and those who favoured reciprocity. Viewed from the standpoint of a politician, the position of the government is an admirable one. If politics were statesmanship, if evasion or resposibility were the crowning mark of a statesman, I would say that the budget speech was exceedingly clever, and that the situation created for the government, with the assistance of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), is an admirable one. Here we have the Finance Minister practically promising protection. He says there is no reason why I should not give you protection but I will not give it just now. But as an assurance of my intention, I give you 87 a ton protection on steel rails, which surely is an ample measure coming from a free trader. Then comes the Minister of Trade and Commerce who makes a speech in praise of free trade. He has the audacity to tell the people that the present tariff is not protective at all but a free trade policy. He has the assurance to declare to the people that all the evils which existed under this tariff, while the Conservatives were'in office, disappeared the moment the Liberals took charge of the administration. He said that the tariff previous to 1897, which we all know is practically in existence to-day, drew $2 from the people for every one that went into the treasury, and then he proceeded calmly to argue that ever since 1897, by some mysterious mystical working out of a similar tariff, the extraction of the 82 from the pockets of the people has ceased- that while the government gets its one dollar, there is no tribute of two dollars to the manufacturers. This is arrant humbug-if

I may use that expression without violation of parliamentary rules, Mr. Speaker-it is asking the people of Canada to believe something which is manifestly absurd. To say that a tariff of 35 per cent previous to 1897 passed two dollars into the pockets of the manufacturer and one dollar into the public treasury, and that that same tariff of 35 per cent in 1897 ceased altogether to have that effect and that the two dollars are now left in the pockets of the people and only the one dollar taken out which was taken for the government by the Conservative government, is arrant humbug. If such assertions as that can be accepted by any rational creature as argument when given forth, as they are, with all the fluency and assurance of the Minister of Trade and Corffmerce, they may have some effect. But, to my mind, the only effect is to make every citizen wonder that any man can have the audacity to stand up in the parliament of Canada and seek to establish such a proposition. Now, you will see that the government has two strings to its bow. The Minister of Finance is ready to oblige the manufacturers at the right time, while the Minister of Trade and Commerce appeals to the farmers. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce tells the people that, though they pay increased taxation on their sugar and tobacco, and the same, taxation on cottons, woollens, and many other manufactures, there is no longer a protectionist tariff in existence but that they are living under a free trade system, those who believe in the Minister of Trade and Commerce and in free trade will naturally be prepared to vote for the maintenance and continuance of such an admirable policy, a policy which, by some mysterious process, keeps the old system in force and yet gets rid of its bad effects. But, to make the thing complete, and to make an ideal condition for a government going to the country, they are not satisfied with the manufacturers and the free traders, but they are going after that class, no matter how few or how many they may be, who believe in reciprocity. And, so we find the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) who came last year and propounded a big, manly policy-so far as words went-of meeting hostile tariff with hostile tariff and extending a measure of good-will and favour to the country that showed good will and favour to us-we find that hon. gentleman, at the beck of the government. ready to assure the people of the country, as the Minister of Finance is doing, that the time for increasing the protection against the United States, the time for setting up a tariff that will admit of a 40 percent reduction has not come. It will come- when ? Next year ? May be next year or in two years hence. But, at the moment, the hon. gentleman who argued so strongly and conclusively last year that it was essential to the people of Canada to assert their independence and manhood by meeting the

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

Adam Carr Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL.

hostile act of the American administration with a tariff that would put our manufacturers, farmers and other producers in a position of independence and equality, is induced to use his great authority with those who hold that particular brand of opinion to say, with the Minister of Finance, that that time has not come to follow this particular policy. So, you have a policy announced and advocated by the government and its supporters that will allow everybody, no matter what his opinions and hopes and wishes are, to vote for the government. And, no matter what his opinions may be, he has as good a chance as anybody else of getting what he wants. I think that a government that can take such a position as that is very fortunate. The only drawback that may cause us to say that they are not fortunate is that the people of the country may see through it and express the opinion which I have always thought was held by the people, that the government to admin- j ister the affairs of this country ought to have a clear, decided policy and express it honestly, that a government that would try to ride even two horses, much more a government that would try to ride three horses, would be sure to come to the ground. And, for my part, I feel that, by the course they pursue, they forfeit all confidence and all claim to the vote of every man who has opinions upon public questions and desires to see in control of Canadian affairs a government with a declared policy, ready to stake its existence upon the success of that policy.

There is one thing about this government which I think is very admirable from an educational point of view-it is a government that can learn. As I have said, they came into power pledged to free trade. They were only in power a few months when they learned that that would not do, and they adopted protection. They threw a sop, as I have said, to the free trader in setting up the British preference. I do not know anything that was ever so vaunted and magnified in this country as that alleged concession to the British people, the so-called British preference. They felt so strongly on the subject, that one time, their only course, when any objection was raised, was to challenge hon. gentlemen on this side with the question : Would you repeal it ? Manifestly, it was one of the most sacred things in the house of their gods. They could not believe that any man on this side would have the audacity to touch the sacred thing. But hon. gentlemen on this side were not slow to give their opinion. They said: There is nothing in the British preference so dear to us as the prosperity of the Canadian producer, and the Conservative party cannot be frightened by a bugaboo of that kind. You cannot silence us by saying that the Conservative party is not loyal to Great Britain. The record of the Conservative party was too good, too manifest, too con-61i

sistent, to give members of it cause to fear. The Conservative party was in a position to act upon its judgment, it was in a position to sa'y: No, we will not bind ourselves to support the British preference, unless it can be shown that it can be maintained without injury to Canada. Even up to two years ago, hon. gentlemen on the other side were ready to stake their existence upon the maintenance of the British preference. Where are they to-day with reference to that subject ? There can be no doubt that ip the correspondence and proceedings of the conference of colonial premiers there is a threat-it may be a veiled threat, but it is a distinct one-addressed to the British government, that if the government of Canada does not receive a quid pro quo, if it does not receive concessions in return for the concessions it has made, it will know how to act. So, this government is one that can learn-it has learned. It has learned from its Conservative opponents to become protectionist, to maintain a protectionist system in force, and it has learned that the criticism directed by its opponents directed against this so-called British preference, was sound. Hon. gentlemen on this side, even when this so-called British preference was proposed, declared that it was not a British preference, but involved a preference with any country that had a treaty with Great Britain, having in it the most favoured nation clause. They laughted at this assertion, but they learned that it was right in the course of time. This, so-called British preference was decided by the British courts to be a preference to be applied to every nation in the world that had a treaty with Great Britain calling for most favoured nation treatment. They were very fortunate then in the fact that the British government, in order to help them out of what was unquestionably a very awkward situation, incurred a certain amount of odium and ill-will from the German people and the Belgian people by denouncing the treaties which caused that state of affairs. And it was not the wisdom of this government of Canada, it was not their foresight, or their knowledge of the conditions that would ensue upon the establishment of the British preference, that kept them out of trouble, it was the kindness and assistance of the British government whicll got them out of trouble after they got into it.

Now these gentlemen are in a very awkward situation indeed. They have as usual talked far too much. The right hon. the Prime Minister who leads the government, and other gentlemen as well, have assured the British people over and over again that the preference was not given in a huckstering spirit, that we wanted nothing for it. The Prime Minister definitely told the British people that it was given in return for that splendid freedom which we enjoy in Canada. Now we still enjoy that splen-

did freedom. Why, then, do the present government propose to withdraw the British preference ? The manifest objections that existed when it was first given, involving the same concession to some twenty other countries in the world, had been removed by the assistance of the British government;' there is not the same objection to the British preference to-day that there was then; why, then, is it not to be maintained ? How is it that this government, which has been in power for six years, and which began with such magnamious declarations, such broad and kindly views, with such a complete absence of anything like chaffering, or bargaining, or huckstering-how is it that this administration to-day, after having assured the people of Great Britain that this concession was not given for a price, are now prepared, so far as we can judge, to withdraw that concession from the British people ? To my mind they are at last convinced that that British preference has been carried too far, has been raised to such a point that it is really inflicting a certain amount of injury upon certain branches of manufactures in Canada; and seeing no other way to relieve those branches of manufacture from the injury they are now receiving, the government has made up its mind to do a disagreeable and unpleasant duty. They are going to do that in the interest of the manufacturers of Canada, and if we can judge at all from their words, they are going to repeal that British preference.

Now they have to a certain extent repealed it already in connection with the surtax which they have imposed upon importations from Germany. They have to a certain extent deprived the preference of the value which it had in the minds of the British merchants. The British manufacturer is one man, and the British merchant is another. The British people are perhaps almost greater as merchants than they are as manufacturers. They gather into their markets the products of the whole world, and distribute them again to the whole world. Now the concession made to the people of Great Britain by Canada in the form of a preference, had a large part of its value from the fact that it permitted not only the British manufacturer but, the [DOT]British merchant as well to send into this country the goods which he had purchased in the marts and workshops of the various countries of Europe. That part of the value of the preference .is all wiped away. They have not made a formal withdrawal of, the preference, but you will find, in connection with the imposition of the surtax of one-third upon the duties levied upon German goods, that all goods imported from Great Britain, of which' the major part of the value is derived from work done in Germany, are to be subjected to the surtax; the British merchant will find that, instead of getting on those goods

a reduction of one-third, he will have to pay an increase of one-third. So that, so far as the products of German workshops are concerned, the preference has already been withdrawn from the people of Great Britain.

Now there is apparently a very strong opinion in the mother country that that preference is either of no value, or is not of sufficient value to warrant them in making any concession to us. They have refused within a few months to give to the people of this country a concession in respect to the cattle trade, which the people of this country feel they ought to receive, and which would be of great value to them. They have within a few hours repealed the corn duties, which were somewhat unexpectedly imposed upon grain last year by tlie British parliament, and which gave us the only hope we ever had that we would get a preference in the British markets. That hope has gone. There is, I fear, a certain amount of danger that a little ill-feeling may grow up between ourselves and the mother country in respect to this matter. In my opinion, now that the preference has been given to the mother country, I think it would be better, if any other way in the world could be found in which we could obviate or prevent the injury that is being suffered by certain manufacturers in Canada without repealing the preference,

I would say that would be a preferable course to adopt. The Canadian government has not formally repealed the preference, though it has to a certain extent, as I say, repealed it so far as the German goods are concerned. But there is absolutely no necessity why the Canadian government should repeal the preference. They can continue it. All it has to do is to follow the course that has been advocated and adopted in every country in the world that has a tariff in existence to-day, that is to say, where the tariff is an important matter, and where it has had to be changed to meet changing conditions and to meet friendly and unfriendly legislation on the part of other governments. All that is necessary for this government to do is to raise their general tariff, the very thing we are asking them to do. At this moment, by raising their general tariff, they can continue to give the people of the mother country that same preference which they now enjoy over every nation in the world. And this is what the mother country might expect of us, and it is, I think, a thing that we ought if possible to do. For my part I should be very sorry indeed to see the preference struck down or taken away in such a manner as might cause a great change in that feeling of kindness and good-will which it excited when it was given, and which it drew forth in large measure from the people of the mother country.

Now there were several other matters touched upon by the Minister of Trade and

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

Adam Carr Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL.

Commerce in his speech on the budget. I have already referred to his extraordinary declaration as to the effect of the tariff. Now the! Minister of Trade and Commerce has again this year referred to a subject which he dealt with largely last year. He deals in striking assertions, and he has again this year repeated an argument which he used last year when he wished to make capital for his party out of the prosperity of tiie country. He argued that because Canada is prosperous under the present tariff, the present tariff is the cause of prosperity. In connection with that argument he referred last year to the census of this country. In order to maintain his argument that Canada has made no progress during the last years of the Conservative administration, he asserted that the exodus from this country had been completely stopped. If all these things were true, I suppose we would have to admit that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had furnished certain reasons why things were well enough and we should not ask for a change. But the fact of the matter is that there is no warrant, so far as I can discover, for these assertions. They rest upon the bare affirmation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I think a little examination will show that probably he is entirely mistaken in what he says in that regard. He asserts that the census of 1S91 was absolutely wrong, that the figures were largely concocted; while at the same time he argues that the figures of the census of 1901 were correct.

Now these two censuses have been made by two different administrations. If one of these censuses be wrong the chances are that the last census is not the accurate one. The census of 1891 was made by trained enumerators. It was made by the same gentlemen who had made the enumeration in 1881. They were, to a certain extent experienced, while in 1901 the enumerators came to the business new and without previous experience. The enumerators had more to do, they had a larger number of schedules to fill in, and the chances are that the errors correspondingly increased. Taking the estimated population of Canada as made by a mathematical calculation from the census of 1891, and when the estimated population came in 1901 to be corrected, by the new census, the possible error in the original estimate in 1891 could not have exceeded 1 per cent, and it may not have exceeded it at all, because the error was more likely to occur in 1901 than in 1891. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce says the exodus has ceased altogether, that it was very active and that a great number of people were going out of Canada under the national policy as administered by a Conservative government, and that it had ceased under the national policy as administered by a Liberal government. The figures which I read in the

House last year are still available to any one who wishes to see them. A census taken by the Comonwealth of Massachusetts goes to show that the exodus, instead of diminishing after 1896, rather increased, and that more people actually went out of Canada and into the United States after the incoming of the present government than before the incoming of the present government. Therefore, that argument advanced by the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce to persuade the people that the country is prospering at the present time and that the cause of this prosperity is a revenue tariff, falls to the ground as far as the census is concerned. The census is rather an important affair in the history of Canada, and possibly a few moments of consideration may not be out of place. Last year one of the reasons advanced by the right hon. Minister of Finance why we should not have a revision of the tariff at that time was that the schedules relating to manufactures in the census were not completed. It is a rather singular fact that they are not completed yet. Two years have elapsed since the census was taken. Apparently the government laid the greatest possible stress on the importance of these schedules of manufactures. It was apparently waiting to obtain all the information in order to settle upon its policy, and although this service is entirely under the control of the administration, a remarkable fact exists that up to the present moment, two years after the census is taken, the members of the House of Commons have not seen one of these manufactures' schedules, (and so far as I can discover, they are not likely to see them. We are practically told that the expenditure on the census is completed. Still nil these important schedules which would reveal the advancement being made by this country in the matter of manufactures are still unclassified and untabulated and useless to the people.

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

Frederick Debartzch Monk

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MONK.

The hon. Minister of Finance said they had been completed.

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

Adam Carr Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL.

The enumeration may have been made, and the other day I received the schedule relating to the agricultural condition of New Brunswick, but, as far as I know, no progress has been made in the preparation of the schedules relating to the manufactures of Canada, and judging from the amount set down in the estimates, and the assurances we received the other day that only $10,000 more was to be expended on the census, it looks almost as if that work is not to be completed at all. Now, this is a very extraordinary thing. The hon. Minister of Finance was waiting last year for these particular schedules. He was not in a position to revise the tariff last year, and after waiting a year, we find that he is still disposed to wait another year, and not at all disposed to find fault with the fact that this census, which has cost as

much as the last two censuses, and twice as much as the last census, and is probably the worst census that has ever been taken in Canada, has not been completed. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he gets up to assure this House and the people of Canada that the census of 1891 deserve to be looked upon with suspicion, and to be criticised as inaccurate, is probably entirely wide of the mark.

Now, I do not wish to detain the House much longer, but I really feel as if it would not be amiss to call attention to a few things which were not in the budget speech. We find that there is a certain amount of protection. We have a tax of $7 per ton to be imposed on steel rails, but there are a great many things which are generally looked upon as proper and which generally find a place in the budget speech that did not find a place in the speech of the hon. Minister of Finance. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) drew a very amusing contrast between Canada and the United States, the most amusing contrast I have ever listened to, for in every thing he said, except in one or two items, the circumstances of the two countries were practically the same. One of these exceptions was the tropical or subtropical section of the United States. We were told that the United States fronted upon two oceans. Well, Canada fronts upon two oceans. We were told that the United States had enormous resources and rich lands. Canada has these. But, in speaking of one of these matters, I think he did make out a case. He pointed to the fact that Canada had no tropical or subtropical region. Undoubtedly, Canada has not, and in respect of that matter it is not probably as well rounded out as the United States, but I do not know that we would be willing to exchange our present climate and northern mining regions for the subtropical regions of the United States, which will not produce as good citizens as the hardy men of our high lands. But, there is a chance for a progressive and able government that is willing to stake its existence on the policy which it may enunciate to secure for Canada a tropical region in the West Indies. Two or three years ago the hon. Minister of Finance did seem to be making a little effort to secure trade relations with the Island of Trinidad, in respect to which, however, I fear he was not very successful. Although this is one of the most important questions from a national standpoint that could engage the attention of the government, no progress has been made, and apparently no attention has been given to this subject. It would be of the highest importance that all the British possessions on the American continent should be gathered together under one government. It would round out our nationality, it would make of Canada a microcosm, it would make a complete world in itself, and give a market for the produce of our fisheries in those islands, Mr. BELL.

and a- market for the sugar of those islands in this country. It would be worthy of the statesmen of Canada to undertake to bring these islands of the Carribbean sea under the flag of Great Britain that waves over Canada, but although this is an important matter, and although attention Is called to it from time to time, alhough it is mentioned in this House year after year, we find, so far as we can judge, that the government has not even attempted to deal with the subject, and has nothing to report in connection with it. There is another matter of even greater importance. There is the island of Newfoundland, the oldest British colony in the world practically, outside of the home island, and the oldest British possession in America. There is an island whose possession at some time or other is absolutely essential to the welfare of Canada. It commands the great sea approach, the gulf of St. Lawrence, in such a fashion as to make it impassible for the citizens of Canada ever to contemplate without shrinking, the idea that it should pass into the possession of any other power. It ought to be part of the confederation of Canada, and the work of bringing it into the confederation is the only work left to be done, because the statesmen of the Conservative party have completed the rest of the work so far as the northern part of the American continent is concerned. The work of bringing that last outlying post of British population within a Canadian nationality, is one that lies unquestionably at the door of this government. And yet we find that towards this question of the very highest national importance, this question that is so urgent that one must think it calamitous should the object not be accomplished ; towards this question our government is apparently indifferent. So far as we know, they entirely ignore its vast importance. It may be that there is correspondence, and we will, perhaps, get it some time, but so far as we can judge, no progress has been made towards bringing in Newfoundland, nor is there in the mind of the government of Canada any aspiration in that direction.

Then again, this government has made no effort to secure new markets for this country. The only action they have taken is in regard to our trade, is to impose a surtax on German products, and that I consider an exceedingly proper course to adopt. But that is in the direction of curtailing our markets and not of increasing them. It is, however, the right course to follow, and I was rather surprised to find that two years ago, speaking in the budget debate, when I took occasion to recommend the very course that has been followed, namely, that increased taxation should be imposed on the products of Germany, the Minister of Finance answered me by saying that the government had already imposed a preferential tax against Germany, and he argued that in so far as they had given a preference to

Great Britain they had imposed a disability on the German empire, and they were disposed to rest satisfied -with that. I am glad to say that in this respect as well as in others, the government has shown itself willing to learn, and that it has bowed to the suggestion of the opposition, and in respect to that its action in that particular It has the support and the good wishes of every man who sits in His Majesty's opposition in this House.

I believe, Sir, that the great question that is uppermost in the minds of the people of Canada is : Are we going to have a more active and a more positive realization of the purpose of keeping Canadian trade for Canada and the Canadian people ? It has been argued by the Minister of Finance that a policy of Canada for the Canadians would mean the disintegration of Canada; would mean the separating of the west from the east, because he alleges that the west and the east have such diverse interests that they cannot be harmonized. If that were the ease, we would have no nationality. If you could not get the inhabitants in one section of Canada to be willing to co-operate with those of another section in order to maintain a common policy for the common good, you would have no nationality and you would have no Canada. Such a suggestion coming from the Minister of Finance shows that he is not telling us seriously what he thinks on that subject. There is no country in the world in which the inhabitants living in different sections have not diverse interests. The people of the British Isles, two or three hundred years ago, were further apart, more divided by race, as much divided by religion, more divided by interests, and most of all divided by the want of intercommunication, than is the case with Canada to-day. But all this did not prevent the development of the home land, and it should not prevent the development of any part of the empire outside of the home islands in which there are the' advantages that we in Canada possess. The existing conditions in Canada should not prevent us looking to a homogeneous population, all of the same education politically, all of the same aspirations, and all with the same dream of a great imperial federation in which Canada is to occupy a foremost part. If it were possible to have in Canada a people who were so local and so selfish that they could not realize a national policy for the common good, and could not be filled with a common desire for the welfare of Canada, then we would not be the people that we are. But with such a population as we have, there is every reason to believe that there should not be any trouble in persuading the people of every section of this country to join in a policy which would be for the good of all. In opposition to that idea of a harmonious Canadian nationality, we had the speech of the hon. gentleman from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who was

put up to advocate the cause of reciprocity with the United States. That lion, gentleman advocated a policy, which if it could be enforced, would break Canada up into three or four sections. You would have on the Pacific coast a commonwealth comxiosed of two or three states of the American union, and the province of British Columbia. You will have in Ontario a people who had no care for their fellow-citizens of British blood in the east and west, but whose whole trade and whose whole sympathy would be with the people of New York, and Ohio and Indiana. And the people of the maritime provinces living under the idea involved in the speech of the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) would carry on their commercial affairs with the people of the United States, and on the whole you would perfectly destroy fOr ever that Canada which is in existence today. The fact that we have a Canada; that we have a national policy ; that our statesmen in the past have found it possible to persuade the people of Ontario to submit to a tax on coal and the people of the maritime provinces to submit to a tax on flour and cornmeal, because in doing so they are giving vitality to a national policy; all these facts accomplished in the past are a guarantee that they can be continued and should be continued with much more ease and much greater facility in the future. It is a very short-sighted policy, to my mind, to endeavour to persuade the people of Canada that the interests of the west cannot be harmonized with the interests of the east. It is quite easy to show that the interest of the arable west is at present very largely in the one direction. They are producing wheat. It is said you cannot protect the farmer. Well, the western farmer cannot be improved so far as his conditions are concerned as a farmer, because his conditions are absolutely perfect to-day. He has a magnificent soil, a perfect climate. He has seed time and harvest, and he is not subject to the interruptions which come to us in the lower provinces from the broken seasons we have there. He has an ideal condition of farm life, but he has one disadvantage- he is out there on the plains producing wheat and the farmers about him are producing the same crop; they are competing with one another ; his disadvantage comes when he goes to market, because the wheat which is grown by himself and his neighbours who are his rivals, is to be sold on the other side of the Atlantic ocean, thousands of miles away. He has to go five or six thousand miles before he can sell his wheat. Will you not protect that farmer when you can build up at Brandon, at Winnipeg, at Sault Ste. Marie, at ail the towns of Ontario and Quebec, large manufacturing and commercial centres ? You can protect the western farmer in the most effective and complete fashion by giving him consumers in Canada. But more than that, I think it would be anything but statesmanlike to admit that

the people of the west are to be for ever limited to the productions which they have now. To my mind the salvation of the people of the west is involved in their ceasing to be wheat growers exclusively, and in becoming mixed farmers. They are doing the best they can at the moment; they are doing that which is ready to their hands; and the conditions are so favourable that they are producing wealth to an enormous degree, and the whole of Canada is reaping the benefit of it. But any one who knows what the best conditions for the development of our race are, knows that the man who is living in a small house, and is merely a producer of wheat on an open plain, is not living under conditions tending to develop his highest characteristics as a man. These can only be realized by bringing to the prairies the mixed husbandry of the older provinces, and to that end the policy of the government must contribute as rapidly as possible. Not only is this important to the western provinces, but to the east it is absolutely essential. Though we are greatly interested in the west, we must not forget the east. We have not in the eastern provinces the great perfection of soil and climate that they have in the west. Our conditions in the east are such as to make it out of the question that the people there shall become great producers of grain. They cannot, in fact, realize the conditions of the west. In the east we can realize the condition of the husbandman who pursues mixed husbandry. But in spite of the assertions of the Finance Minister, the exodus in eastern Canada has not ceased and the people who are leaving are not going to the west; they are not tempted even by those marvellous lands of the Saskatchewan valley and the great plains; but they are going to the United States, to a highly protected country, to the manufacturing cities of the New England states, and it would be impossible to change the character or the disposition of those people. They are not disposed to be farmers; they are not convinced that the highest condition of life would be realized by their becoming farmers; but they wish to live a life of greatly diversified interests in which the manufacturing interests should occupy a very prominent and important place. These men do not want to live on a thousand acre farm without a neighbour within a mile and a half of them. They want to live in cities where you can enjoy not only all the conveniencies and comforts and pleasures available in cities to men with reasonable incomes, but where they can share the luxuries and refinements of life, and indulge their taste for the graceful and the beautiful. The disposition of these people is not only to go to the cities of the United States, but to build up cities in our country as well; and no policy would be the best for Canada or can secure the approval of the Canadian people, which does not recognize that there are in the country Mr. BELL.

I

great and varied possibilities entirely outside of the production of wheat even on the most fertile acres in the world. We want to build up in this country a state with great industrial resources. Who are the people who are taking the lead in the world today ? They are the great manufacturing peoples ; and with our vast country capable of supporting two hundred millions of people as rapidly as they can be put into it, with the skill and energy of our people, with our illimitable and varied resources, we should aim to develop the highest possible state of civilization, and to realize that ideal we must have not alone an agricultural population, but a people trained in all the varied pursuits that are to be found in countries which at this moment stand in the van of civilization. Therefore, while it may be good politics and good tactics on the part of the administration of the day to so shape their tariff and so control their discussions as to let the public of Canada feel that they will not be unfavourable to them, whether they are lovers of free trade or a revenue tariff or reciprocity or protection, it is not a position that stamps it as an administration of clear convictions, but rather as a do-nothing, opportunist administration, and one which cannot and ought not to have the hearty and earnest support of the people of Canada.

Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon) moved the adjournment of the debate.

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

Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned. On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.


April 27, 1903