June 8, 1904

?

An hon. MEMBER.

It is not worth while.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   JUKE .8, 1904 4425
Permalink
LIB

Richard John Cartwright (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.

I am quite sure hon. gentlemen opposite do not want to do it, but I am glad that I am able to bring these facts to their notice, because they will never from reading their newspapers, or from listening to their leaders lihve the slightest chance of realizing what they mean. Our cross entries amount to $7,290,000 on the debit side and $7,780,000 and more-if I choose to take a strict account-on the credit side. There remains $7,000,000 to be accounted for. I am prepared not merely to endure, but to invite the strictest criticism from these hon. gentlemen as to the way in which we have laid out these seven additional millions. How has it been done ? Half a million has been expended as these records show, in the increased expenditure for immigration another half million more and the cognate services of agriculture and quarantine. Half a million has gone to improve the lighthouse service' in the St. Lawrence so as to make that great channel of commerce safer and more commodious than it has hitherto been. Half a million has gone- and it never could have been better spent- to provide the people of the Northwest Territories, into which about 400,000 people have gone within the last four or five years, with proper facilities for carrying on the government in a reasonable and fair manner. All these are not merely justifiable, but they are highly productive expenditures. I take first of ail the sums spent for immigration. You will add to that sum the expenditure for additional government in the Northwest Territories. We have been repaid ten fold : I venture to say that we have been repaid one hundred fold for all the additional expenditure which is incurred by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) or by the government at large for either of these particular purposes. Take settlers' effects for the last five years, mere settlers' effects which are to all intents and purposes a free gift to the people of Canada. Settlers' effects in these five years were received as follows :-

Year. Value.

1899 $2,800,000

1900 3,065,000

1901 3,740,000

1902 4,580,000

1903 6,442,000

Being a total roughly of some $20,000.000 of a free gift to the people of Canada in the shape of settlers' effects, brought in by the people for whom we have been expending this trifling sum, and mark you that amount is probably not one-fifth of the capital which these people are bringing into this country. One of the most hopeful features of the present immigration is that it is very largely composed of people well to do in "their own country, who not merely bring in settlers' effects, but a large amount of capital to promote the settlement and development of our country. But, that is a trifle. What of the immigrants themselves ? What cash value will the honourable House put on the annual addition to our population of 100,000 immigrants ? What annual addition to our income would it represent ? What does it mean if we get 500,000 settlers and most of these of the very best class? It is indeed particularly interesting when you consider the class of immigrants which is now going into the United States to examine the returns of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior in respect to the nationality of the men who are now settling in Canada.

I have not time to go through them as fully as I would wish, but I will take simply this last year in which 128,000 immigrants were settled in Canada. Of these 128,000, there

came from Great Britain 41,000, from the .United States 49,000 ; about 10,000 from the Scandinavian countries, from Germany and from France and from Belgium ; first-class immigrants all of them. Out of that 128,000 over 100,000 were immigrants from countries of the highest standing in the world. How does that compare with the immigration now pouring into the United States ? I have here the Statesman's Year-book for 1904, and I see that while eighty per cent at least of the immigrants coming into Canada belong to the northern races, the best races of Europe ; of this total of 850,000 immigrants to the United States last year scarcely more than 180,000 or twenty per cent came from the British Isles, Germany, Sweden, Norway, and other countries I have spoken of. We get eighty per cent of immigrants of the first-class, and our friends on the other side of the border are receiving about twenty per cent of an equally valuable class of immigrants. I may add further-and having reference to the value of these immigrants it is a matter of first-rate importance-that the returns which I have also here, go to show that an enormous proportion of these immigrants which we get ; for more than the average proportion in an ordinary country, are able bodied young men or abled bodied young women. That is the true way to increase the wealth of this country. If you can put 100,000 such families in the Northwest; if you can give them lands ; if you can provide the facilities for transport, it is almost impossible to estimate how much you will add to the national income, and how much you will add to the volume of trade, domestic as well as foreign.

The wheel has revolved. We are getting back to-day what we lost in the eighteen years from 187S to 1898 ; we are getting bac-k what we lost and we are keeping what we get.

Now, Sir, I am about to enter on a matter which i fear will not altogether please my hon. friends opposite, and yet it is necessary to discuss it. I want to compare the number of immigrants who are coming in now and who are staying in Canada (as we have the best grounds for believing) I want to compare them with the results of the immigration between 1880 and 1890. Between 1880 and 1890, according to the reports of these gentlemen opposite, we brought into Canada 886,000 immigrants all told :

Year. No. of Immigrants.

1881 47,000

1882 112,000

1883 133,000

1884 103,000

IRSf 79,000

1886 60,000

1887 84,000

1888 88,000

1889 91,000

1890 75,000

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   JUKE .8, 1904 4425
Permalink
LIB

Richard John Cartwright (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   JUKE .8, 1904 4425
Permalink
CON

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

The hon. gentleman is himself entitled to the full credit for the whole of that.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   JUKE .8, 1904 4425
Permalink
LIB

Richard John Cartwright (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.

it is literally true that taking into account the increased cost of labour and materials, and the increase of population, we are spending no more than was spent in proportion during the half dozen years before 189G. It is well to point out that our net income has nearly quadrupled in that interval. I may add that this expenditure differs from most other expenditures, because it does not involve an addition to our fixed charges; and is capable, if need be, of being largely reduced ; and if I may venture a caution to my colleagues. I would say that it is well that this expenditure should be kept within reasonable bounds.

Now, I want to apply the per capita test. I take the expenditure, less cross entries, for 1895 and for 1903 and the expenditure for 1896 and 1903. For reasons which I will enter into more fully shortly, T believe that the difference in population between 1895-1896 and 1903-1904 amounts to fully 1,200.000. I believe that our real population did not exceed 4.800,000 in 1896. and that our present population is now quite up to 6,000,000. I am not particularly careful about this matter, but such as it is, I will give the results. In 1895 (deducting the $7,000,000 of cross entries above referred to) the government of the day expended about $38,000,000. We expended in 1903 about $44,000,000. This would give $7.92 per head in 1895 as against $7.33 per head in 1903. A similar calculation would give $7.70 per head in 1896 as against $7.33 in 1903. I say I do not attach very much importance to this, but if hon. gentlemen want to go into these minute details, we have our answer ready for them.

I will take a larger side of the question- the debt per family ; and here again I think the Minister of Finance was a little too generous to his opponents. When we came into office we found these hon. gentlemen engaged in many costly public works which they had not completed. There were many railway subsidies to be paid, large sums to be expended to complete the canals, and a variety of public works had been undertaken which would involve a large increase in the public debt. Of these matters my hon. friend took no note, although they account for a large part of the surplus which we accumulated. But, throwing all this away, I will assume that the debt was $258,000,000 in 1896, and that the debt is $258,000,000 or thereabouts at the present time.

How stands it, Sir ? Well, on the percentage of population as I gave it, of 4,800,000 for 1896, we would have a charge of about $270 per family for their share of the national debt in that year. In this present year of grace, 1904, the charge per family could not well exceed, if my hon. friend's calculations are correct, a matter of $215 or $216. The net debt per family is. therefore, about $50 or more less to-day than it was in 1896. I am sorry to perceive that Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.

hon. gentlemen opposite do not like these statistics, but that perhaps is to be expected. We know that a certain personage does not like holy water ; and it would require. I fear, very strong exorcism-and judging from those empty benches opposite, I must have been applying it-to dislodge the demons of ignorance, prejudice, envy, hatred, malice and all uncharitableness which swell the 'souls of those hon. gentlemen when they look on the achievements of this most virtuous and discreet of governments.

I wish to say now a word or two regarding this same census of 1891. Bit by bit, degree by degree, as the progress of the investigation goes on, proofs of fraud and recklessness and of the most intolerable stupidity and carelessness in the compiling of that census are accumulating and are evident throughout. Not merely was it cooked as to population, but most atrociously as to industrial statistics. I was unable, the last time I spoke on the subject, because the investigation had not gone far enough, to give the details now in my possession as regards some of the industrial statements therein. But I can give some of them now. First we will take-and a curious illustration it is-the condition of the carpet factories, or, as they are called in the volume I have in my hand, ' industrial establishments for the manufacture of carpets.' Sir, of these there were in 1881, according to the census of that year, 11 in Canada. In 1891, according to the volume I have in my hand, those 11 had grown and flourished and expanded to 557 -an absolutely abnormal growth. It may interest the House to know how these were worked and managed, how this great result was achieved. Time will not permit me to go over them all, but I will take, out of compliment to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition-who, I am sorry, is not here-the province of Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia in 1891 there was a total of 106 industrial establishments for the manufacture of carpets. The working capital of these 106 amounted to $833, being an average of $8.25 a head. To do the census enumerators justice, they seemed to have taken pains. The total amount paid in wages, the total value of the raw material, the total value of the articles produced, the amount of fixed capital in land, are all given. The amount of fixed capital in land reached the sum of $570. The wages amounted to $7,355, which would give $70 a year in wages paid by each, being an average of about $1.25 per week. I am proud to say that Nova Scotia is pre-eminent in this industry, although some of the other provinces run it close. Ontario, which is usually an extravagant province, had 344 industrial establishments for the manufacture of carpets, and it absolutely required $114,000 of working capital, being at the rate of $300 per factory. But when we come to our thrifty friends of the maritime provinces, we get

;i much better result. In Prince Edward Island there were 25 industrial establishments of this sort run by 3 men and 22 old women, giving an annual return of $2,000 among the 2^f being at the rate of $80 per year. Do hont gentlemen want more details, because if they do I can give them V

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   JUKE .8, 1904 4425
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Go on.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   JUKE .8, 1904 4425
Permalink
LIB

Richard John Cartwright (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.

Very well, I am always ready to oblige. Going a little further-and mind you, these are but sample bricks-I find that the industrial establishments for weaving in Canada amounted, in 1891, to 2,085. The total working capital Is put down at $07,000, being an average of $33 per induistriail estabffishmenHJ. These were manned by 409 men, 1,916 women and about 120 boys and girls. Carrying out the doctrine of average so dear to my hon. friends, it would seem that the 2,085 establishments may have employed each about one and a quarter man, or woman, or boy, as the case may be. But to prevent any jealousy, I may say that while Nova Scotia undoubtedly carries off the palm in the matter of industrial establlijsEhmients dor the manufacture of carpets, New Brunswick is equally distinguished in industrial establishments for weaving. New Brunswick had 371 industrial establishments for weaving, and-just think of the frugality of my hon. friends in New Brunswick-the working capital they required amounted to a total of $189, being at the rate of 50 cents per establishment. And these 371 industrial establishments, according to this same veracious volume, distributed $14,500 in wages, being an average, as nearly as I can roughly calculate, of about $38 per year, or 75 cents per week for each. That Is not all by any means. It has a most pleasant feature, to which 1 call the attention of the House. Here you have an absolutely unparalleled industrial expansion, such as I have never seen, or heard, or read of-and my studies of statistics have been prolonged for many years-and yet there is absolutely no friction between capital and labour. I am proud to say that there was a complete absence of strikes, unless, indeed, it be paralytic strikes which, considering the fact that most of these establishments were operated by ancient ladies well stricken in years, is not much to be wondered at. As to any agitation for greater wages or shorter hours of labour, the thing was absolutely unknown. Employers and employed were not merely united, but it is literally true that they were a unit in the great majority of these ' industrial institutions.' Now, I do not know who conducts the campaign literature on the other side. But if it is my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor), I have a mind to make him a sporting offer. Here is magnificent material for a campaign document. Sir, it would require a much less ingenious gentleman than my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) or my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson) to construct such

head lines as ' Rise and Decline of the Carpet Weaving Industry,' showing how that industry had expanded under the Conservative rule from a miserable 11 establishments in 1881, to 557 in 1891. And, Sir-this is a further detail not yet in possession of the House, which I feel it my duty to give- you have the further fact that under the baleful influence o>f the Liberal administration, and, I suppose, of a British preference. 550 industrial establishments for carpet making shrinking to 10 in 1901. It is true that the 10 appear to produce a great deal more than the 557 did, but that is a mere detail quite unworthy of the hon. gentleman's notice. Now, my offer is this : I think a most admirable campaign document, illus trative of the great effects of the national policy, could be produced. If my hon. friend will give me bonds that he will pay for the printing and see to the distribution, why, Sir, I will write it myself.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   JUKE .8, 1904 4425
Permalink
CON

James Clancy

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLANCY.

And will the right hon. gentleman send it out under his own frank?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   JUKE .8, 1904 4425
Permalink
LIB

Richard John Cartwright (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.

I was about to say that I will arrange - with the Postmaster General, if it cannot be all distributed during the session I will frank it. On a former occasion I pointed out to the House-and laid a considerable number of documents on the table in proof of my assertion-that this census of 1891 had been conducted with such remarkable energy that the census enumerators in twenty-one counties in the province of Quebec had discovered in March in two months 40,000 more people than the parochial authorities had been able to find in January. So. you have here the great triumphs of the national policy-557 industrial establishments created out of 11. and done it so cheaply too ; and. next the discovery of 40,000 people who nad not been known to exist before. But, that is not all : there is a greater feat in store behind. In the course of my examination, and my hon. friend's examination, of the census we discovered that we had not at all appreciated utticiently the energy and ability with which the census of 1891 had been conducted. It gives me pleasure, Sir, to give to the House certain details. If my hon. friends opposite will condescenjl to look at the first volume of the census of 1891, they will find that the total average of each country is given. If they will go to the second volume which I have here, they will find the number of acres occupied in each county also given in detail. Sir, the results are very remarkable. Having added 40,000 people to the population of Lower Canada, I suppose it occurred to them that it would be only right to provide the

40,000 with a local habitation. And this is the way they appear to have done it :-According to the first volume of the census the county of Bagot contained 214,840 acres. But, in the second volume we find that the thrifty inhabitants of Bagot occupy 247,654 acresEand the details are given at great

I

length, so much in garden and so much in farm, so much in pasture land and so on. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to dispute the facts. Here are the details set out in full. I give them Bagot as an illustration. As I have said, Bagot according to the surveyor's account contained 214,840 acres. But, according to the census enumerators' account, which gives total occupied in crop, total in pasture, total in wbod and forest, and total in orchard, the areas of occupied land were 247.645-that is 191,000 improved ; 132,000 under crop, 57,000 in pasture, 56,000 in wood and forest and 1,700 in orchard and garden. And so it went on. Beauharnois, according to the surveyors had a total area of 89,280 acres and this was converted into 114,564 ; Chambly had 87,319 acres, converted into 101.105; Chateauguay had 159,840, increased to 174,216 ; Deux Montagnes had 165,187 acres, expanded into 183,402 ; Hochelaga's 51,505 became 74,800 ; Iberville's 120,960 became 139,191. And so with Jacques Cartier, Laprairie, L'Assomption, Laval, L6vig, Na-pierville, Quebec city, Richelieu, Rouville, St. Hyacinthe, St. Jean, Soulanges, Trois Rivi&res, Vaudreuil, Vereheres and Yamas-ka fall these counties received at the hands of these gentlemen an increase of something like ten per cent. The total area of these counties, according to the first volume of the census, is 2,624.003 acres, while the total area of occupied land according to the second volume of the census is 3,015,083 acres.

Now, I call that a great feat, Sir. If it be, as many have thought, a thing deserving of high commendation that a man should make two blades of grass grow where one grew before, what eulogy would be too great for the man who contrived to extract 400,000 acres in Lower Canada out of nothing ? Why, Sir, two whole counties like Nicolet or Bagot have been added by these generous persons to the total area of the province of Quebec. I know this is an unbelieving generation ; I know it is a commonplace to say that the age of miracles is past. But I say : Perish such scoffers, the age of miracles is here. All you want are the proper accessories. Given a Conservative administration, given a national policy, given a census commisioner who is a competent man and who thoroughly understands his business-and the miracle is there. You evolve 550 industrial establishments out of 11 ; you bring 40,000 people from nowhere. You create 400,000 acres out of nothing. Let my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) if he can, equal that. I know he is a zealous, a capable, a most efficient minister. I know he has added millions upon millions to the agricultural wealth of the country and I hope he will go on and add still more. But we have his census, a census which cost twice as much-as hon. gentlemen opposite have informed him-as the previous census did. But where are his 557 industrial establishments evolved out Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.

of 11 ?-Where has he found 40,000 'people more than the parochial authorities had found ? Where has he discovered 400,000 acres more territory than the surveyors found in the province of Quebec.

So much for the past ;-a word or two as to the future. And here again I admit that I do not desire to count too much on continued prosperity. We have had great good fortune ; I trust we may continue to have it. But I would not desire that we should count too absolutely on that. Let us see what policy the opposition have to propose ; let us see what policy we have to propose. Sir, what have the Liberal party done in the past ? They have diminished taxes and increased revenue. What have the Conservative party done in the past ? They have increased taxes and reduced revenue. Their policy was tried for eighteen years and you have seen in what that policy culminated. What did these hon. gentlemen say, in effect to us ? This : We cannot deny, they say, that Canada is prosperous ; we cannot deny that your policy has been successful, even phenomenal ; therefore, let us change it; let us go back to the good old days, when trade increased at about the rate of one half of one per cent; when population was at a standstill, when taxes went into private persons' pockets ; when Canada was a by-word for corruption from one end of the civilized world to the other, when these men gave away an empire to a set of railway promoters for a less sum than would pay the cost of their surveys-surely if you want to go back to the good old times, these are the very men to bring that about. They think the farmers are too prosperous and they declare it is time to bleed them ; the surplus is too large, the taxes are too low ; too much goes into the Treasury, too little goes to other parties ; they wish to cut down the surplus, to increase the taxes to enrich the few at the expense of the many. Again the two policies are before the people of Canada to choose which they will have. The policy of hon. gentlemen opposite is a policy of high tariff and low revenue, a policy which was tried and found wanting during a matter of 18 years, under which we lost a million of our best people and another million of immigrants, who ought to have settled on our shores, a policy of degradation and a policy of stagnation. What did the national policy do for us hon. gentlemen opposite want to know .? I have here a curious and interesting little statement. It is known to all men that between the years 1860 and 1870 the United States were visited with a terrible and desolating civil war. That war raged most fiercely, and was most severely felt in Virginia, Tennessee, the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Texas, Mississippi and Missouri. Sir, what was the result in ten years in those 12 or 15 states that I have enumer-

ated. In 1860 their population was 9,849,000. In 1870 their population was 11,166,000. They had increased therefore, in that period by nearly 1,316,000. The point to which I desire to call attention is that in these 13 southern states, which for four years bore the brunt of a desolating civil war. which for 6 years thereafter were handed over to the tender mercies of negro-legislators, and carpet-bag administrators, the rates of growth-even admitting, which 1 do not admit, that the statement in our census for 1880 and 1890 is correct-was considerably larger in those four years of civil war, and 6 years of negro rule, than it was in the Dominion of Canada after 10 years of Conservative mis-government. Sir, do hon. gentlemen want to restore that condition of things or does the country desire to restore it ? Yonder are the very men to do it.

Nowr Sir, what of the Liberal policy ? How do we propose to perpetuate this prosperity and to keep up the stream of immigration ? Let the hon. gentlemen hear and listen and learn if they can. How do we propose to increase the national wealth of this country ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   JUKE .8, 1904 4425
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER.

Taxation.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   JUKE .8, 1904 4425
Permalink
LIB

Richard John Cartwright (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Sir RTCHARD CARTWRIGHT.

No, our policy was to reduce taxation.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   JUKE .8, 1904 4425
Permalink
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON.

It was a failure.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   JUKE .8, 1904 4425
Permalink
LIB

Richard John Cartwright (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.

Does the hon. gentleman know or do any of these hon. gentlemen know that the result of the British preference last year was to reduce the rate of taxation from about 30 to 18 per cent, and remember that this reduction affected not merely the goods imported directly from Great Britain but had also a most powerful effect in regulating the price of other goods w'hich the people of Canada had to pay' for those imported from other countries and those produced by our own manufacturers. If they do not, let them consult the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce and they will see.

Our policy is simple, sensible and straightforward. .

First of all we desire to bring in large immigration and to make vast areas of territory available for settlement. Next we desire to arrange for continuous settlement, a most important point; we desire to bridge the obstructive gaps which separate the settled portions of the country We desire to provide fair railway competition so that the settlers may get fair value for then1 products and we desire above all to put the taxes into the public exchequer.

What will this railway policy do for us ? It will throw open 300,000 square miles, one way with another, I grant not all good but even the bad has its resources. I grant that much of it is probably not profitable, but much remains which is very valuable and available for settlement.

Now a word as to the risk we are taking.

I want to show our probable outlay, taking the most unfavourable possible view, compared with our resources and with the resources w'hich the Conservative party possessed when they engaged in a similar undertaking three and thirty years ago. These hon. gentlemen are never weary of telling us that Sir John Macdonald did wisely in 1871 in accepting the risk which he accepted. There may be two opinions as to that. I will state presently what risk he took, and compare that with the risk which we ourselves are taking. Now I will suppose that we have to do the whole work ourselves. I will suppose, although there is no just ground for any such supposition -that there is no return. I will suppose that this road is to cost one hundred, one hundred and twenty or one hundred and fifty millions, if you will. Sir, it w'ill do no such thing, the interest on the great bulk of the outlay will be provided in a few years, directly by the Grand Trunk, indirectly through settlement. I point out that if we succeed in opening up 300,000 square miles, one single family per square league will pay for our outlay ; one person per mile will pay us many times. How does our risk compare with the risk run, as they say with so much wisdom and foresight, by ov.fr Conservative predecessors ? If hon. gentlemen will look back to the figures I gave a little while ago, they will see that in 1871 Sir John Macdonald's total net income after deducting charges over which he had no control, was very little over $8,000,000. Our net income is over $32,000,000. Sir John Macdonald, if his bargain had been carried out as proposed, risked at the very least $7,000,000 out of his $8,000,000 in the enterprise. That amounted to at least 90 per cent of his whole income. At the outside we propose to risk a matter of 10 per cent or 12 per cent of our income. I do not believe any thing like that will be risked. I do not believe there is the slightest fear that the Grand Trunk will abandon the enterprise in w'hich they have joined us. I do not believe that there is the least doubt that a very large part of the interest on our expenditure will be repaid to us long, long before the next decade has closed. More than that I have pointed out that our net income to-day in 1904, is fourfold the net income of Canada in 1871. I point this out further that although there is a temporary rise in the rate of interest there is a very strong probability that in all human likelihood the rate of interest will fall again long before we shall require to become extensive borrowers, and then we will obtain our money at a rate about one half what Sir John Macdonald had to pay. Then too the facility of construction is vastly greater now than it was then. I remember perfectly well the conditions under which that enterprise commenced in 1871, and as I recollect there

was not a single railroad on tire American line within 300 miles of the Manitoba frontier or within about 400 miles of the proposed route of railway proposed to travel.

Sir, we have provided from the start for a large traffic on this road. We have a great corporation enlisted as supporters in this enterprise and the movement of population in that direction is now as well established as anything can well be, and lastly there are no onerous concessions attached to this road, by whomever it may be built ; there is no monopoly of the rights of building roads, no exemption from taxes, full control over freight rates. But hon. gentlemen call these trifles. I would like to hear my hon. friends from the west state what is thought there as to the importance of the concessions to the people of this country. The great drain has been stopped, the new blood is pouring in. We have a very considerable surplus to assist us. The risk we run as compared with the risk run with the full approval of these hon. gentlemen is [DOT] almost absolutely insignificant. There is the very best reason for believing that the influx of settlement into the region we shall open up will far more than repay to our revenue all that we can possibly lose thereby..

And now. Sir, in conclusion what shall I say to my hon. friends opposite ?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   JUKE .8, 1904 4425
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER.

Nothing.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   JUKE .8, 1904 4425
Permalink
LIB

Richard John Cartwright (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.

Oh ye of little faith, ye strainers at gnats and swallowers of alternative camels, blind leaders of the blind, you gentlemen who will pose as Conservative statesmen and lend yourselves to policies which a demagogue might be ashamed of; you gentlemen on the opposite side who are everlastingly deafening our ears with your zeal for British connection, although you never held up your little finger to help British connection, you gentlemen who admire British institutions in theory, and not in practice, and who have proved yourselves the most successful imitators of the worst Yankee tricks that were ever invented, from tariff abominations to gerrymanders of sorts you never learn. Must I apply to my hon. friend the Speaker for permission to bring to this august hall a blackboard on which I may prove to these hon. gentlemen that two and two make four, that 1871 is not the same thing as 1904, that between 1890 and 1904 there is a great gulf, a gulf almost as wide and deep as that which separate the innocent lambs on your right from the goats or Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should more correctly say the wolves in sheep's clothing who gnash their teeth on your left. These hon. gentlemen for so long have shut their eyes to the plainest facts that they have lost the power of vision. They have been so politically colour-blind that they cannot tell black from white, or right from wrong, or truth from falsehood, and what makes the case sadder still is that Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.

when benevolent parties like myself hearing of this bad case of political cataract, have tried in a spirit of the purest philanthropy to let in a few rays of light to their darkened minds, and still more darkened consciences, the patients are apt to use bad language, and rear and bite the hand that would heal them. You know, Mr. Speaker, from your researches in Holy Writ, and I know from my personal experiences the fate that is apt to befall reformers who in an evil moment east economic pearls of truth before a certain description of animals. To my Liberal friends I have also a word or two to say. Remember what befell the children of Israel, when they had come very close to the borders of the promised land. They had trounced the Midianitish men, but thereafter they were in imminent danger of falling victims to the wiles of the Midianitish women, and it required very sharp and drastic remedies to save them from disaster. I say to them to beware of those Delilahs, with whom our camp has been swarming since 1890, who will take all they have and give them nothing in return, who will make a mock of them who will shear them, strip them and sell them exceedingly cheap. For myself I think I may say tha'c I am immune, and that I can defy the craftiest daughter of Eve who ever wore scissors at her girdle to shear my locks. Delilah may get my scalp but she never could get my hair. I say to my hon. friends that they have builded better than they knew, and that when they go to the country, they will go with a record that was never yet Approached. Sir, it is a simple fact that the record of the Liberal party from 1897 to 1904, let hon. gentlemen say what they will, is not merely the best in the history of Canada since confederation, but it is the best in the commercial history of the world for the last seven years. Sir, they have wiped out the reproach which for 30 years we have had to endure. It was said : You Canadians boast that you

possess a magnificent territory, a territory of vast resources, a territory of unsurpassed fertility in great part, a territory of great area, a territory which is able to contain and support in prosperity fifty million or one hundred million of people and yet you have only 5,000,000 of inhabitants and you have not been able to keep your people in your own territory. You have become a little better than a mere breeding ground for the people of the United States. For 30 years the record with which you were faced was that every third person between the age of 18 and 40 born and reared in Canada, found his way into the United States and of the immigrants that came into the country you are only able to keep ten per cent. All that was true, all that was deplorably true, but I am glad to say that we have changed all that. In the present decade there is very good ground to hope that we will gain a million to be added to our own popula-

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   JUKE .8, 1904 4425
Permalink

S, 1904


tion, and Instead of losing half a million, and those, too, the flower of our own population, we are gaining the flower of theirs. Now, I say to my hon. friends that I advise them not to be mock modest about these things. I advise them to claim credit for all that they have a right to claim credit for. I admit that we have had great good fortune, but the greatest opportunities will come in vain unless these opportunities are well used. It is true that we have had a good chance, but it is not true that we have gained population in the ratio we have lately done from the United States without great and long continued exertion. The ground was ploughed, the ground was harrowed. the seed was sown and we are now reaping the crop of the exertions of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior in' the last seven years. Sir, it is not true that our increase in trade, especially in the matter of thd increase in agricultural products. has been obtained without exertion and without careful provision on the part of this government. Least of all is it true that the overflowing treasury that we are now possessed of and which we have filled at greatly reduced rates of taxation from those which prevailed before could have been gained * without adopting what was substantially a revenue tariff, as an hon. gentleman opposite was forced in spite of himself to admit the other evening. That is what I claim for the Liberal party ; no more, no less. Let our opponents juggle as they will, let them mis-state, let them misrepresent and detract as they please, they cannot alter these great facts that in the last seven years the net revenue of Canada has quadrupled, that in the last seven years the increase in the volume of trade is double that which took place in the past 30 years, that our population is increasing to-day in all probability at the rate of 1,000 per cent, certainly at the rate of 500 per cent faster than it was in the decade before. Now, Sir, I do not pretend to say that I or anybody else can undertake to guarantee this country against reverses. We may have to face a world wide depression, as other countries have had to face it. We may have a succession of bad harvests. There mav be difficulties, dangers and disappointments. There may be financial troubles, wars and rumours of wars. We may have a chapter of adverse accidents to encounter, but if my hon. friends of the Liberal party are only half as constant to good government and good principle as these hon. gentlemen opposite have shown themselves to evil ones, Sir, I believe that the close of the next decade will see Canada still standing where Canada is to-day, and that is not merely amongst the foremost but the first, primus inter pares, of all the nations, not only of those with whom we trade, but of every considerable nation throughout the civilized world.


CON

Rufus Henry Pope

Conservative (1867-1942)

Air. RUFUS H. POPE (Compton).

I have listened with particular interest to the hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright). He is an old parliamentarian and an old politician ; he has retired to some extent from active work in his political party, and having found himself on the shelf, and it being a year since we heard from him last,

I thought that possibly during the intervening twelve months he might have discovered something new to talk about. I was disappointed. We heard the old speech of last year from the Knight of South Oxford. We will probably hear it again. At his time of life and in view of the great exertion that it is for him to speak, I think it would be permissible that in the future his speeches be reprinted from year to year in ' Hansard ' of sessions to come. The gallant Knight from South Oxford, evidently on false information supplied to him, charged my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) that in a moment of weakness he had spoken words that might be interpreted as indicating views favourable to free trade, and he told the member for Pictou that he would give him information on that subject as well as on others. Well, there is no man in this House, who from his experience of having jumped from one political party to another, is better able to give advice on 'that score than is the member for South Oxford. I was carried back many years in memory as I listened to the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I cannot resist the temptation of referring to some of the things which were brought to my mind in connection with his public life. Before the general elections of 1896 when the Conservative party was beaten in the country, there was one lonely politician travelling his native province, forsaken and unattended. Somebody called attention to his solitude, and the member for South Oxford replied :

Wolves hunt in packs but lions hunt alone.

The lion of course, was the right hon. gentleman himself ; to-day the lion is in his den. Here is another sample of oratory from a speech which Sir Richard Cartwright delivered at Norwich in 1895 :

He declared if the Liberals won he would be called upon to take the difficult and dangerous post of Minister of Finance. He said it was a post which I will neither seek. nor shirk. It is not one which any man who understands the situation is likely to court for some years to come, and as far as I am personally concerned It may very well be you will render me a service by keeping me out of it.

He thought he would be Finance Minister, and so also apparently the Prime Minister thought, but when the hour came to select a Minister of Finance the member for South Oxford was rejected and another found in his stead. They probably had discovered in the meantime in the diagram with which they have supplied us, this

statement of the trade in Canada [DOT] between 1S75 and 1879 when Sir Richard Cartwright was Minister of Finance, and they feared that experience again. Even this Liberal administration that has broken every pledge it has given to the people, that has rejected every plank of its own platform to adopt the platform of its political rivals : that is constantly stealing other people's clothing and casting off their own ; even that party cannot find it in its heart of hearts to make Sir Richard Cartwright Minister of Finance. But this was not the first time Sir Richard Cartwright was rejected ; he had another bitter experience of the same kind in days gone by. This letter will explain as to how he felt on the occasion of his first turn down.

(Copy.)

Kingston, Oct. 12th, 1869. My dear Sir John,-I notice with great regret that Sir F. Hincks has been gazetted. From the tenor of my former note of the subject you will probably not be surprised to learn that I fear I cannot support that gentleman. Of course as in duty bound I will await your explanations of the grounds of this appointment, but it is so unlikely that they wrill be such as to enable me to concur in it that I think it only fair to notify you at once that however well disposed I was and am towards yourself and the rest of your colleagues, I cannot feel the same confidence as heretofore in the administration in which Sir F. Hincks holds office.

So far as you are concerned I do not suppose one supporter more or less matters much just now, and so far as I myself am concerned I am thoroughly alive to the gravity of the step I am taking, but this is a matter in which 1 have no option.

. Yours very sincerely,

(Sgd.) RICHARD J. CARTWRIGHT.

Sir John Macdonald, K.C.B.

Well, Sir, from a gentleman who there announced such high principles, I would expect to find that after 1896 he would retain some shadow at least of the principles set forth in this letter to Sir John A. Macdonald. At a banquet given to Sir Richard Cartwright not very many years ago the Prime Minister took occasion to pay compliments to Sir Richard Cartwright and here is what he said about him :

In the days of Mr. Mackenzie, when the country "was much depressed, there were many who believed that if the tariff was increased, that policy would be justified by the necessities of the revenue, and that it would be a valuable policy for the country at large. I can give you the story without betraying the secrets, because these things happened before my day, but if the voice of Richard Cartwright had prevailed at that time this policy would have been adopted. If it was not accepted it was on account of other influences which prevailed with the government of the day, and for sixteen or twenty years Sir Richard bore the brunt of the obloquy of not having responded to public sentiment, w'hereas

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   S, 1904
Permalink
CON

Rufus Henry Pope

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. POPE.

| the truth was, he was ready to respond to public sentiment. For eighteen years he bore the brunt of all the obloquy, and never whispered a word. ... It is not every day you can find such abnegation, and such loyalty to the party, and I have reason to believe and repeat to you-I not only repeat it to you, my colleagues, but I wish my words to be heard all over Canada-that Canada little knows the debt of gratitude it owes to Sir Richard Cartwright.

Here is a statement by the Prime Minister that while Sir Richard Cartwright was not true to his principles, he still continued a minister of the Crown hanging on to his salary, advocating a policy he did not believe in, and throwing Canada's trade into a depth of depression the like of which was never witnessed before. And if to-day we have the prosperity which the hon. gentleman can boast of, it is due to the policy of the Conservative party, fought against and denounced as it was for twenty years by the party now in power. The hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) complained that the Conservative party had been true to themselves, and that while they attended to the constituencies represented by their friends they neglected the constituencies which returned opponenrs. Well, there is no fear that the Minister of Trade and Commerce will forget his friends. No one who reads the public accounts can charge him with ingratitude.

As I was looking through the pages of history, I could almost fancy that all the Canadian public were named Cartwright.

I found F. L. Cartwright, with $1,000 ; Col. R. Cartwright, with $2,890 ; secretary Cartwright of the Railway Commission, with $4,000; Rev. Cartwright, of the Kingston penitentiary, with $1,200; Henry George Cartwright, with $550 ; the secretary of Sir Richard Cartwright, nephew, with $2,200 ; and, last but not least, the salary of the gallant knight himself ; making a total of $20,250 a year that the people of this country pay for the privilege of having the Cartwright family in Canada, If the gallant knight for South Oxford wants to publish the literature of the Liberal party, let him take the sheet which I have just read ; and if he feels that he cannot circulate it I will reciprocate the kind offer he made to this side of the House, by having it printed and circulated for the benefit of the Liberal party, in order that the people of Canada may know the great financial sacrifices which the Cartwright family have mad * for the country. Alexander Mackenzie said that Canada does not care for a rigid adherence to principles of government. I wonder what that hon. gentleman would say now if he were here to witness the giving away not only of principles, but, what is more sacred, the very life of the gallant member for South Oxford, a man of such wonderful abilities that he selected himself

to be Minister of Finance before he gained power. I listened to-day to the old chestnuts which the hon. gentleman was telling us. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be charitable. There is a time in every man's life when the mind ceases to operate on the present and future, and only applies itself to the past 'Consequently th;e hon. gentleman is confined to those two or three old stories on this subject which he* has given us so many times in the past.

In regard to the hon. gentleman's position in this House, every man's history or position in Canada is what he makes it. If he found himself driven from the Liberal party in 1896, wandering about alone in the province of Ontario-if the party to which he belongs and which he had been affiliated all those years could not afford to tolerate him as one of their associates on the political platform-if he had achieved such a failure as that, I want to ask what was the result of his labours in those years when he was deriding Canada, and applying to it all the bad names and adjectives that he could find in the English language. The only effect of it was to turn away from our shores hundreds of thousands of people who would have come here to make homes for themselves. We on this side of the House had to fight for our great western country, and none knows it better than the hon. gentleman himself, whose articles defaming this country were published in magazines and sent broadcast by American railroad companies throughout the known world. Under these circumstances it is not to be wondered at that the western states were settled before western Canada.

^ There was a true patriotic people and no Richard John Cartwright in the United States. At that time we had to fight for ihe building of a railroad into our western country, against the opposition of the right hon. gentleman both in this House and in the country, and against his threats to the farmers that it would mortgage their farms for the rest of their lives. The hon. gentleman's course tended to prevent the people of Canada learning the real truth as to our western country, so that when the railroad was constructed, and the time for settling the country came, and we applied to our own people what did we find ? We found that the speeches delivered by hon. gentlemen opposite and their resolutions moved in parliament had the effect of turning the tide of immigration to the western states instead of to western Canada. So we had to begin to convert our own Canadian people to a realization of the wealth and the future possibilities of that great western country, as well as to remove the prejudice against it which had been created in the minds of foreigners. At that time the United States had no surplus population, while they had plenty of territory, and they were bringing in millions of foreign people to settle upon their vacant

lands. It was not until a later period that the Canadian Northwest began to fill up* and during the later years of the Conservative administration we began to send immigration agents into the western states and into eastern states as well-and some of these men continue to be employed by the present government and are doing good work-and in that way we laid the foundation of that influx of population into that country which has taken place in recent years, including the return from the United States of many Canadians ; and the members of this House will not complain if every Canadian who went to the United States learns of the true value of our great Northwest, and returns to the land of his nativity. We will welcome every one of them. With regard to settlers' effects, that question is confined chiefly to the west. No settlers' effects to any particular extent comq, into eastern Canada. The law with regard to them has been the law of the land for many years, and it may continue to be for some years to come, so that no special credit can be taken for it by one party or the other.

No hon. gentleman on the other side can say that he, and he alone, or the policy and the party to which he belongs, created that inflow of people. It is the natural overflow of the United States, and England, and of eastern Canada, that is beginning to come into Canada instead of going abroad, as it did in all those years I have referred to. But if you take settlers' effects, you will find that in 1902 the value of $1,500,000 went from Canada Into the United States. That would be almost altogether from Eastern Canada. You can run down through a period of several years, and you will find each year -settlers' effects to the value of t million and a quarter dollars have gone into the United States, so that when the hon. member for South Oxford (iSir Richard Cartwright) claims that the exodus from Canada to the United States is a thing of the past, he cannot, if he has any sincerity or truth, base that claim on anything except his own belated imagination. The right hon. gentleman only gave one set of statements. When I heard him give quotations from the Bible, I began to hope that he had been imbibing in his heart of hearts the truths of that great volume, and that we would have no more one-sided statements presented by him, but in this I was sadly mistaken.

At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   S, 1904
Permalink

PRIVATE BILLS.

June 8, 1904