June 17, 1903

?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Hear, hear.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Israël Tarte

Liberal

Hon. Mr. TARTE.

The first object of a revision of the tariff; the first object of the policy that I am now inviting the House to adopt, should be and would be, to protect and develop our farming interests. The interests of the farming community are intimately bound up with the interests of the manufacturers aud of the working men, except that they are a great deal more considerable. Permit me to quote a few words from an address delivered by Mr. Roosevelt, President of the United States, on the 3rd of December, 1901 :

With the sole exception of the farming interests no one matter is of such vital moment to our whole people as the welfare of the wage workers. If the farmer and the wage worker are well off it is absolutely certain that all others will be well off too. It is therefore a

matter for hearty congratulation that on the *whole wages are higher to-day in the United States then never before in our country and far higher than in any other country. The standard of Jiving is also higher than ever before. Every effort of legislator and administrator should be bent to secure the permanency of this condition of things and this improve-meint wherever possible.

I heard behind me a signifiacnt 'hear, hear,' when I said that the first ambition of those who want! a revision of the tariff should be to protect and develop our agricultural interests. I fervently hope that those who differ from us will not close their ears-not to my argument for that may be weak-but to the bare facts that I am going to endeavour to place before the House with all the fairness I am able to command. We are invited to think of England and to take our example from England. How often have I not been told : Look at free

trade England. Is agriculture prosperous in free trade England ? For the benefit of my hon. friends who believe that free trade is the friend of the farmer, I shall quote some extracts and some figures also which I have gathered from the best possible sources of information. Mr. Rider Haggard, a publicist, published last year two volumes which are of deep interest. They are entitled ' Rural England,' and are the result of several years investigation and travel. Mr. Haggard was instructed by the ' Daily Express ' to go all over England, and give a report of what he would see. Let me quote from the second volume the following extract:

Rural Population.

The truth is that after some years of experience and investigation, I am driven to the conclusion that the agricultural industry in England is as steadily going down hill as the capital sums invested in it are wasting ; that the owners of the soil are becoming impoverished ; that the farmers are at best making no headway. and. owing partly to poverty and partly to the natural discouragement that results from continual non-saiccess, are losing heart and enterprise. They work on but they work like tired men who may hope for better things, but do not expect them.

Writing half a century ago. Sir James Caird said on behalf of himself and his colleagues : ' we feel that we may speak with confidence and hope of the future. . . . We rise from our task .... with the firm persuasion that, though there are many exceptions, the great body of the landlords and tenants of England have, by mutual co-operation, energy, and capacity sufficient to meet and by degrees to adapt themselves to a change iVhich in its extraordinary effect on the welfare of all other classes of the community will sooner or later bear good fruits also to them.'

The ' change ' to which he alludes in these, the last words of his book, is that from protection to free trade whereof. I believe, Sir James Caird was an ardent advocate. Not often has a prophecy been made more completely refuted by the inexorable argument of fact, or at the least the good fruits that were to come ' sooner or later ' show no signs of arrival in 1902. more than fifty years after ho Hon. Mr. TARTE.

put this deliberate opinion upon record. Whatever free trade may have done for the country at large-and I maintain that of this matter we do not as yet know all the truth-it is certain that it has brought the land and the agriculture of England very near to the brink of ruin. The destruction which the opponents cf this far-reaching revolution foretold for thess was. it is true, postponed a while owing to the introduction of steam and other causes, but it has fallen at length.

, When we turn to the question of the decrease in the inhabitants of English rural districts, it is to find .ourselves confronted with some startling figures. I read that in 1851 the agricultural labourers of England and Wales numbered 1,258,800 and that in 1891 they had shrunk to about 780.700. What the census of 1901 shows their number to be, I do not yet know, but I shall ibe much surprised if it records any advance. Taking it on the 1891 basis, however, it would seem that whereas between 1851 and 1891 the population of England and W'ales had increased by about half, its agricultural inhabitants during this same period had actually decreased by over one-third, with the result that whereas in 1891 the urban districts could show a total of about 25,000,000 people, the rural districts held only about 7,500,000, that is some twenty-three per cent of the population, as against seventy-seven per cent living in towns or their immediate neighbourhood. These figures are very eloquent and very ominous, especially if a careful analysis of those of the last census should prove them to be progressive in the same directions.

Since the above was written X read in a prospectus issued by ' The Small Holdings Association. Limited.' that * It will be found on examining the census returns (for 19011 that there are decreases in the population in no less than 401 of our rural districts, and that in many cases the decrease has exceeded 1.400 persons.

People are deserting the villages wholesale, lea vine; behind them the mentally incompetent and the physically unfit; nor, at. any rate in many parts of England does the steady flow to the cities show signs of ceasing. Yet-and this is one of the strangest circumstances connected with the movement-those cities -whither thev go are full of misery.

Now, Sir. let ns have a few figures of the acreage under cultivation in Great Britain. The record published in 1902 established that there was in the area under wheat in 1901 a diminution of 144.000 acres, in 1900 a diminution of 15R.OOO acres, and in 1899 a diminution of 101.000 acres, making all told a diminution of 400.000 acres in these three years. There was also a reduction of the barley area of 1S.0O0 acres, in the oats area of 29.000 acres, in the turnips area of

24.000 acres, and in the mangolds area of Ll.OOO acres. Commenting on that diminution, Mr. Haggard says :

Because of the unremunerative price of wheat, ten thousands of acres have been withdrawn from its cultivation-indeed, free trade has sent down the corn area enormously. Whether or no their yield of the cereal could be profitably increased, as I and others firmly believe to be the case, we cannot get over the fact that our wheat acreage is now less than half what it was in 1857.

What about live stock ? The official records are to the effect that in 1901 the

number of cattle in Great Britain was reduced by 41,000 head, the number of ewes was reduced by 1S8.000 in 1901, and by

111.000 in 1900, or a diminution of oyer

300.000 ewes in the two years. The diminution in the number of pigs in 1901 was 202,000, a lower level than had been reached in any year since 1893. What about horsebreeding, one of the great agricultural interests of England formerly ? Sir Walter Gilbey, speaking at Bishop Stortford on September the 17th, 1902, said :

He was sorry he was unable to give then anything like satisfactory figures in regard to horse breeding in England, which he could only describe as being in a deplorable state. He did not wish to alarm them, but government rereturns showed a state of things in England at present which were very disheartening. It appeared that in ten years, from 1863 to 1873, we imported into this country 29,000 horses, while in ten years, from 1891 to 1901, we imported no less than 342,000 horses. Those were startling figures enough, but what was even more alarming was the fact that the horse-breeding business was getting worse every six months.

Mr. Haggard describes the condition of rural England in a very graphic manner in the following words :

The real peril, both to agriculture and, what is even more important, to the country at large, lies, however, in the fact that the supply is being cut at its source. The results of my inquiries on this point are even worse than I feared. Everywhere the young men and women are leaving the villages where they were born and going into the towns.

And again he says :

It is now common for only the dullards, the vicious or the wastrils to stay upon the land, because they are unfitted for any other life, and it is this indifferent remnant who will be the parents of the next generation of rural Englishmen. It must be remembered that the census returns will not tell the whole truth of this matter, since very often the rural districts include large townships. Also the elderly folk and many young children still remain in the villages, the latter to be reared up at the expense of the agricultural community for the service of the cities. As they mature into the fullness of manhood or womanhood, they leave their homes and are seen no more. This is certain-for I have noted it several times. Some parts of England are becoming almost as lonely as the veldt of Africa. There the ' highways lie waste, the wayfaring man ceaseth.' The farm labourer is looked down upon, especially by the young women of his own class

That Is very grave indeed.

-and consequently looks down upon himself. He is at the bottom of the social scale. Feeling ,that there is not hope for the future, he does not even take the trouble to master his business. He will not learn the old finer arts of husbandry; too often he does as little as he can, and does that little 111.

Mr. Haggard calls such a state of affairs a national question.

But behind the agricultural question lies the national question : What will be the result of

this desertion of the countryside and the crowding of its denizens into cities ? That is a point upon which it would be easy to indulge in strong words. The evils are known, and little imagination is needed to enable a writer to paint their disastrous consequence. I will, however, content myself with a moderate statement.

It can mean nothing less than the progressive deterioration of the race. In the absence of new conditions which cannot be foreseen, if unchecked, it may in the end mean the ruin of the race.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Permalink
CON

Edward Frederick Clarke

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARKE.

From what is the bon. gentleman quoting ?

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Israël Tarte

Liberal

Hon. Mr. TARTE.

From Mr. Rider Haggard and the English Blue-books. I have verified the exactness of these figures in the English Blue-books, which are available in the library. Mr. Haggard is not the only publicist who has expressed such strong views on the condition of agricultural England at present.

Mr. Byng, a well known English writer, published last year a book which I hold in my hand, and which is named ' Protection.' On page 193 he quotes some words from the Duke of Wellington in the House of Commons in 1842. Said the duke :

X earnestly recommend your lordships not to lend yourselves to the destruction of our native cultivation. Its encouragement is of the utmost and deepest importance to all classes, and I earnestly beg of you not to consent to any measure which would injure the cultivation of our own soil.

Then Mr. Byng goes on :

The agriculturist and the manufacturer are both producers, and the influence which our free trade policy exerts upon their callings is in the main alike. I have maintained, and I believe proved, the disastrous effects produced upon our manufacturing industries. I now assert that the existing system exerts its baneful influence to a fully equal extent over that most important of all the nation's handicrafts : agriculture. Free trade agriculture causes dearness in production, kills enterprise, prevents invention and the Introduction of new methods. It makes attempts at technical education inoperative, puts land out of cultivation and drives labourers away

It is now generally acknowledged that the ruin of our agricultural industries is not only a question of loss of money, but a disaster of national and political importance. The subject Is now 'engaging the minds of many politicians and specialists more competent than I to deal with it in detail. I need not, therefore, prolong this chapter, but will only add a few sentences.

We must protect our agriculture. It is the most pressing problem of the day.

In imposing protection, we must discriminate between those products which our soil and climate permit us to raise in abundance, and those we cannot grow in sufficient quantity and for the supply of which we must therefore partly depend on the importer.

If we enact duties in such a way that they can, without any cumbrous red tape, be adjusted to conform to the necessities of good and bad seasons, I feel certain such judicious protection would be immediately beneficial.

The result of such a measure would be to bring waste lands into cultivation, to encour-

4S52

age the population of the countryside, to raise rents, and the capital value of the land 'would regain hundreds of millions.

These are very significant words indeed. What has been lost to England by free trade, as far as the balances of trade are concerned ? I beg leave to quote from the ' American Economist ' of the 8th of May, 1P03, and the exactness of the figures given I have checked by the figures in the official Blue-books :

England adopted free trade as a fiscal policy in 1846, after an uninterrupted series of annual favourable balances of trade since 1815. She had a good start in the race for commercial supremacy, and did not begin to lose her annual favourable balances of from $353,000,000 (in 1846) to $578,000,000 (in 1853), till 1854, when the tide turned with an adverse balance of $177,000,000. Every year since the balance has been against her. In blocks of five years each her loss of national wealth since 1853 figures

up as follows :

1854-58 $ 791,000,000

1859-63 1,260.000,000

1864-68 1,396,000,000

1869-73 1,289,000.000

1874-78 2,667,000,000

1879-83 2,786,000,000

1884-88 2.161,000,000

1889-93 2,871,000,000

1894-98 2,619,000,000

1899-1901, three years .. .. 2,423,000,000

Total loss in 48 years. $21,263,000,000

So speak ' American Economist.' or an average loss of $443,000,000 yearly for forty-eight years. The loss was about $850,000,000 in 1902, and is accumulating at about the same rate in 1903. The half-century will show a total loss of about $22,963,000,000. The national debt of England is $3,061,000,000. Consequently the avoidance of this $22,963,000,000 of trade loss would have paid her national debt seven and one-half times over.

It must be borne in mind, Sir, that England was an ardently protectionist country tip to 1846. Nor must, it be forgotten that the full free trade policy was not initiated then. The duties were reduced gradually. In point of fact, the last duties were removed in 1860. The state of the British nation and the positions of the nations of the world were not then what they are now-far from it. Years of war followed the year 1860. There was war between Prussia and Austria ; there was the great civil war in the United States ; there was the war between France and Prussia in 1870. In point of fact, the nations of Europe and the United States began equipping themselves from an industrial standpoint only between 1872 and 1875. Free trade England, then, up to that date had not to compete against the same state of affairs, the same organization as that she has to compete against now. I have endeavoured to show you by the quotations I have brought to your notice the conditions of agriculture in England. Will you permit me then, Sir, to say a few words as to the condition of agriculture, in another country, the highest Ben. Mr. TARTE.

protectionist country in the world-I mean the United States of America. On a former occasion, I showed that the rural population in England during the last decade has increased 12-7 per cent, while the population increased 21 per cent. I beg leave to give yon now some figures which I hope will be considered with some attention by those who, as I said at the opening of my remarks do not wish to close their ears or their eyes to the great subject that is now under discussion, not only in this parliament but throughout the world at large :

Number of Farms.

In 1870 2,659,982

L 1900:: :: :: : 9,m,m

In 1890 the value of farms and farm

properties was 'IS

In 1900 it was 20,439,901,164

In 1890 the total value of farm

products was 2,418,76b,02S

In 1901 it was n

In 1902 it was

In 1890 the number of cattle was 52,801,907

In 1902 it was

In 1890 the number of horses was 14,213,837

In 1902 it was 16,531,224

In 1890 the number of sheep was. 44.544,7/5

In 1902 it was * [DOT] 62,039,091

In 1890 the production of wheat

was (bushels) 399,262,000

In 1901 it was 748,460,218

In 1902 it was 670,063,008

Corn.

In 1890 the production of corn was 1,489,970,000

In 1902 it was 2,523,648,312

Let us now compare the value, in money, of the different crops :

In 1890 In 1901

In 1890 In 1901

In 1890 In 1901 In 1902

In 1890 In 1902

In 1870 In 1900

Corn.

Wheat.

334,771,678

467,350,156

Oats.

222,048,486

293,658.777

303,584,852

Barley.

32,614,271

61,898,624

Implements and Machinery.

In 1870 In 1900

Live Stock. .

$1,525,276,457

" " .. 3,075,477,703

Now, I may be told that these figures are all right, undoubtedly they are. but I may be asked what benefit the farmers have derived from these figures. I have often heard well meaning people say : It is true

that the value of farm products has increased in the United States, and the value of farm properties has developed, but things are so dear that the farmers do not get any benefit from the increased value of their products. Farmers are the great consuming community, and they are obliged to pay

so high for the things they, want that the increased value of their farm products does not help them much. On this point let me quote some more figures. I know that figures are not pleasant reading in the House, but 2 and 2 make 4. In other words, figures are the strongest argument that can be made in such a debate as this. Let us see what has been the advance of the value of farm products from 1896 to 1901, and also what has been the advance of other products, so that we may find out what the farmer is able to buy in 1901 in comparison with what he was able to buy in 1896 with the same quantity of farm products. The figures which I am going to read are taken from the Statistical Year-book of the Department of Labour of the United States, published last year :

Advance in value Advance in

from1 purchasing

1896 to 1901. power.

Article. Per cent. Per cent.

Farm products . 49.30

Food, &e 26.37 18.15Cloths and clothing 10.62 34.97Fuel and lighting 14.57 30.31Metals and implements. .. 19.42 25.OkLumber and building ma- terials . 24.95 19.49Drugs and chemicals .. ., . 24.41 20.01House furnishing goods ., . 17.98 26.55Miscellaneous articles.. .. . 17.51 27.05Recapitulation , 21.02 24.40

In other words, the same quantity of farm products which brought $100 in 1896, would to-day buy $149. The advance is the price of other articles has been considerable, but the advance of the purchasing power of farm products has been much greater.

Now, let us eonsideri the price of certain commodities, to prove that the farmer in every case has been greatly benefited by the protective policy which has been adopted and maintained in the United States. The price of cattle was 32'05 per cent more in the latter year than the former. Fresh beef or cattle products advanced 12'82 per cent ; beef hams, 27 per cent; mess beef, 24 per cent ; recapitulation, 21 per cent, as against 32'05 per cent. What has been the result so far as national wealth is concerned? There is no doubt in my mind, or in the mind of anybody who has studied the history of the United States, that their policy has built up that country to a marvellous degree. The following figures need no comment:

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Permalink

TOTAL WEALTH OF THE UNITED STATES.


In 1870 $30,068,518,000 00 In 1870, per capita 779,083 00 In 1880, total wealth 42,642,000,000 00 In 1880, per capita 850 20 In 1890, total wealth 65,037,091,000 00 In 1890, per capita 1,038 57 In 1900, total wealth 94,300,000,000 00 In 1900, per capita 1,235 86 In 1903 the total wealth of the United States lias reached the wonderful figure of 8100,000,000,000. What has protection done in so far as inviting capital to the United States is concerned ? The investment of foreign countries in the United States on January 1, 1899, was practically as follows : England, $2,500,000,000 : Holland, $240,000,000 ; Germany, $200,000,000 ; Switzerland, $75,000,000 ; France, $50,000,000, and the rest of Europe, $35,000,000. We all know that the United States had a very formidable debt at one time, and that the interest on that debt was weighing heavily on the people. What is the state of affairs to-day ? The debt of the United States in 1902 was $969,457,241, and the debt of the United States per capita in the same year was $12.27. The interest per capita was 35 cents. I call the attention of the House to that figure which I take from the official statistical abstract for 1902. In 1903 the population of the United States was 79,003,000. The net debt of Canada per capita in 1902 was $49.97. The interest on the net debt per capita in the same year was $1.66. The interest per capita on the gross debt is $2.01, and the gross debt of our country per head is $67.14. In 1876 the debt of the United States per capita was $45.66, and the interest then was $2.11. Let me remind you once more, Sir, that to-day, instead of the $45.66 that the debt was in 1876, it is only $12.27, and that, instead of the interest being $2.11 per capita, it is only 35 cents per capita. In 1876 the net debt of Canada was $31.54, and the interest per capita was $1.42. The United States of America, under the impulse of the marvellous progress that has taken place there, have been able to diminish the interest charges on their debt, while we have been increasing our debt very rapidly indeed. It is of interest to make a short comparison of the effect that a high tariff and a low tariff may have on the revenue of the country. In 1893, under the McKinley tariff, the total receipts of the United States government were $461,716,562. In 1894, under the Wilson-Gorman tariff, the revenue immediately fell to $372,802,498. In 1895 the revenue was $390,373,203. In 1896 it rose to $409,475,408. I have just been dealing with the Wilson-Gorman tariff for 1894-5-6. Mr. McKinley came into office, and the Dingley tariff was adopted in 1897. Notwithstanding the fact that the depression was still having its effect, under the impulse of the new tariff the revenue increased rapidly. In 1896 it had been $409,475,408. In 1897 it was $430,387,168. In 1898. when the new tariff began to have its full force and effect, the revenue went up to $494,333,954, in 1899 to $610,982,004. in 1900 to $669,595,431. in 1901, $699,316,531, and in 1902 it was $684,326,280. Effect of low and high tariffs in the United States. (McKinley tariff.) Total receipts. In 1893 $461,716,562



Total (Wilson-Gorman tariff.) receipts. In 1894 372,802,498 In 1S95 390,373,203 In 1S96 409,475,408 (Dingiey tariff.) 1897. 1897 $430,387,168 1898.. 494,333,954 1899 610,982,004 1900 669,595,431 1901 699,316,531 1902 684,326,280 I have shown that from an agricultural standpoint and from a financial standpoint the result of the protective tariff in the United States has been most beneficial to that progressive nation. Now, I know that I will be told that I have compared a free trade nation with a high protective nation, and that my comparison is not fair. That argument is well worth considering. Let me say that in my opinion free trade England, with its vast, powerful, old organization, with its large population, although free trade as she is, is in a better position to compete and struggle against the highly protected United States than we are with our low revenue tariff. Circumstances alter cases. We must take everything into account when we have to grapple with a difficulty such as the one we have to face now. We are no more able to compete successfully with highly protected nations such as the United States is than old guns are able to carry victory as against modern artillery. We are no more able to succeed with a revenue tariff policy than old fashioned tools can prevail against modern improved machinery. The United States, Germany, and Russia, in spite of their great progress, in spite of their large population, in spite of the fact that they have had a protective policy for years and years would not dare to-day to decrease their tariff. Far from it; they are increasing their tariff as Germany has" just done. We must take these things into consideration when we come to readjust our tariff and shape our course for the future. The Canadian tariff in which I believe should protect us as effectively as the American tariff protects the national industries of the United States.


?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Hear, hear.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   TOTAL WEALTH OF THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Israël Tarte

Liberal

Hon. Mr. TARTE.

The tariff which I advocate would give to the Canadian farmers an enriched home market. The tariff which I advocate would' give to the workingmen of Canada the development of existing industries, the creation of new ones, higher wages and better living for the toilers.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   TOTAL WEALTH OF THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Hear, hear.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   TOTAL WEALTH OF THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Israël Tarte

Liberal

Hon. Mr. TARTE.

On behalf of Canadian workingmen, I ask from this parliament a better standard of living ; X ask permanency of employment for them. I ask for capital security and fair dividends.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   TOTAL WEALTH OF THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Israël Tarte

Liberal

Hon. Mr. TARTE.

I ask for all these Canadian interests and industries preference over foreigners and foreign industries.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   TOTAL WEALTH OF THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Hear, hear.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   TOTAL WEALTH OF THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Israël Tarte

Liberal

Hon. Mr. TARTE.

I know that objections will be made ; I have heard those objections often. It is not the first time that I have discussed this important question. I started my political life in discussing it, and although political hazards have been pretty numerous in my career, 1 am working to-day on the same lines that I was working on twenty-five years ago.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   TOTAL WEALTH OF THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Hear, hear.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   TOTAL WEALTH OF THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Israël Tarte

Liberal

Hon. Mr. TARTE.

I trust that I may be able to convince and to bring to our way of thought, some of our friends who say that a high tariff means the exclusion of imported goods and the restriction of trade. I take issue with them on that. Let me call their attention to what has happened in other countries. In the fiscal book of the United States we can learn a great many useful lessons indeed. I declare that high tariffs do not exclude imports. A high protective tariff will change the nature of imports. It will increase the wealth of the country ; it will make the circulation of money greater and more active ; it gives to the people greater purchasing power. The United States is a striking example to those who say that a high tariff will exclude imports. One has only to compare the imports under the low tariff years of the Cleveland administration with the high tariff years of Mr. McKinley, to see the effect of both policies. It goes without saying that if money is circulating abundantly, articles of common use, the luxuries of life, are more readily bought. Let us compare the importation of luxuries under the Cleveland and McKinley regimes. I quote from the Statistical Abstract of 1902 the official record of the United States :

Importation of luxuries including the same articles in the years mentioned into the United

States.

1894.

1900

1902

The general importations into the United States weret as follows .

1894 $636,614,420

1902 903,327,071

And this year, if the imports keep up at the same rate to the end of the year, they will reach one billion dollars. It seems to me that these figures are so convincing that there is no use arguing any more upon them.

Now, Sir, there are things thfit we cannot produce and we must expect to import those things, but there are things that we can produce and surely we will be able to discover what these things are. We are

4S58

often told in this House that the duties on agricultural implements, for instance, should not only not be made higher, but that they should be made lower, because it is said that if we manufactured them in Canada they will not be sold as cheaply as if we imported them from the United States or any other country. I take exception to such an empty national policy.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   TOTAL WEALTH OF THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Hear, hear.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   TOTAL WEALTH OF THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Israël Tarte

Liberal

Hon. Mr. TARTE.

1 mention agricultural implements as I would mention any other article that we can produce in our country with Canadian material and Canadian hands. Our American friends are the greatest producers of agricultural implements in the world. They are a very highly protected nation. For many years agricultural implements in the United States had a protection of 45 per cent and even today some of them are protected by a tariff of 45 per cent. The industry has developed to a marvellous extent In the United States. Before 1894, the duty on agricultural implements in the United States was for many years 49 per cent, and it has always been very high. Then the following clause was inserted in the tariff :

Ploughs, tooth and disc harrows, harvesters, reapers, agricultural drills and planters, mowers, horserakes, cultivators, threshing machines and cotton gins (free) : provided, that all articles mentioned in this paragraph, if imported from a country which lays an import duty on like articles imported from the United States, shall be subject to the duties existing prior to the passage of this Act.

In other words, the duties were abolished for countries which would not impose any duties on American articles ; otherwise the duties remained at 45 per cent. In point of fact, the duty on agricultural implements was never abolished in the United States. After Mr. McKinley's election, the Dingley tariff put up a duty of 20 per cent ad valorem on agricultural implements of all kinds, and the duty of 45 per cent was kept on manufactures of metal, that is to say, on the parts of agricultural implements composed of iron and steel.

The result of that protective policy of the United States has been marvellous. The agricultural implement makers of that country annually distribute over the world about

200.000 self-binding harvesters, 250,000 reapers, 20,000 corn harvesters. A single establishment in the United States is said to manufacture each year nearly a quarter of a million machines of various classes ; and it is in the United States that agricultural implements are the cheapest. They have been highly protected, and they have been able to implant themselves solidly, because they were permitted to enjoy the benefit of their home market. The farmers of that country have the benefit of the wise and enlightened policy that has been followed by our friends on the other side. We are importing a large volume of agricultural

implements which we could manufacture ourselves, and which we could sell just as cheaply as we buy them now. Our imports of agricultural implements since 1896 has been as follows :

1896 $ 445,070

1897 575,409

1898 905,140

1899 1,639,888

1900 1,826,944

1901 1,896,760

1902 2,655,468

Total $9,944,674

In the month of February we imported from the United States $192,034, and in the corresponding month of last year we im ported $153,342.

I am asking whether we are able to manufacture agricultural implements as cheaply as the United States. I say without any hesitation that we can do so, and I have not yet heard a single argument to the contrary. We have in this country about sixty manufacturers of agricultural implements. Surely home competition should produce the same results here that it has produced on the other side of the line. In free trade England people are paying more for their agricultural implements than the people of this country or the people of the United States. There is no reason why, with a strong Canadian tariff, we should not manufacture our agricultural implements just ns cheaply as they are manufactured on the other side of the line.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   TOTAL WEALTH OF THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
LIB

William Forsythe McCreary

Liberal

Mr. McCREARY.

Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the farmers of Great Britain are paying more for agricultural implements than the farmers of the United States and Canada ?

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   TOTAL WEALTH OF THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Israël Tarte

Liberal

Hon. Mr. TARTE.

Most assuredly.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   TOTAL WEALTH OF THE UNITED STATES.
Permalink

June 17, 1903