June 17, 1903

LIB

William Forsythe McCreary

Liberal

Mr. McCREARY.

I would like to see the figures.

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

Joseph Israël Tarte

Liberal

Hon. Mr. TARTE.

The figures are very well known. They have been placed before me and before my former colleagues in a memorandum presented to us a couple of years ago by one of the best friends of the Liberal party, Mr. Melvin Jones ; and those figures are available. We have the raw material under our hands, we have the labour, we have the lumber and the timber, and we can have the iron for manufacturing purposes. To-dhy the iron for manufacturing purposes is imported free. There is no reason why we cannot produce as cheaply as the United States. My hon. friend (Mr. McCreary) is from the North-west. 1 understand his anxiety, and I share his desire to see the farmers of the great Northwest, in which we all take the same interest as he does, not obliged to pay more than is necessary for their implements ; but if we can supply them with Canadian articles, there is no reason why we should not do so.

What is true of agricultural implements is true of all the industries of the United States. I will refer to one more industry, the boot and shoe industry. The duty on boots and shoes is not very high to-day in the United States-only 25 per cent but how did they start that large industry ? They started it early. In 1789 they put a duty of 50 cents a pair on boots and shoes. That did not work well. In 1795 they increased that duty to 75 cents a pair ; in 1812 they raised it to $1.50 ; in 1842 they lowered it to $1.25 a pair. Since then the duties have varied from 20 to 25 and 30 per cent, and to-day they have an industry which is well worth speaking of. In 1860 the output of the boot and shoe industry was $91,000,000 ; in 1900, the output was $255,180,000. This is sound business.

What is true of the boot and shoe industry is also true of the iron industry. To-day the United States is the leading iron-producing country in the world. Its production of iron in 1902 reached the wonderful figure of over 17,000,000 tons.

On the point of cheap production let me quote again from Mr. Byng's book. Mr. Byng lays down as a cardinal principle that the manufacturer in a protected country can manufacture at a cheaper rate than the manufacturer in a free trade country. I for one believe in that doctrine and I believe the result if examined would prove beyond doubt. Mr. Byng said :

The basis of the theory of cheapness of manufacture is the following often stated by free traders : the cost of production of a manufactured article depends on three factors. First, the cost of the material; second, the cost of labour; and third, expenses. This may have been true to some extent sixty years ago, but it is not true to-day as every manufacturer knows, because this reasoning leaves out one consideration, which we may call the independent factor, the quantity produced, and in most cases this factor influences the cost of labour and expenses to such an extent that it entirely overshadows both.

I have here a little book that is well worth reading, published by Mr. Walker. Let me quote a few lines on the point under discussion, that of cheapness:

Free traders love cheapness. Cheapness to a certain extent is good. Free traders love a thing which to a certain extent is good. But, unfortunately, they love cheap things because they are cheap, and quite apart from any effect that cheap things may have on their own country. Now, cheap things, which send money out of a country, ruin its farmers, miners and manufacturers, are practically much dearer to the country than things produced by natives, and which are sold at high prices, but which the country can buy without loss of money to itself when no foreign raw materials are used, at the cost of raw materials only.

The country that is buying cheapness at the expense of its own trade and industries, is a country that is getting fried in its own fat, as an old cartoon represented a city as getting this done to it, when it was under siege.

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

Joseph Israël Tarte

Liberal

Hon. Mr. TARTE.

One word more from Mr. Byng. I take it from that short chapter entitled : ' England the dumping ground of the world,' which are the very words used by Mr. Chamberlain lately :

Take any flourishing old established English industry. The foreigner establishes a similar one in his country based upon experience he has been careful to acquire here. Under the protection, and with the assistance of his government, he erects large works and puts down the best machinery, capable of lurning out large quantities of gpods. Having satisfied his home demand, he seeks the free trade English market and here offers his goods at very low prices, which need not involve any loss to the foreigner, as I have already shown. But the prices are so low as to mean a considerable loss to the English manufacturer and the latter has to give up making the article. During the whole of this process we in England have been getting cheap prices, and the free trader rejoices. He has killed an English industry but that does not concern him, for has he not got cheap prices ? The period of cheapnss is, however, of short duration. It invariably happens that as soon as the English competition is killed, the prices charged by the foreigner goes up to its old level. Then the English manufacturer may start again. But if he does so, the process is repeated : down goes the price, and the Englishman, and after that the foreign charge goes up again and the cheapness is no more !

A few days ago Mr. Chamberlain addressed a letter to one of his electors, from which I shall quote a word or two sent across to us by cable. Mr. Chamberlain said :

We have been apt in the past to consider too much the advantage of buying cheaply and not to pay sufficient attention to the methods whereby we may have the means that erable us to pay at all. Increased wages are even more important to the working classes then reduced cost of living.

Mr. Chamberlain rightly says that it is more important for the workingmen to have high wages than to buy cheap things. I shall take the liberty later on of saying a word cr two regarding the policy which Mr. Chamberlain is suggesting to the British empire. But before doing so let me remind you that there was a go-d deal of discussion going on in the United Kingdom on the conditions of the British islands and of the workingmen in the British islands and in the United States. An enterprising manufacturer and wealthy Scotchman, Mr. Mosely, had the very original ideas of inviting the different trades of the United Kingdom to elect delegates who would visit the United States, and make on the spot a complete inspection of file condition of affairs in that country. The party consisted of twelve delegates elected by their fellow' workingmen in the shops and representing the following trades: Pottery, painting, decorating, upholstering, wood work, engineering, railway building, mining, textile working, metallurgy, coach building and electricity. Mr. Mosely was at

4S61

the head of the delegation. The report I received a day or two ago. The ' London Times ' of April the 20th, 1903, commented as follows on that report :

Several of the delegates discuss a problem mentioned by Mr. Mosely, in the words, ' How is it that the American manufacturer can afford to pay wages of fifty per cent, one hundred per cent, and even more in some instances, above ours, and yet be able to compete successfully in the markets of the world ? Mr. Mosely himself suggests that it is 1 the extra speed at which machinery is run, the high specialization of work whereby each man becomes an expert in his own particular branch, which in itself mean efficiency and an increased output, the economy of hands in attending machines and the excellent organization of the factories whereby the smallest items of time and labour are saved, that make all the difference between high profits and none, and a high rate of wages for the men as against the comparatively low standard known in this country.' [DOT]

Then, the ' Times ' goes on to say that Mr. Mosely

does not include mention of the fact that the American manufacturer, thanks to disposing of a very large proportion of his output in the home markets secured by a protective tariff, obtains higher prices from many of his commodities than are enjoyed by his English competitor for similar articles. Several of the delegates show themselves well aware that the high tariff is a factor that must be taken into

account, Mr. Cox stating that the wealthiest iron and steel manufacturers strenuously assert the continued existence of protective tariffs as the only means of maintaining and securing their home trade against outside competitors.

The United States government published in 189S a bulletin, No. 18, which has been supplemented in 1900. The inquiry covered several countries of the world. I intend making a comparison from the official source between the wages paid to workmen in the United States and the wages paid to workmen in England. These statistics show about 100 per cent more paid to the wage earners in the United States than paid to the wage earners of Great Britain. The statistics covered three cities, and I would compare them with three American cities. The cities of the United States that I take are New York, Chicago, and St. Louis, while the British cities are Loudon, Glasgow, and Manchester. I think it is of great importance that, once for all, these questions are placed before the public in the light of the facts borne out by figures. If it is true-and it is true-that the wage-earners of the United States receive about 100 per cent more under high protective tariff than the wage-earners working in the same lines in Great Britain, it seems to me that tfhe lesson is obvious.

New York. Chicago. St. Louis. London. Glasgow. Manchester.

$ cts. $ cts. $ cts. $ cts. $ cts. $ cts.Blacksmiths

... 2 45 2 801 2 261 1 621 1 48 1 401 694 1 65 0 851 0 931Bricklayers 4 00 4 00" 4 40 1 68s I 554 1 84Carpenters 3 491 2 54 2 SO 1 68s 1 55| 1 504Compositors 3 14 2 00 2 91 1 54: 1 68 1 422 78J 2 30 1 62 1 5112 55 2 52^ 1 46*Painters, house 3 50 2 61 2 50' 1 48' 1 381 1 4013 72j 1 74+

2 884 1 581

Mr. Mosely confirms all these figures in these words at page seventy-six of his report.

My personal conclusion that the true-born American is a better conducted, better housed, better fed, better clothed and more energetic man than his British brother, and infinitely more sober. As a natural consequence, he is more capable of using his brains as well as his hands. Many of the men, however, holding leading positions, are either English or Scotch, and the American mostly is justly proud of his British descent. One of the principal reasons wty the American workmen is better than the British is that he has received a better and sounder education, whereby he has been more thoroughly fitted for the struggles of after life, and I believe that my delegates were themselves immensely impressed by the general high standard of education in the United States, a standard which it would be well for our own nation to copy as practicable.

Then he says :-

How is it that the American manufacturer can afford to pay wages fifty per cent and one hundred per cent and even more in some instances above ours ?

And he goes on :

That the American workman earns higher wages is beyond question. As a consequence the average married man owns the house he lives in, which not only gives him a stake in the country, but saves payment of rent, enabling him either to increase his savings or to purchase further comforts.

Food ; I will deal with that point, because there are people who believe that the cost of living is cheaper In England than it is in

the United States. Here is what Mr. Mosely says :

Food is as cheap (if not cheaper) in the United States as in England, while general necessaries may, I think, be put on the same level.

The last contribution to this question of the comparative cost of living in the two countries is to be found in Professor So-beck's statement, which has been published in the ' American Economist ' of May 15. It is there shown clearly, as it is also shown in Mr. Mosely's report, that the cost of living of the American workingman is as cheap as is the cost of living of his English brother. Now, Sir, I have endeavoured to place before our people the situation in the United States and in England, because in preparing our fiscal policy we must have in mind these two countries chiefly. We cannot lose sight of any country in the world, because I hope we will grow big enough to trade with them all. But we are especially interested with the United States and with England, so far as our trade is concerned. The United States, as I have said, has become the leading exporting nation of the world. Mr. Mosely, who is a wide-awake man, has a large conception of the possibilities of the United States. He says :

The United States is advancing by leaps and bounds. She is beginning to feel the beneficial [DOT] effects of the education of her masses, and an enormous territory teeming with natural resources as but yet meagrely developed. In the latter respect she has been more blessed, and her natural advantages are bound to make her not only the leading manufacturing country of the world (a position she may already be said to have attained), but must place her in the same position relatively that England herself occupied some fifty years ago. It is more than necessary that both capital and labour should bear this point well in mind. At the present time the home market of the United States is so fully occupied with its own developments that the export trade has as yet been comparatively little thought of; but as time goes on and the numerous factories that are being erected ail over the country come into full bearing, America is bound to be the keenest competitor in the markets of the world. That already she has her eye on the export trade is plain to every one, except the wilfully blind; but at present she is only getting ready.

' She is only getting ready,' and still she is the leading export country in the world. I think Mr. Mosely is right, the United States, although they have progressed marvellously, are still, if I may say so, are still in their infancy. Mr. Hill made, a few months ago, the prophesy that before forty years are over the population of the United States will be 150,000,000. They have an immense accumulation of capital, and that accumulation has strengthened their home market. They have to-day a population of 80,000,000. These circumstances, the accumulation of capital, the perfection of their organization, and the home market that their manufactures have enjoyed in the past and are enjoying to-day, make it impossible for any Hon. Mr. TARTE.

man who has sense or reason to believe that we can possibly compete with them, unless we use the same weapons in dealing with them that they use in dealing with us. They have protected their agricultural as well as their manufacturing interests.

There is some question of reciprocity at the present time. Indeed, we have been told that one of the reasons why my hon. friends on the treasury benches have not grappled this year with the fiscal situation is that they expect the Joint High Commission will meet again. I do not like the way some of our public men are inviting the Americans to meet us again on that High Commission. I am sorry the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) is not in his seat. I am going to quote an article from his pen which was published in the ' Outlook ' of February 28, this year, and reproduced in the * National Reciprocity Organ ' of March, 1903.

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

Edward Frederick Clarke

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARKE.

Where is that organ published ?

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

Joseph Israël Tarte

Liberal

Hon. Mr. TARTE.

given a preference to Great Britain in certain manufactured articles. The mother country does not expect from us that we will open our markets to all manufactured products of English origin. What is to prevent us from raising our tariff as against all foreign countries that have high tariffs against us on articles that we can buy from the motherland ?

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.

Let us have a tariff against all the nations that decline to deal with us in a fair way, and let us have a preferential tariff in favour of England ; a moderate reasonable tariff in favour of England on all these articles that we cannot manufacture advantageously. That is a fair proposition.

My name has been mentioned, in connection with an English seat in the Imperial House of Commons. My voice is a very feeble voice indeed, but I would like as a Canadian-as a French Canadian-I would like to make a campaign on this platform in the British Isles. In the press and elsewhere I have expressed an earnest desire to see more Canadians advocating a broad policy in the British parliament. I could not do justice to the case as my right hon. friend the Prime Minister could if he were to share the views I entertain. But, Sir, I feel in my bones and sinews that a Canadian could have some effect in advocating these great national principles on the other side of the ocean. All the nations of the world are raising tariff walls against us as they are against the< British Empire. Germany, Russia, France, the United States, Austria, nearly all the nations of the world have a high tariff. What are we going to do V We must sell our products somewhere. The British market is there. It is the largest market for the importation of the foodstuffs which we produce abundantly in Canada. We1 have the St. Lawrence as a great imperial carrier ; we have that marvellous channel for conveying the trade of the great west, both American and Canadian, to England. The St. Lawrence belongs to us as a nation. It seems to me that those circumstances make it a duty for us to give Mr. Chamberlain's suggestion our earnest consideration. We have nothing to surrender, far from it, we have much to gain. If England should give us a preference, it would not in my humble opinion increase the cost of living in England. A small preference scattered over a population of 40,000,000 would not injure England, and it would help the colonies to a very great extent indeed. It would help the agriculture of England also. I apprehend* that Mr. Chamberlain has not in view tile Biltisb colonies exclusively. He is looking to avert the destruction of the agriculture of his native land. He wants to protect the agricultural interests of England. But free trade has taken such a hold on the mind of most Hon. Mr. TARTE.

Englishmen, that he is obliged perhaps to use some of those circuitous arguments that are familiar to all politicians. Be that as it may, his policy would have the dual effect of helping England from an agricultural and industrial standpoint, and of helping the British colonies, and Canada more perhaps than any other. Our own home market is, of course, the most important for us, and I will deal with that aspect of the case at 8 o'clock.

At six o'clock,' the House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

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

PRIVATE BILLS.


. TORONTO AND HAMILTON RAILWAY. On the Order, House in committee on Bill (No. 147) to incorporate the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Company.-Mr. Campbell.


LIB

Archibald Campbell

Liberal

Mr. CAMPBELL.

Mr. Speaker, after this Bill passed the Railway Committee, some of the rural municipalities that are interested considered that it interfered somewhat with their rights and liberties, and desired that it should stand for further consideration. So it has been mutually agreed to let the Bill stand until a week from Friday, and in the meantime discussion can be had on the Bill in the hope that concessions will be made that will be acceptable to all parties. I would, therefore, ask that the Bill be allowed to stand.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Permalink
LIB

Lawrence Geoffrey Power (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER.

As the Order has been called, the regular proceeding will be to move that the debate be now adjourned.

Mr. TALBOT moved that the debate be now adjourned.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Permalink

Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.


ONTARIO AND QUEBEC POWER COMPANY.


House in committee on Bill (No. 73) to incorporate the Ontario and Quebec Power Company.-Mr. Belcourt. On section 11,


LIB

Fletcher Bath Wade

Liberal

Mr. WADE.

Since the clause you have just read, Mr. Chairman, was agreed to, it has come to the notice of the parties interested and to the committee that between the Chaudiere and Deschene there are the Remoux Rapids, which might technically be called a water power. It is not really a water power of any service, and it was agreed that this company should have the right to flood it out. I propose to add the words ' except the Remoux rapids ' after the word ' river.'

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   ONTARIO AND QUEBEC POWER COMPANY.
Permalink

Motion agreed to. Bill reported. Mr. BELCOURT moved the third reading of the Bill.


CON

Thomas Birkett

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BIRKETT.

I would suggest that the Bill be reprinted before third reading, and I do not think Mr. Belcourt will object.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   ONTARIO AND QUEBEC POWER COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Napoléon Antoine Belcourt

Liberal

Mr. BELCOURT.

The Bill has been agreed to by every body. It is the result of an agreement between the parties, and I do not see any reason for delay.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   ONTARIO AND QUEBEC POWER COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Samuel Barker

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BARKER.

I for one do not wish to put any obstruction in the way of this or any other Bill ; but I do not think it is right that Bills should pass the House in this way. I believe that half a dozen members of the House outside of those who stood at the Table when the amendments were being made knew what was passing.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   ONTARIO AND QUEBEC POWER COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Napoléon Antoine Belcourt

Liberal

Mr. BELCOURT.

The Bill was referred to a sub-committee of the Private Bills Committee and was discussed night after night for weeks. I think that the sub-committee had as many as half a dozen meetings, and that the Bill was very fully discussed. I do not see why the Bill could not be as easily understood as if it were printed. It is typewritten, and any hon. member can see it and understand it as well as if it were printed.

Topic:   SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.
Subtopic:   ONTARIO AND QUEBEC POWER COMPANY.
Permalink

June 17, 1903