June 8, 1904

CON

Rufus Henry Pope

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. POPE.

If it is the same Mr. Fielding who thus spoke in the Nova Scotia legislature, he is to-day the Finance Minister of Canada. Are all these gentlemen on the Treasury Benches of the same kidney ? Is the Minister of Finance as great a sinner as the Minister of Trade and Commerce and are they all sinners alike 1 Mr. Fielding, referring to the coal trade said :

Referring to the coal trade he said the Liberal party would not preach one doctrine in Cape Breton and another in the rest of the Dominion. If the coal business could not be carried on without protection, then it is better not to carry it on at all. Protection was not a necessity for its welfare ; the coal business is not a pauper business.

You would hardly believe it, Mr. Speaker, that the Mr. Fielding who thus spoke and who pledged himself to free coal, is the man who to-day dictates the fiscal policy of the government which maintains a duty on coal. Again Sir Richard Cartwright said :

Now if there be a principle of political economy clearer than another, it is the principle that the worst tax which could be imposed is a tax on a necessity of life like coal. Moreover it is a tax exceedingly partial and unjust in its operation. It will fall on the poorest classes of the community in the depths of the Canadian winter. It is absolutely sectional, pressing heavily on the people of On-Mr. POPE.

tario, and not at all on the great masses of the people through the other provinces. It will form a standing grievance. It is a most doubtful benefit to Nova Scotia.

Well, Sir, the province of Ontario was not so selfish and so narrow as to endorse this statement. The province of Ontario believes that there should be reciprocity of tariffs between province and province. In view of such language from the gallant knight, and in view of his practices since he came to power, it is no wonder that he is going around to-day alone, looking for a constituency. If he had been consistent in his conrse there would have been at least some one to have gone along with him; there is nothing so faithful as a dog. The robbery which the hon. gentleman spoke of is going on to-day, and it has been going on for eight years, and the hon. gentleman has been approving of it with his vote and his talents. Sir Richard Cartwright, speaking on the Budget on April 26th, 1897, and referring to the preference of 12J per cent which he said was open to all countries, said :

And lastly, what my free trade friends will remember and lay to heart, we have turned the ship's head in the right direction and toward the open sea.

His song then was : now we are under full sail ; we have been in power for one year, we have fifty odd majority who will swallow everything we ask them to swallow, the flag of the Liberal party for free trade is floating, our barque is in full sail with Captain Cartwright on board. But she did not sail far. She struck a rock before she left harbour. I do not know whether there was any of these two cases of rye whisky on board that the Minister of Agriculture furnishes, but whatever the causes may be the ship did not sail far, and yesterday the knight from South Oxford got another slap in the face, what we call a double backer. He had told the country that one of the things that did not deserve protection was the woollen industry ; but yesterday his colleagues wiped- out the preference so far as woollens are concerned and further protected the woollen industry. So to-day the hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) gets up in the House to endorse the new condition ; he will endorse any condition that helps out the Cartwright family. I believe the hon. gentleman to be clever, notwithstanding all his faults, notwithstanding the cruelty that has been shown towards him by the party to which he belongs, who haven't the decency to point the open road for him in the future, and notwithstanding the weak character of his speech to-day ; and he must have said to himself as he sat down, thank God I have got even with you for what you did yesterday. Mr. Fielding said :

So far as protecting the industries of this country are concerned, eternal vigilance must be the price of protection.

That is what our Finance Minister said a few years ago. Tq-day he is not satisfied with one tariff or two tariffs, but he wants three tariffs ; and . he is trying to make them subject to the dictation of an autocrat who sits in the government. We shall see about that. We have had various tariffs in this country, but we have never before had a proposition to place in the hands -I will not say of one member of the government, but one citizen of Canada, the right to say what our duties shall be, when they shall be lowered and when they shall be put up. Talk of Russia ! Sir, they know nothing in Russia of the limit of legislation as compared with that of the supposed Liberal party of the Dominion of Canada-men who were supposed to be, if not the fathers of Liberal thought, at least the men expected to perpetuate Liberal principles in Canada. The Finance Minister makes this proposition in face of the fact that he formerly said that one of the absolute necessities of business was stability of the tariff, even at some cost to the industries of the country. He has laid down that principle again and again in parliament ; and here you find him proposing legislation under which you will not know from one week to another what the tariff will be. When the hon. gentleman tries to put this dumping act into effect, he will get into more trouble than the man who tries to run a monkey team in a theatre. Do you think the electors of this country are going to allow any one man to dictate when the tariff shall be changed, put up or put down ? When the people of Canada get acquainted with this proposition of hon. gentlemen opposite it will be known as the dumping tariff, because in my opinion it will dump them out of power. I find that Sir Wilfrid Laurier said :

We will get a treaty with the United States if we can ; and if England objects we will consider her objection. Let Lord Salisbury take care of the interests of England and we will take care of the interests of Canada.

The Liberal party will never cease the agitation until they have finally triumphed and obtained continental freedom of trade.

I do not know what they call a triumph. Perhaps seven or eight years of power is not considered by them as a triumph :

What my hon. friend has said as to my protection proclivities is perfectly true. ^ I do not deny that I have been a protectionist, which I am still.

The policy which we advocate, is the removal of all commercial barriers between this country and the great kindred nation to the south. The Liberal party as long as I have anything to do with it will remain true to the cause until the cause is successful.

Well, Sir, the right hon. gentleman gained power and went to Washington, and came back again ; but he did not bring anything with him except the bills of expenses. The people of this country had the chance of paying $45,000 or $50,000, I forget the amount exactly, but approximately that is correct. The only other benefit we had was that that trip to Washington taught the Prime Minister never to go there again, and he has said on more than one occasion that he was not knocking at that door any more. We are glad to hear that; but that is one of the principles which the Liberal party said they were going to put in force. We have sat in the House and heard the changes rung hour in and hour out that the Conservative party never could get anything from the United States because we did not treat them fairly-because we wanted an alien labour law, or this or that for the Dominion of Canada ;-because we were British in sentiment we could not expect to receive any benefits from the United States. So the right hon. gentleman said : Put us in power. He had never been in power ; he had been only playing politics up to that time. This is what he said :

When the Liberal party comes into power it [DOT]still send commissioners to Washington to propose a mutual agreement by which there will he free trade along the whole line.

It does not occur to him for a moment that his proposition will not be accepted. The new Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the greatest French Canadian, will be going down to Washington. So he went. He said :

There will be free trade along the whole line, doing away with restrictions and removing the customs-houses that go so far to cause friction between the two countries.

What a farce ! Mr. Speaker, the reading of that language and its comparison with the language which these hon. gentlemen have used as an introduction to the present legislation, is alone enough to drive them from power if there were enough thinking people in this country. The right hon. gentleman also said :

If we come to power on that day, I promise you that a commission will go to Washington, and if we can get a treaty in natural products and a list of manufactured articles that treaty will be. made. The policy of the Liberal is to give you a market with sixty-five millions of British men upon this continent.

We have not yet got that market. To show how little these gentlemen knew what they were talking about, and how foreign the responsibility of government was to their thought, we find them now proposing a dumping clause by which they are going to exclude, if they can, these very 65.000,000 people. Such a contradiction of policy was never before presented to any nation on

the face of the earth. They have not learned the lesson yet, Mr. Speaker. He goes on to say :

The Liberal party believe in free trade on broad lines, such as exists in Great Britain ; ani upon that platform, exemplified as I have told you, the Liberal party will fight its next battle.

They fought that battle. They put their faces towards the open sea, and all got on board. I ask you, where is free trade in this country as it is in England to-day ? What did these hon. gentlemen do ? As is well known, the right hon. gentleman went to England. He had the opportunity of his life, in the judgment of people who knew English sentiment at that time. It was previous to the Jubilee, when the whole British empire was looking for something better in the way of British sentiment than we had known in the past. That noble sovereign, Queen Victoria, was to have her great Jubilee.

All the true and honest men of the different parts of the empire-black and white- were to be present to do homage to that great sovereign. Canada, which is one of the brightest spots in the empire and which never cost the empire a farthing, sent over her Prime Minister. That Prime Minister had promised us in London or Hamilton' that the first thing he would do when he went to England would be to treat for reciprocal trade on reciprocal conditions-preference for preference-between Canada and England. Was that promise carried out ? It was not. It was broken like so many others, and what was the excuse ? The excuse given was that this government wished to give England a preference without imposing upon her the bane of protection, which had been a curse to Canada, and also they wished to give it freely as a recognition of the splendid liberty which England had given us. Certainly, Sir, England has given us liberty, but nothing more than the rights which British people enjoy everywhere in this great empire, be they black or white. The Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier stood at the foot of the throne to tell our late beloved Queen how Canada valued British liberty and British connection. But, Sir, there was a time when we were given the opportunity to show our faith and loyalty. That time was when the empire called on all her sons to give the mother country their aid in South Africa. \te had the opportunity then, and we know with what generosity of feeling the First Minister responded to this appeal to protect the British flag. We have not forgotten the stand he took on that occasion.

On the subject of a preference, we found Mr. Fielding indulging in these remarks :

England, which, after a great struggle under Bright and Cobden, has made the people's food free, was asked to turn back the hands of the clock and tax the food of the people. Eng-Mr. POPE.

land was asked again and again to accept this condition ; and just so long as that demand was made, the great journals and leaders of thought in England scoffed at preferential trade of that kind.

Well, Mr. Speaker, time has gone on and the hands of the clock were not turned back, but have gone on ticking every day from that time to this. And every day the strength of the position taken by us, not from a selfish standpoint, but from the best standpoint in the world, the strengthening of the empire, has become more apparent. Anything that strengthens Canada strengthens the empire in its most vital part. We are a highly intelligent people as compared with other people, in the world. Consequently the more of us there are in this country, the stronger will be the British empire, and the nearer to the very heart of the empire will be a people prepared to live and die for the perpetuation of British institutions. Any act, commercial or otherwise, that strengthens Canada strengthens the empire just as much as if it were strengthening the empire in London-aye, more, because we have fresh air and plenty of space and opportunity in this country for the application of men's ingenuity. And we have hope in the future of Canada. Yes, we had that hope when this country was being painted black by the oracle of hon. gentleman opposite who addressed the House this afternoon. Under those circumstances, the clock has gone on keeping time, and we have witnessed the departure from the British cabinet of one of the most able of British statesmen, Mr. Chamberlain, who has taken up this same fight, not for us alone but for all the empire, and the ground upon which he stands is no selfish, narrow, contracted ground, but broad and generous, and his policy, if carried out, will do more tor the development and prosperity of this country than all the legislation this government has passed or can ever hope to pass. It means the entry of our agricultural and lumber and the other products we send to Great Britain, into the British market under a system of preference. Hon. gentlemen opposite have adopted certain principles of protection in this country. Why should they object to the adoption of a system in England which will protect us in the very market where our goods have to be sold ? The greater price we are paid for our products, the greater value is added to every acre of land in this country. And in no part of the Dominion will greater benefit be experienced from the adoption of Mr. Chamberlain's policy than in its eastern portion. Our eastern provinces cannot compete with the great west in the raising of grain, but in the manufacture of dairy products and the fine qualities of beef, mutton and bacon, we can hold our own, and if given protection in the British market, we could distance all competitors.

Yesterday was an important Hay, as is always that on which the annual statement is made of the finances of Canada, and as time rolls on and our population increases, that day becomes more important. There may have been a few people pleased with yesterday's statement because there were some changes in the tariff, but in my judgment there were many more who were disappointed. And if you take all those to whom that speech was addressed, you will find that not one in twenty-five understands what the tariff really means. I am competent there are not ten men on that side who can tell you how that tariff, which was brought down yesterday, really will affect the trade of this country. Still, when the Finance Minister got up and said: behold this splendid combination tariff that I have created,' there was tremendous applause on the other side, and from none did that ap-lause come more fervently than from those tvho did not understand what it meant. We know that it has a disturbing element. It has a disturbing element because we cannot have a law hanging over every man's head whereby he may be compelled to pay a special duty in addition to the ordinary duty, under certain conditions, without its having a prejudicial effect on trade conditions. But that is not all. Protection as understood by hon. gentlemen on this side, means but one thing, but as expressed in the resolutions moved by the leader of the opposition on more than one occasion. Our national policy takes in all the great natural resources of this country. It embodies a great constructive principle which can be applied in the tariff for the upbuilding of the nation. But when we take up the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, we find it an unknown quantity. It may be one thing to-day and something else to-morrow.

You will never develop the great resources of Canada with any such fluctuating tariff as hon. gentlemen opposite are now proposing. I agree with the Minister of Finance that a fixed tariff is essential to the prosperity and advancement of the country. I take him at his word. He did not much improve the tariff last year. But he dared not go twelve months longer under the tariff we had. In order to avoid the difficulties which faced him last year, he did improve his fiscal policy then somewhat, by proposing bounties on silver-lead and on iron. But he dare not now come down and say : I am a protectionist, because he has been talking free trade. And so you have an exhibition of a government, a set of men acting together jfor party purposes and personal gain who cannot, announce any principle, who cannot lay down any rule of broad minded legislation that they can undertake to follow. I do not know what would have been the result if we had here the government we had seven years ago. Because, Mr. Speaker, there has been a great change in the personnel of the government. It was said to be a strong government, because it contained Mr. Tarte, because it contained Mr. Blair, because it contained Sir Oliver Mowat, Sir Louis Davies, Mr. Geoffrion, Mr. Dobell, Hon. Mr. Mills and Sir Henri Joly. These men are all gone. And whom have we in their places ? Read the history of Canada and you learn nothing of their names. A record of municipal politics might enable you to trace them, but you do not find their names in the national history of Canada. Whether, with the old cabinet we would have had this bulldozing in the trade relations,

I do not know. Whether we would have had these half-hearted changes, I do not know. But I do not believe we would. I believe that they would have made such an impression upon the Prime Minister, that they would have bolstered his courage sufficiently, that he would have come forward and said : I am now for the national policy, because the principles of the opposition in this House are the only principles by which Canada can be successfully and well governed : I forsake the pathway of the past ; I apologize to Canada, and I am now the head of a strong protectionist government. But we have now an administration of weaklings, the successors of the strong men of earlier days. And so we must accept vacillating legislation, doubtful legislation, legislation in which we find no vestige of principle, while the Conservative party stands for principle as a unit. We know how difficult' it is, even when men are agreed upon a principle, to lay it down sufficiently strong to make it work out to the development of the country's resources, to overcome local prejudices and feelings of provincialism that exist to a greater or less extent everywhere. Even if the Prime Minister and his party were united, it would be difficult enough to bring down legislation to upbuild Canada as she should be upbuilt. But when you have a party made up of here a free trader, there a low protectionist, there a high protectionist, and the other fellow nothing at all, it is impossible to get, through such an aggregation, a straightforward policy based upon sound principle.

The Finance Minister yesterday consoled himself with the fact that we are having pretty good times; not quite so good as they 'were a while ago ; they are beginning to pinch here and there a little. He mentioned one or two industries that were very promising in different parts of Canada and I suppose he thought he had knocked the. last spots of the sun, by the changes in the tariff that he now proposes. But let him look at Sydney and the condition of the industries there and read the quotations. Let him look at the Soo and the industries there. Let him look at the cotton industry, look at the price of butter and cheese : let him look where he will and see if he cannot find a few spots still left. If there is an industry in Canada that should be in

a most flourishing condition, it is the pulp industry, of which I will speak of later on. The Minister of Finance is beginning to realize, as everybody else is realizing, that we are beginning to feel the effect of competition from abroad. Why, Sir, to look at the trade figures alone is quite sufficient. Take our total exports $214,000,000,-and our total imports-$224,000,000. There you have a balance of trade against us for 1903 of $10,410,000, exclusive of coin and bullion. Sir, we are a young nation, with lots of energy, with plenty of raw material, great fwater powers and Immense possibilities, and what we want is men and money, and especially money, in order to develop these great resources. A tariff that gives us at the end of the year $10,000,000 less money as a result of our trade than we had at the beginning is not a tariff that tends to the develpment of Canada. If the Prime Minister discovers that we have too much money, that we are too wealthy, that we have money to give to the United States or Germany more than they give to us, instead of keeping it at home, his policy is a right one. But if Canada needs money, his policy is wrong, because the figures show that we are $10,000,000 worse off at the end of the year than we were at the beginning. During the by-election in Montreal the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) made a speech on this subject. He said : Look at the volume of trade-four hundred odd million. True, more than half that is against us, or is money that we are sending away, but, at the same time, there is the volume of trade. According to that,, a man whose wage is $1.25 a day and his exxienditure is 75 cents a day would have a total volume of trade of only $2. But if you take a man whose earnings are $1.25 a day and whose expenditure is $1.50 a day you have one whose total volume of trade is $2.75-and this man, according to the Prime Minister, would be growing rich. If we were an old, completed nation, with a number of people living in luxury, following the hounds across country spending their time as ladies and gentlemen do in great centres, all this would be very well. - But you are legislating for a different kind of nation altogether. We are a bee hive ; we have to work, we are a comparatively poor people ; our history is comparatively a short one, and every man should work, word, work ;-that is the way to build up the country ; and every man should have protection for his industry and his labour. You cannot expect much good from the policy of a man who lays down the principle that the volume of trade is an indication of a nation's wealth. When our policy proceeds on that theory you may look for hard times before very long.

I have shown that the balance of trade is $10,000,000 against us. Let us look at Mr. POPE.

some of the details. In 1903 our exports to Great Britain amounted to $125,000,000. Our imports from Great Britain amounted to $57,793,000. That left a balance of trade in our favour as between ourselves and Great Britain of $67,000,000. For the year previous, 1902, the balance in our favour on our trade with Great Britain was $68,000,000. But now, if you take the figures of our trade with the United States of America you will find that our imports were $128,t 000,000 while our exports to the United States were $49,000,000, leaving a balance against us for 1903 of $79,000,000 in our trade with the United States. What we ship to Great Britain are our great agricultural products mainly. We ship, probably $100,000,000 of grain, animals and their products and other products of our farms.

It comes back to Canada, the policy of the hon. gentleman has been that when this 867,000,000 got back here they would no(^ keep it here to furnish employment for the people and encourage industries in this country where possible, but to send every dollar of that to the United States to pay for industrial life in the United States. You cannot upbuild Canada on these lines.; its an absolute Impossibility. Wlien we have the money in our own hands, why do we not legislate to keep it in our own hands, by giving prosperity, by giving profitable investment V You will find in the United States that the old farmers on the flats of the Connecticut river and other valleys' invest money in the bonds of railways and enterprises of all sorts in the United States. Their surplus, money is not sent to us, but is invested in their own country, and_ by following a policy of that kind for nearly a century they have built up the greatest nation on the face of God's earth to-day. They are adopting the same policy on the southern part of the continent of America, and does it require much argument to show that it must ultimately be adopted here if we want to upbuild this country ? We have the opportunity if we seize it; but it will not be by allowing the balance of trade to be as it is to-day, $75,000,000 against us, and going from bad to worse year after year while the hon. gentlemen have been in power.

Now they propose a dumping policy. I want to know Where they are going to begin to dump. The right hon. gentleman must 'be with me in saying that any policy adopted should be one that we can understand, and that laws should be such that a lawyer could understand and define them. The legislatiion now proposed no man can understand. You have a dumping axe, or whatever you like to call it, that comes down at 15 or 50 per cent, but can the right hon. gentleman tell me when dumping is going on V I would like to ask him how he is going to find out when dumping is going on V Let us take, for example, the case of ani-

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Permalink

JU27E 8, 1904


mals. We import $2,341,000 worth of animals to compete with the animals of Canada. Is it time to say that dumping is going on V Will he say he is going to dump now with animals coming in to that extent ? Take, for example, pork products. Last year we had from the United States $2,221,000 of pork products, ham, bacon, under the head of provisions, that could be produced, by our own farmers. When are they going to begin to dump on that amount ? Then take lumber. Here you have $4,000,000 worth of wood and its products. Are they going to begin to dump ? Take paper. We have over $2,000,000 worth of paper coming in, when we are the greatest fibre producing people in the world. We have immense forests of timber, and are they going to begin to dump on this 7 Hon. gentlemen are as silent as the grave. If the whole row of seventeen ministers sat there, you could not get a reply, because they dare not say. We have here on our statute-books a law which they cannot interpret, and they dare not tell us at what stage they are going to put it in force. That is what they mean by stability of legislation. I should also like to refer to the question of expenditure. I find that when the Conservative party left office in 1896 we had an expenditure of $36,949,142.03, and in 1903 T find that the present administration had an expenditure of $51,691,902.76, or an increase of $14,712,760.73 chargeable to consolidated fund. Now, Sir, if we take the total disbursements, we find that in 1896 they were $41,702,000 ; in 1903 they were $61,000,000, an increase, in round numbers, of $20,000,000, after making a proper disposition of the $3,000,000 in connection with the North Shore Quebec Railway subsidy vote. When these hon. gentlemen appealed to the country for power, I had been supporting a government for about seven years, and since that I have been about the same number Orf years on this side of the House. They appeal to our constituents apparently in earnest that the party then in power was too extravagant, and must be turned out in order that the expenses of the country may be reduced. ~ They cried out against that tremendous expenditure of $36,000,000. All we now have from that poor old remnant of a politician, who now occupies that position of the fifth -wheel to a coach, is the eloquent statement that taxation has changed to-day, and that the thing which used to be taxation is not taxation now. Why ? Because I am now getting $8,000 and the other Cartwrights, big and small, are getting the balance of the $20,000, which makes all the difference in the world. This $20,000,000 has to be accounted for. Hon. gentlemen can pass their estimates through this House, but the time will come when they will have to face the people of Canada and show what they have done with the money ; and I do hope that some hon. gentleman will do what has never yet been done, show the great public works that remain as monuments for the expenditure of this tremendous amount of money over and above what we expended for the government of Canada. The total debt in 1896 was $325,000,000 and in 1903 *$361,000,000, or an increase in the total debt of $35,000,000. The total assets have increased $32,000,000, thus leaving $3,000,000 of a total increase in the indebtedness of the country since they came into power. Adding to that the $3,000,000 which have been charged to the wrong account, you get $6,416,006 as the actual increase of the debt. These are figures such as are not given to us in any cooked form. Whether that debt has increased $3,000,000 or $6,000,000 or $1,000,000 at the end of this year, as the Minister of Finance said yesterday, makes no difference for the purpose of my argument. We do not find that this wonderful increase of expenditure is devoted to the reduction of the debt. That is sure. We have not put our revenues there ; we have expended these revenues, and still have this indebtedness. We have a total revenue for the last five years of the Conservative regime of $182, 000.000, an average of $36,000,000 a year. For the last five years of this administration we have had a total revenue of $248. 000,000, an average revenue for the last five years of $49,000,000, an average increase o<" $13,000,000, or a total increase for the five years of $66,000,000. I want the hon. gen tleman w.ho leads this government, or some of his associates, to show to this House and the people of Canada what great construction has taken place in Canada, representing that $66,000,000 of increase. They have imposed heavy burdens upon the people of Canada in the way of taxes, for which, so far as I can see, in the length and breadth of Canada we have no great public work of utility to Canada. Now, Sir, if we do not find it there where can we find it ? When we of the Conservative party were in power, we spent money. We do not deny the fact. We increased the public debt by some hundred million dollars, but if you look at the $65,000,000 we put into the Canadian Pacific Railway, it you look at the $20,000,000 we put into the Intercolonial Railway, if you look at the $33,000,000 we put into the canals and public works of that kind, you have the accounting for a larger amount than that by which the Conservative party increased the public debt. I want hon. gentlemen opposite to show us a Canadian Pacific Railway, to show us extended works, to show us great construction representing this money that they are sucking out of us from year to year in extra taxes. This is a government composed of men who said that a dollar should not be taken from the people of Canada except to pay the mere running expenses of the administration. Is that the



reason why the running expenses of the administration have been put up year after year ? Is it to provide a sink hole for the money taken out of the pockets of the people ? Why not apply this money to the reduction of the public debt ? Let me say to my right hon. friend that thd people of Canada are not all asleep. They have not all money to burn. Some of us have to work for our living in this world. We know what it is to earn our livelihood by honest investment, or ingenuity, or actual labour. The mass of the people want to know what has become of the money. If you will take the figures of the various departments for 1896 and compare them with those of 1903 you will find how the expenditures have increased. You will find that under the head of interest on debt there has been an increase of $565,709 and justice, $201,678. I ask you if there is any better administration of justice in Canada now than there was then. We get no better administration of justice than we have always had in Canada. Hon. gentlemen opposite may talk about the Yukon. They should reduce the Yukon somewhat. There is not so much coast line as there used to be when we left power. They have given away part of it. They have found Canada too big to govern. There was an increase in civil government of $158,164, fisheries $100,578, and the only break in the list of increases is that furnished by the geological survey. In immigration tjiere has been an increase of $522,715. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce worked at some length this afternoon upon the question of immigration. He said that the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) deserved great credit for the settlement of the west, that the hon. Minister of the Interior deserved all the credit that the records of this country would give him. I dwelt at the outset of my remarks this afternoon on the question of immigration and I wish to enter my protest against a system of immigration which fills that country with men from the slums of Lurope and gives no similar opportunity to the men of eastern Canada. I know that in the district where I live a poor man can go across the line 35 miles and he can buy a ticket to the Northwest of Canada for less money than he can buy it from his own village. I say the principle is wrong. Surely we need not put an obstacle in the way of a man who is born in Canada under our own flag. Surely he should enjoy advantages equal with those extended to Doukhobors, Galicians, Americans and everybody else on the face of the earth. We have been asking for quality and asking for quality only. We say that we do not want, merely for the sake of putting people into this country, to take any class of people who will lower the ability and standing of the people of Mr. POPE. Canada, and we also say that the men of eastern Canada are entitled to the same consideration as if they were born in some of the lower parts of Italy or Russia. 1 would remind the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce that when we were in power and striving to put immigrants into the west he supported Mr. Somerville's resolutions proposing to strike $50,000 off the item for immigration and if he will look through * Hansard ' he will find himself and his leaders great and small on record as fighting session after session against putting any iimmigrants into our western country. For quarantine there was an increase of $168,084 and for Indians $197,407. The Indians must be growing. For the branch of the superintendent of insurance there was an increase of $4,908, lighthouses, &c., $498,086, mail subsidies $214,369, and so you will find increases in all the departments except that of the geological survey, chargeable to collection of revenue and to capital accounts making a total increase in. the year 1903 over 1896, when we left office, of $17,098,339. That accounts for some of the taxation hon. gentlemen opposite wrung out of us. The only decrease, as I have already said, is in the geological survey ; all the rest of the departments show increases, while we have in the country only half a million more population than we had when hon. gentlemen opposite came into power. I say that an increase of $17,098,339 is a misappropriation of the taxes secured from the people of Canada. It has not been applied as it should have been towards a reduction of the public debt. If hon. gentlemen opposite had been true to their promises, if they had given us some reasonable amount of retrenchment, if the enlarge-iment of the expenditure had been in proportion to the increase in population we would say nothing about it, but after adding $17,000,000 to the expenditure, I ask them if it would not have been reasonable to have expected that they would have applied $10,000,000 at least to the reduction of the public debt. I believe that the people of Canada are anxious to know something about these expenditures. One word as to the surplus. The hon. Minister of Finance glowed with surpluses. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce did not say much about surpluses. He djd not know anything about them when he administered the affairs of this country. He had no experience of handling surpluses and he denounced them every time we had them as being the result of wringing taxes out of the people. With his inexperience, with his past record and with the fact that, as he showed this afternoon, he has taken to reading the Bible, 1 believe he shows his one sincere position in order to assure the salvation of his dear old soul. There may be $14,000,000 of a surplus. I am not a finan- cier, I am not a book-keeper and 1 do not propose to begin to be one now. But everybody looking at the items, going over the Intercolonial Railway returns, the returns of the sales of Dominion lands and the various other items, must admit that if the book-keeping was done as a financial or banking or commercial house would be obliged to do their book-keeping instead of being $14,000,000, the surplus would be about $4,000,000. For the purpose of bolstering up their statement they have charged the extra expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway and the bounties on iron and steel to capital account, and summarized these amounts to $10,000,000. If the Minister of Finance would do his book-keeping honestly, he could claim a surplus of $3,000,000 or $4,000,000, and then according to the opinion of his colleague (Sir Richard Cartwright) he should reduce the public debt by that amount. I thank the House, Mr. Speaker, for the attention with which it has listened to me. I look forward with a great deal of confidence to the future of Canada, because like all good Conservative boys, even before I could vote I was taught that on this northern half of the American continent we should build up a great nation, worthy of the mother country and of the British flag. I have never lost confidence in my country. As I go from the Atlantic to the Pacific, I am proud to see on every hand the glorious monuments to progress and prosperity, which have been erected by the Conservative party under the leadership of that grand old man, Sir John A. Macdonald, whom the present Priipe Minister vainly attempts to imitate. I rejoice at the development of the great west, the foundation of which was laid by the Conservative party in face of the opposition of the Liberals who called it: a frozen region, a sea of mountains, and everything that would defame it. I hope that the Liberals have forgotten the wicked words they uttered in derision of that country. It would have been in the best interests of Canada that they were never uttered, it is in the best interests of Canada that they should be forgotten. These gentlemen now on the treasury benches have forfeited their right to claim any share in the great development of the Northwest. That credit belongs to the Conservative party, and to its great leader Sir John A. Macdonald, whose patriotic efforts were always directed towards making Canada a great nation.


?

Mr. C. B.@

HB'YD (South Brant). Mr. Speaker, it is rather late in the evening to attempt to make a speech on this great question, but I shall shorten my address by treating, in the manner in which it deserves, that part of the speech of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pope), which he devoted to vilifying the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The character of our friend, the right hon.

knight, is too well known throughout Canada to be detracted from in the slightest degree by the attempted disparagement of the member from Compton (Mr. Pope). When! he and his shall have been forgotten, the name of Sir Richard Cartwright will be remembered with pride by the descendants of the men who now sit in this House. I shall, therefore, only deal briefly with that part of the speech of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pope) in which he pretended to treat of public questions. To strengthen his argument, that the present government was extravagant, he was forced to make the assertion that the books kept toy the Finance Department were falsified. Well, that is a ' strong statement to be made by a man who knows absolutely nothing about the matter. He might just as well have said that the books were falsified to the extent of $30,000,000 as $3,000,000, because he would have no more justification or data for the one statement than for the other. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pope) had contended that our expenditure last year was some fourteen million dollars more than in 1890, he would be near the truth, and he did not need to disparage the book-keeping of the Minister of Finance to sustain such a statement. To me it is quite immaterial what the expenditure is, so long as that expenditure has been made prudently and wisely made in the interests of the people of Canada. The hon. gentleman cannot find one item of that expenditure which he and his friends on the other side of the House dare attack. For years they have been saying in a general way that the government is extravagant, but they have never attempted to attack one single item of the increased expenditure. Had they done so, the hollowness of their argument would be apparent to all. Let us see how this increased expenditure of $14,000,000 was disposed of. Was it prudent for this government to pay $473,000 more a year for interest on the debt, for which the Conservatives were mainly responsible ? Could we help ourselves, without repudiating our honest obligations ? Was it prudent to put $514,000 more into the sinking fund, in order to enable us to meet our obligations when they mature ? Was it wise and prudent to spend $191,000 more on the administration of justice, in view of the fact that within the last eight years our population has so vastly increased, and the bounds of our country have been so immeasureably extended ? Was it wise to spend on arts, agriculture, and statistics, $1,064,000 more than the Conservatives spent ? The whole question is one of judiciousness, and when we look at the results obtained we will see that that increased expenditure was amply justified. We find that the number of immigrants who came to this country in 1896 was only 31.000, while last year it was 125,000. Was it prudent to spend more money to bring about that result ? The number of home-

stead entries in 1896 was 1,384 ; last year it was 31,000. If we can continue such development of agriculture and immigration as this wise expenditure has brought about, are we not amply justified in incurring it ?

Was it wise to increase the expenditure on militia by $824,000 ? I do not know. The military men in the House approved of the expenditure ; it was not called in question by anybody in the House ; and I am inclined to think that so long as we have a militia we might as well spend as much money upon it as is necessary to make it efficacious for the emergency if it presents itself. We spent $2,900,000 on public works. The question is, were those public works necessary 7 As they were not strongly objected to at the time, I assume that it was a judicious and wise expenditure. There has been an increase in the collection of customs of $280,000. Has that been a judicious expenditure ? Why, we collect to-day some $17,000,000 more than they did eight years ago, and the cost today is 3.31 per cent, while eight years ago it was 4.43 per cent. Therefore we are doing the labour much cheaper than they did it; and while it cost $280,000 more per annum, we are in receipt of an increased revenue of $17,000,000. I regard that as a judicious and necessary expenditure. But the hon. gentleman does not find fault with the Inland Revenue Department, where the revenue has increased from $7,900,000 to $12,000,000, while the actual expenditure has decreased by $7,000. He does not find fault with the Post Office Department, where we spent some $500,000 more, but wiped out an annual deficit of $700,000, besides reducing the postage on letters to represent $800,000 more ; so that by the judicious expenditure of $500,000 per annum the people are bettered to the extent of $1,500,000. Does he object to the increased expenditure on railways and canals of $3,000,000 when the revenue has correspondingly increased, and at the same time great benefits have been conferred upon the people of Canada 7 Does he object to the expenditure of $1,000,000 on the Yukon and an increased expenditure of $1,000,000 on the Territories. Does he object to an increased expenditure of $500.000 on the ocean service and $500,000 more on the census ? There is where our money has gone to. Have we judiciously and wisely expended that money 7 Have we derived a benefit from that expenditure That is the principal object the people of Canada have had in view. I think there is no reason for the aspersion our friend has cast upon the bookkeeping of the department. Neither is he wise in calling irr question the judicious expenditure of public money that has been made.

Our friend also falls foul of our immigration policy and the quality of the immigrants we have placed in the Northwest.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   JU27E 8, 1904
Permalink
LIB

Charles Bernhard Heyd

Liberal

Mr. HEYD.

Hon. gentlemen opposite are a little jealous that this tremendous development has not taken place during a Tory regime ; but we have had the proud satisfaction of hearing the hon. leader of the opposition say that after a visit to the Northwest, he was agreeably surprised to find what admirable settlers the Galicians made-that particular class of people who for years have been very much abused and maligned and belittled. and pronounced unfit settlers for our great Northwest.

Our friend thought he struck something of a financial character that he could retail to the House with a great deal of gustq when he told us that the balance of trade had been against us last year to the tune of $10,000,000. Why, that is not a very serious offence. I myself do not regard it as of any importance whether the balance of trade is for us or against us. But if under the present fiscal arrangements the balance of trade against us last year was $10,000,000, what is it likely to be if we adopt that fiscal form of policy which the hon. gentleman and his friends advocate 7 The best evidence of what the results will be is to be obtained by taking a look back and seeing what they have been in the past; because what has been will be under similar conditions. Now, let us take the results of the tariff policy of the present government and compare them with the results of the national policy during the eighteen years that it was in existence. I prepared this table last year, expecting that -somebody who would want to figure as a political economist of high repute would work off that balance of trade argument when the opportunity arose, and that it would be just as well to have our powder dry. From 1879 to 1884 our imports were $572,000,000, our exports $4S0,-000,000 or a balance of trade against Canada of $91,000,000. From 1885 to 1890 our imports were $612,000,000, our exports $4S4,000,000, or a balance of trade against Canada of $127,000,000. From 1891 to 1896 our imports were $656,000,000, our exports $609,000,000, or a balance of trade against Canada of $49,000,000. During the past six years up to 1903 the imports entered for consumption were $928,000,000, while the exports, the produce of Canada, were $947,000,000, or a balance of trade in favour of Canada of $18,000,000. Now, a brief summary of the results of the past twenty-five years shows that between 1897 and 1902 the average balance of trade in favour of Canqda was $3,084,000, or a total balance of trade in favour of Canada of $18,000,000, while from 1879 to 1897 the average annual balance against Canada was $14,000,000, and the total balance against Canada for the eighteen years was $268,000,000. And yet our friend comes forward and tells us that our fiscal policy is bad, that our trade regulations are bad.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.
Subtopic:   JU27E 8, 1904
Permalink

S, 1904


The hon. gentleman spoke with great vigour on the next point, namely, that we had nailed the flag of free trade to the masthead. Why, he and everybody else who is familiar with the history of Canada must know that such a party as a free trade party never had the control of affairs in this country-that it is only a remote dream of some of the most ardent political economists of that stripe. But we did object in 1895 to the policy of our friends on the other side of the House, because we believed, and we have proved, that it has decreased the value of farm and other landed property, that it has oppressed the masses to the enrichment of a few, that it has checked immigration, that ilt has caused great loss of population, that it has impeded commerce, and that it has discriminated against Great Britain. Was not every statement made at that convention in Ottawa true ? Have they ever been controverted ? And the convention, proceed to put this opinion on record : In these and many other ways that tariff has occasioned great public and private injuries, all of which evils must continue to grow in intensity as long as the present tariff system remains in force. Then the convention laid down the policy of the Liberal party : That the highest interests of Canada demand a removal of this obstacle to our country's progress, by the adoption of a sound fiscal policy, which, while not doing injustice to any class, will promote domestic and foreign trade and hasten the return of prosperity to our people. That is the policy of the Liberal party, and for the past seven years that policy has been amply justified by its results. All we need do is to compare the conditions of the country to-day with what they were in 1896. Every statement we made on the public platform as to the evil effects of the policy of our friends opposite we have demonstrated. To-night and on many other occasions we have proved absolutely the accuracy of the Liberal contentions and the soundness of the Liberal policy. Is it not true that the adoption of the policy of the Liberal party has brought prosperity to our country ? Is it not true that it has put an end to discrimination against Great Britain ? Is it not true that it impedes commerce less than before ? Is it not true that it is preventing the loss of population, checked emigration, worked for the betterment of the masses as against the classes, and increased the value of landed property ? Our policy has in every particular done the exact opposite of what the policy of our friends did. They brought about all these evil conditions, and we have at last restored Canada to her own. I think, Sir, I have devoted as much time as is absolutely necessary to a refutation of some of the arguments of our hon. friend (Mr. Pope), and have shown the absolute absurdity and untruthfulness of many of his contentions. But when the Liberal party attained power under the flag of freer trade, they found a condition that required treatment- not too radical but sufficiently radical to remove some of the evils under which the people were suffering. And what has been the result ? After seven years of experience of the application of the Liberal tariff policy, we can show a progress hitherto unparalleled in our trade and commerce. Our hon. friend opposite alluded to our export and import trade. I intend to allude to it also but only very briefly, and simply to show the wonderful development which has taken place. The goods entered for consumption in Canada in 1896 amounted to $110,000,000. Last year they amounted to $232,000,000, or an increase of over 100 per cent. In 1896, among those goods which were entered for consumption, was $1,669,000 in coin and bullion. Last year there were $8,976,000 of coin and bullion entered among our imports for consumption. I am sorry the amount was not $118,000,000, because the higher we can make it, the better for the people. But while we were importing six times as much coin and bullion under the Liberal as we did under the Conservative administration, they were exporting exactly six times as much out of the country. They exported in 1896, $4,000,000 worth, while last year only $600,000 of coin and bullion went out. They also imported in 1896, $2,188,000 worth of settlers' effects, but last year we imported $6,442,000 worth. Each one can draw his own conclusions and put his own meaning and attach his own significance to that statement. And the quality of our immigration is best represented by the amount of settlers' effects. In 1896, the foreigners brought in $49,000 worth and last year only $36,000 worth. The British brought in $425,000 worth in 1896, and last year, $1,117,000 worth. The Americans brought in $1,714,000 worth in 1896 and last year $5,287,000 worth. So that almost the whole of the settlers' effects which come into this country come from the English, Scotch, Irish and American settlers. Yet, Sir, we are told that that is not anything to the credit of this country. Well, I am not one 'Of those who place too much faith in immigration. Neither would I be at all anxious to fill our country too rapidly. I would much rather that the people who are in it to-day were happy, prosperous and contented than pauperize them by doubling or making their number four times as great as it is. But, if we can induce a quality of immigrants to enter who will assist in developing our country and at the same time better the conditions of the people who are here as well as their own, then I am prepared to spend quite a lot of money to bring in that class, and I am exceedingly gratified to find, by a Careful examination of the census



of the United States for the last ten years, that our immigrants are away and beyond superior to theirs in character and quality. Their immigrants are almost exclusively composed of that class which we on this side do not consider a desirable addition to our people. So much for the imports. Now take the exports, and let us see what a wonderful development has taken place in Canada during the period the present tariff policy has been in existence. Hon. gentlemen opposite may attribute our development to what influence they please. They may call in to their aid Providence and good luck or anything they like. As long as we have the result, we do not care how it was immediately brought about. But the improvement is here ; and if the present government should remain in power, it is here to stay. Look at our exports. In 1896 we exported $8,000,000 worth of minerals. Last year we exported §31,000,000 worth. But the greatest development that has taken place is in animals and their products and agriculture. In 1896 we exported $36,000,000 of animals and their products. Last year we exported $69,000,000. In 1896, we exported $14,000,000 worth of agricultural products. Last year we exported $44,000,000 worth. Altogether in farm products w* exported in 1896, $50,000,000 worth and last year $114,000,000 worth. Providence may be responsible for that to a considerable extent. Providence permits the sun to shine, the seeds to germinate, and waters the soil with the rain from heaven. But somebody is required to put his ban 1 to the plough, to plant the seed with judg ment, to exercise intelligence in the marketing of the crop-and to be assisted, as far as possible, by the present government in removing any restrictions which interfere with his marketing it to the best advantages. That is where the aid and assistance of the present government comes in. Then we have the increase in provisions-in 1896 $21,000,000 and last year $50,000,000. Cheese, 1896 $14,000,000 ; last year, $24,000,000. Butter, an increase from $1,000,000 in 1896 to $7,000,000 last year. Bacon, an increase from $4,000,000 in 1896 to $16,000,000 last year. And so, altogether we exported last year $214,000,000 worth of the produce of Canada, Where, in 1896, we exported only $109,000,000. Our total exports and imports in 1896, the produce of Canada, amounted to $222, 000,000, as against $448,000,000 last year. Is that not something to be proud of 7 Is that not something the government can take some slight credit for V We do not want to attribute all the credit to the government; we want to leave a little of it to the intelligence and industry of our people. But it is a wonderful significant thing that such a change should have taken place in so short a period of time ; that just when the affairs of our country were being managed by this new set of men this great increase of trade Mr. HEYD. should have taken place. It is a singular coincidence. Bach man must infer from it whatever he thinks right. And how do we find ourselves at the end of the seven years 7 We find ourselves away ahead of any other nation under the sun in the increase of our foreign trade. Canada stands at the top, with an increase of 103 per cent. The United States had an increase of 67 per cent; Germany, 58 per cent; Australia, 38 per cent; Great Britain, 24 per cent; France, 22 per cent, and Sweden, 9 per cent. Why should we feel discouraged? Why should.not we feel proud of our country 7 Why should not we have faith in our government, during whose reign these things have occurred ? We have increased the revenue of the country from $36,000,000 to $66,000,000, and if we had continued the old tariff we could have increased it by four or five millions more. And how has all this affected the common people 7 You find them all sharing in the enjoyment of this era of prosperity. In the twenty-five years following 1868 the deposits in the savings banks increased from $68,000,000 to $245,000,000, an increase of $177,000,000. During the past seven years they increased still further by $225,000,000 Then take the aid that business men required in the giving of discounts. In the first twenty-five years of the history of the Dominion these increased from $86,000,000 to $224,000,000, or an increase of $158,000,000. During the past seven years the increase was $182,000,000. Take the bank assets. During the first twenty-five years these increased from $121,000,000 to $316,000,000, or an increase of $195,000,000. During the past seven years they have increased to $641, 000,000, being an increase of $325,000,000. Then take our shipping-increased from 49.000,000 to 70,000,000 tons in the last seven years. Take our railways-increased from 16,214 to 19,883 miles ; passengers carried, from 13,000,000 to 20,000,000 ; railway earnings, from $50,000,000 to $83,000,000. All along the line you find an increase of 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 or 100 per cent. In only one column do we find that the figures are greater under the Conservative government than Under the present government. In 1S96 there were 2,118 failures for $16,000,000. Last year there were 1,101 failures, representing $8,000,000. The only item in which the late government excelled this government was in bringing about conditions which made it twice as likely that a man would fail if he engaged in business, and twice as many did fail before the present government came into power. Everywhere to-day we find prosperity. Every town and hamlet is prosperous. Every farm is increased in value ; every farm mortgage lessened ; every man assured of employment at increased wages. And yet our friends opposite say that we have mismanaged the (country. But, iSir, I intend to devote myself to the question that was presented for our con- 44S1 sideration by the Finance Minister yesterday. He told us something that the member from Compton said not ten men in this House could understand. I am willing to take my place with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pope), who said he did not understand it. But, from some of the observations he made, I could understand that a much simpler problem than that presented in the financial affairs of Ithlis country would call for the use of the hon. gentleman's whole endowment of the mental powers. The thing we are particularly interested in here to-night is not the character of Sir Richard Cartwright, not the views he entertained twenty-five or thirty years ago', not the views entertained by any man when the conditions were entirely dissimilar from those we have here to-day. The question is what is best to be done under the circumstances under which we find ourselves placed. The government have considered the matter, and have given us their views in the resolution that was introduced in the House yesterday : ' That it is expedient to amend the customs tariff of 1897.' A great many people have been thinking for some years that changes in the tariff were absolutely necessary. I have come to the conclusion myself, after very careful examination of the question in some of its phases, and after having had the opportunity of accompanying different deputations to interview the government, that it would be a good thing if we could revise this tariff and better adapt it to our present conditions. A tariff that was admirably calculated to draw us out of the condition of stagnation in which we stood in 1896 might not be the best tariff under the changed conditions of to-day. And it may be, as has been represented by the Minister of Finance, that the best plan to be adopted is, before we make a general change in the tariff, to have those members of the administration who are best qualified to pursue such an investigation do what they did seven years ago-go out into the promised land and make a strict search into its conditions and report their observations to their colleagues, and, with the advice of their officers in the departments, once more present to the people of this Canada a tariff possibly better suited to its needs and its requirements even than the modified tariff of to-day. Therefore, when the minister says that this is the intention of the government, and that he had in his own mind a maximum tariff to be applied to nations that might not treat us with such favourable consideration as others, and a minimum tariff with those who are prepared to deal with us on fairer and more equitable terms, and further, to have a preferential tariff in favour of Great Britain that shall not be injurious to the people of Canada, I am heartily in accord with him. I am exceedingly glad that the government had the courage to raise the tariff on certain items, especially to raise the tariff on woollens by putting them back on the 30 per cent list. I think they were wise in that. The arguments that were presented in the petition of the woollen men left them no other course. I sympathize with them in the position in which they found themselves. They had given a voluntary preference to the people of Great Britain greater than under the circumstances was in the true interest of the people of Canada, and when it was found impractical, every day working that while it was beneficial to the great mass of the people it was doing an irreparable injury to one of the prime industries of the country, I am glad to say that the government could swallow their pride and remove from the statute books something that was a grievance and a menace to the woollen industry of the country. It might be said and it has been said that the woollen people did not require that relief. I am in a position to prove that the woollen industry was suffering and absolutely required this relief and I think the financial returns will best prove that. If we take the principal items that are affected by the change in the tariff what do we find ? In 1896 there were imported of cashmeres, cloths and doe skins, $1,170,000 worth. In 1903 there were imported $2,381,000 worth. And during the 10 months of the present year $1,900,000 worth, or during the past 10 months an increase of 50 per cent over the entire year 1896. Take wool coatings and we find that during the same period they had increased from $488,000 to $944,000, and to $764,000 during the past 10 months, or an increase of 50 per cent. Tweeds increased from $428,000 in 1898, to $1,600,000 during the past 10 months. This gives total import of the goods in, reference to which the woollen men complain, of $2,096,000 during the first 10 months of this year, an increase of 100 per cent. At the same time the raw wool, out of which the Canadian manufacturer makes his stuff was imported in 1896 to the extent of $1,215,000 and last year to the extent of only $1,374,000, an increase of 11 per cent in the raw material of the woollen mill while there was an increase of 300 per cent in the importation of manufactured tweeds. Why should not the owners of woollen mills participate in this grand prosperity which has come to this country. Why should their industry be singled out almost ex-elusivly as the one which should not participate. No amount of argument based on one particular woollen mill engaged in a particular line of industry, will avoid objections as apparent as this, when we realize that the importation of raw material



used by these men had increased 11 per cent in the last seven years while the importations of the manufactured product increased by from 50 to 100 or 300 per cent. 1 say that the government was wise in making that change and I am rejoiced at it. I need not say that 1 sympathize with the duty value which is placed upon horses and mares, and also with the duty value placed upon carriages. I felt gratified when the government introduced something that was going to remedy an evil that had long been tormenting the manufacturers of this country, an evil that only assumed its present magnitude owing to the high protective policy of our friends across the line, the policy which our frends on the other side desire to make the law of the land. Nowhere is it possible to create such tremendous corporations except in a country - where they have fattened at the expense of the producing class of the country. In order to prevent this unfair discrimination, this unfair dumping as it were in order, to wipe out Canadian industries the government have introduced what they think will, even if it is not perfect, at least to a certain extent be effective in removing these grievances. It is quite a simple proposition to any one who is willing to devote the time to it, and is quite within the power of the government to enforce to a considerable extent with the aid of the efficient appraisers and employees that they have in their departments. I have worked this out in two or three different phases, and I find this result. If a person buys, for instance, $100 worth of goods, on which the duty is 30 per cent, he would pay in all $130 for these goods. If he has a 10 per cent cut from the American dealer and after that pays 30 per cent duty, he pays $27 odd and gets his stuff for $117, or $13 cheaper than he ought to, and our manufacturer has $13 less of protection. If he happens to be found out under the law as it was before yesterday afternoon, he would have to pay 30 per cent protection on the full value of these goods, but having paid on 90 the result would be that they would cost $120 laid down in his establishment. Under the new law, a man buying these goods at $90 would have to pay 30 per cent on the full value, but if he paid the special duty of $10 that would bring up the price he would have to pay to the original $30. This works no hardship to the individual, it takes from the American manufacturers who desire to dump goods into Canada, $10 that otherwise would go into his pocket, and puts it into the treasury of this country. I look forward with a good degree of confidence to the operation of this dumping clause. This clause which we have been informed cannot be understood by ten men in this House, will be understood in Canada within 24 hours after it became law by every manufacturer who is troubled by having his legitimate busi-Mr. HEYD. ness interfered with this slaughtering adopted by the people on the other side of the line. On the coal oil question I am not sufficiently well informed to pretend to speak, hut I do not see anything in any of the tariff changes that can be objectionable. The tariff on the contrary contains everything to commend it to the people of this country. I have dealt with the past and the present. What about the future ? Our friends opposite desire that we shall establish the American high tariff policy in this country. I, on the other hand, with the members of the Liberal party, do not think that the establishment of that tariff would be in the interests of the people of Canada, and I am not a free trader either, as you must all understand by this time. I am willing to go in for protection if you choose to call it that, so long, as the protection is in the interests of the people of this country, but as my ideas are so much better presented in the language of another man, I shall read' them. He says : One object then of import duties was to raise revenue for the government. Another object was to develop a nation's home industries, as nearly as possible to the point of producing everything its people required. These have been the two main purposes of tariff laws down to the present time. Pew better objects than the second could engage a government's attention so long as wise methods were adhered to. Next In importance to security of life and property is industrial growth, which furnishes supplies for additional people to live upon, and is the chief means of developing character and civilization. The more nearly a nation produces at home every variety of commodity it needs, the more independent it may be, and the better prepared to bear the suspension of its foreign trade by war. Also, the more closely a nation utilizes its varied resources, the wider is the opportunity for choice of occupations, and the higher the development of individual skill. The greater the variety of industries, the fewer the competitors of each person, and the greater the number of his customers. When a protective djity on a commodity imported will induce persons to establish its production at home, the public advantage of possessing another industry, to employ labour and capital, and turn untouched raw material into wealth, unquestionably justifies the imposition of the duty if by the tax added to price, and by the stopping of exports that tends to follow stopping of imports, the people are not required to give more for the new industry than it will be worth. That is the key to the whole situation. We can afford to protect the people of this country, but if we protect them too highly we are paying more for the benefit that will accrue than it will be worth. Have the people of the United States paid too dearly for their prosperity ? Have they anything particularly to boast of ? We look with pride at tire wonderful development that has taken place in the United States during the past few years, but the development has been one-sided. The rich have been becoming richer and the poor poorer. Just let me read for your information something about the steel corporation : The steel corporation's total capitalization is $1,404,000,000 ; its net earnings for its first nine months ending November 30, were, $84,779,298, exceeding ten per cent on its stock. The steel corporation supports a million people counting families of employees, controls two-thirds of the American steel industry, owns 115 lake ships, 6 railroads, 80 per cent of the known deposits of Lake Superior iron, 105,000 acres of land in Penn-slyvania, and leases 98,000 acres of gas land. This industry is controled by a few men. Look at the condition of the United States before you attempt to copy their tariff and see what you will find there : Perhaps the most accurate count of industrial trusts is that of the national census of 1900, from *which pools and loose combinations are excluded. A summary of its figures is given by Superintendent Merriam in the ' Atlantic ' for March, 1902. The total is 183, with 2,203 plants, and with a capital of $3,569,615,808. Their total output for the census year, $1,661,000,000 shows that they absorb less of the industrial field than is commonly supposed. The total output of all manufacturing (not yet computed) is expected to reach about $13,000,000,000. Where did these few men get this $3,059,000,000 to put into these trusts ? Where did Carnegie get his money, supposed to be worth $1,000,000,000 ? Was it the result of honest labour ? No, it was by taking from the producers of the United States more than was his fair share and that as a result of the introduction of a high tariff. Briefly then, a high tariff bears heavily upon the mass of the people for the benefit of the controllers of these great institutions. Jt may be said that I exaggerate the conditions in the United States. Well, 1 do not need to give you my opinion. Let me read you an opinion that you may very well believe in. There is being formed in the United States to-day and they will have their meeting in St. Louis, an organization for the express purpose of inducing the people of Ireland to remain at home and not submit themselves to the conditions as they exist now in that highly protected and prosperous country ? What do we find ? We find the very first man who expresses an opinion is Cardinal Gibbon, a man in whom we have confidence. He said : I know under what circumstances people live in America. My advice to the young men and women of Ireland is to endeavour to find a livelihood in their own land. Any man or woman who could eke out a livelihood at 143 home should take my advice and stay there instead of emigrating to America to enter on the keen struggle for existence under trying circumstances that are in progress here. We are everlastingly hearing about the tremendous development of the United States, of its millionaires, its trusts, its wealth, its development and its trade. Wre do not hear from the submerged, not the tenth, but the ninetieth that live there. Take for instance the statement of Dr. Ludden, Bishop of Syracuse, who writes as follows . ' All the places are filled, all the offices are occupied, and even a smart young Irishman coming here-an educated Irishman, full of brains and full of ability, full of muscle and full of strength-even he has great difficulty to find a position and if he is to get anything to do it must be in the most menial, common and laborious occupation. If he cannot find this, he has simply to do what we call hang around the saloons and liquour stores and descend in the social scale as low as it is possible for a human being to go. I have seen it and I know it, and hence I would like my voice and my advice to reach every young man in Ireland-if he can possibly find a competence and a decent tvay of living at home -to remain there. What does John Redmond say ? I have seen the Irish labourer in the great steel works. I have seen him working like a white slave, stripped almost naked in the furnace, working ten and twelve hours a day and sometimes sixteen hours for a dollar and a half, which in America is a wretched and miserable wage. These men work under conditions which make the duration of their capacity to work for any man ten years, and then they are thrown aside. They scarcely lead the lives of human beings at all ; they have no happiness, no recreation, no health, no home life, and too often, as an inevitable consequence, no religion. I say that the poorest man in Kerry is better off in Ireland than these men in America. We must put a stop to our people being deluded and seduced into leaving Ireland to find only in America conditions infinitely worse morally, physically and materially than the poorest in Ireland. This is the picture that other people paint of the United States and our hon. friends on the other side of the House desire us to establish a tariff in this country that will inevitably have for its end the forming of combinations, the making of multi-millionaires and the sinking of the mass of our people in poverty and misery. If what these bishops and leading men in the Roman Catholic church state represents the true condition of the United States how does it compare with the condition of Canada today ? Can any one truthfully say that an irishman working on a farm in Ireland under the conditions that we think they have in that country could come to Canada and find the conditions which exist in the United



States to-day ? They cannot be found. There is not a hamlet in this country where you cannot find work for an Irishman who is honest and industrious and Mr. Redmond and his ecclesiastical friends need not be afraid to send them to Canada because we are living under conditions and under a tariff -which will not permit conditions such as those that exist in the United States. A great many workmen are under the impression that a high tariff is of particular advantage to them and that under it they get high wages. It is a most absurd contention. High wages certainly do exist sometimes with a high tariff but low wages also exist where tariffs are high. If high wages in the United States were to be attributed to the tariff, why are wages not equally high in Germany, Russia and if no wages are to be attributed to no tariff at all, why are wages so much higher in England than in Germany or France ? Any man knows that high protection which keeps out competition will give him more work, but anybody of intelligence knows that where there is free trade in labour and a man can shift from place to place, it is this competition in the labour, market that fixes his wage and not the amount of the duty. In this country the men that are getting the highest wages, the bricklayers and the stonemasons, are the men who are not protected at all except through the influence of trades unions and the loyalty that one has for the other. It is a great mistake for people to suppose that high tariffs better the condition of the working classes. It is true that for years the condition of the working class in the United States has been good, but that was due largely to the fact the country was full of untold wealth. In Canada the conditions are peculiar. There has never been such development in our country as there has during the past seven years under the existing tariff. And while in some high tariff and low tariff countries there are signs of approachng trouble, there is not a shadow of depression visible on the horizon of the Canadian industrial nation. I am more familiar with the conditions in my own city of Brantford, and I know what the results are there. I beg to present to the House the following statement of the employees in the several manufacturing concerns in 1903, as compared with 1890, and the result, is, it will be admitted, most satisfactory : Employ- Employees in ees in 1896. 1903. Massey-Harris 6o 300 735Waterous Engine Works.. .. 240 450Verity Plow Co 75 400Wm. Paterson Co 130 250Wm. Buck Stove Co 215 270Cockshutt Plough Works.. .. 70 250Goold, Shapley & Muir 54 235


LIB
CON

Ernest D'Israeli Smith

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. E. D. SMITH.

How many are employed in the Bailey Cutlery Works.

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

Charles Bernhard Heyd

Liberal

Mr. HEYD.

I am very sorry to say there are not many. But when Canada gets big enough to sustain an industry of that kind, such an industry will survive and not till then. There are other reasons which I might give to the hon. gentleman, but I do not need to mention them now. However, here is some information which will be interesting to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith). In the Brantford newspapers we find that the following manufacturers want the following number of labourers, and the statement is given of the wages to be paid.

Buck Works :

12 labourers at $1.50 per day.

12 moulders (piece work).

12 stove plate moulders.

Cockshutt Plough Works :

12 labourers at $1.35 per day.

* 3 blacksmiths at $1.50 to $2.

Verity Works :

20 labourers at $1.35 per day.

2 blacksmiths at $1.50 to $2.

6 hammermen, $2.

12 handymen at $1.40 to $1.75.

Waterous Works :

6 labourers at $1.45.

6 blacksmiths at $2 to $2.50.

Massey-Harris Works :

24 handymen, $1.35 and over.

Schultz Bros. :

12 carpenters, $2 to $2.50.

6 bricklayers, $4.

20 plasterers, $3.50.

Cockshutt Road Company :

15 shovellers, $1.75,

15 cement men.

A summary of the above table shows that the following workmen are required :-

Labourers 50

Moulders 12

Stove platers 12

Blacksmiths 11

Hammer workers 6

Handymen 36

Carpenters 12

Bricklayers 6

Plasterers 20

Shovellers 15

Cement men 15

Total 195

Here we have 195 men advertised for in Brantford, and there is a further advertisement for 100 more men to work on a new railway. And yet they tell us that Canada is not prosperous. Why, the city of Brantford is only a specimen of what is going on all over the country. The same thing is going on in Peterborough, in Hamilton, and in other cities, and it is gong on under the present tarff. These gentlemen opposite told us that twenty per cent was too low a tariff on harvesters. But is was high enough to drive the Deering Company over here to establish a factory in Canada and to invest millions of money and give employment to hundreds of working men. The tariff is big enough to drive one industry after another from the United States over to this country. It is adequate for that purpose. And have we not the statement of the leader of the opposition, that, when he was asked whether or not if the Conservative party came into power they would raise the duty on agricultural implements, his reply was :

I said if it were necessary for the purpose of preserving that great Canadian industry, I would be prepared to raise the duty.

If the industry can be preserved it is not necessary to raise the duty, and the best evidence that it can be preserved is that the Cockshutt Plough Company has enlarged its factory three times in seven years, and that the Verity Plough Company, and Goold, Shapley and Muir have done the same thing, and all of them have largely increased the number of their employees during that seven years. That is a specimen of the development in Canada to day, and yet some people want to change the 'tariff under which such things are accomplished, and introduce a high tariff which might bring about the conditions which exist in the United States. I am quite satisfied that when this commission examines into the various industries, the government will be able to revise the tariff once more in the interests of the people of Canada, so that there may be continued to us that prosperity inaugurated seven years ago, under which our people are so happy and so contented. I believe in the tariff changes made by the government so far as I can understand them. I 1434

believe these tariff changes will bring about a certain degree of prosperity to the woollen industry, and I am satisfied that those interested in that industry are content with the change. If the announcement of the Finance Minister is carried out, and when that commission investigates the existing conditions, I am satisfied that a tariff suitable to the changed conditions will be given to the people by this government, and that the fiscal legislation of the Liberal party will redound in the future to the welfare and prosperity of the people of Canada, as it has done in the past.

On motion of Mr. Vrooman the debate was adjourned.

On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Thursday, June 9, 1904.

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

June 8, 1904