June 20, 1904

FIRST READING.


Bill (No. 140) respecting the Alliance Bank of Canada.-Mr. Russell.


QUESTIONS.

IMMIGRATION-FRAUDULENT AGENTS.

LIB

Mr. RALPH SMITH asked :

Liberal

1. Is the government aware that certain individuals in Great Britain are engaged in mak-Mr. KAULBACH.

ing fraudulent representations to intending emigrants to Canada by holding themselves out as agents of the Canadian government, guaranteeing positions, and otherwise being guilty of fraud ?

2. If so, what action, if any, does the government intend to take for the suppression of these frauds and the punishment of the offenders ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION-FRAUDULENT AGENTS.
Permalink
LIB

Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of the Interior) : (Minister of the Interior; Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs)

Liberal

3. The government is aware that certain individuals in Great Britain are engaged in making fraudulent representations to intending emigrants to Canada by guaranteeing positions and otherwise, but it is not aware that these individuals hold themselves out as agents of the Canadian government, excepting from general reports to the effect that in some cases these persons have represented themselves as agents of the government.

2. In order that the offices of these individuals may not be mistaken for government offices the department has made public announcements in Great Britain*that the individuals in question are in no way connected with the government of Canada, and has instructed that notices be posted, especially in the London office, to this effect.

In addition to this, the attention of the imperial government has been drawn to these frauds with the view of suppressing them and punishing the offenders.

_ The following advertisement is also being inserted in leading newspapers of the United Kingdom :

The government of the Dominion of Canada, having been informed that certain persons conducting labour agencies in Dondon and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, have been promoting the emigration to Canada of mechanics and other skilled workmen, have been giving false information respecting labour ' conditions in Canada and have represented themselves as agents of or as having the sanction and endorsement of the Dominion government. Notice is hereby given that the Dominion government has no such agents in the United Kingdom, has not authorized, sanctioned or in any way^iven its approval to any agency in the United Kingdom for promoting the emigration to Canada of mechanics or other skilled labour. James A. Smart, Deputy Minister of the Interior of Canada.

The Department of the Interior is advised that this advertisement is appearing in the London 'Telegraph, the London 'Chronicle,' the London 'Mail,' London 'Express,' London ' Leader,' London ' Star,' London ' Snn,' London ' Echo ' and the London ' Evening News ' ; the Manchester ' Guardian ' and the Manchester ' Evening News ' ; the Birmingham 'Post' and the Birmingham 'Mail'; the Liverpool ' Post ' and the Liverpool ' Echo ' ; the Glasgow ' Herald ' and the Glasgow ' Record ' ; the Edinburgh ' Scotsman ' and the Edinburgh ' Evening Despatch ' ; the Newcastle * Chronicle ' and

the Newcastle ' Evening Chronicle ' ; the Cardiff, South Wales, ' Echo ' and the Cardiff ' Western Mail ' ; the Bristol ' Western Press ' and the Bristol 1 Evening News ' ; the Belfast ' Northern Whig ' and the Belfast ' Evening Telegraph ' ; the Dublin ' Irish Times ' and the Dublin ' Freeman's Journal.' The Press Association has also circulated the notice.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   IMMIGRATION-FRAUDULENT AGENTS.
Permalink

GOVERNOR GENERAL'S BODY GUARD.

?

Mr. SAM@

HUGHES-by Mr. Lancaster- asked :

1. What is the reason that Major William Hamilton Merritt has not been gazetted to the command of the Governor General's Body Guard of Canada ? *

2. Did Lieutenant-Colonel C. A. K. Dennison's period of command expire hy effluxion of time in June, 1903 ?

3. Did he at the same time send in his resignation ? [DOT]

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S BODY GUARD.
Permalink
?

Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) :

1. Major W. H. Merritt has been gazetted to the command of the Governor General's Body Guard, from 11th June, 1903. See ' Gazette ' of 27th May, 1904.

2. Yes.

3. No.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S BODY GUARD.
Permalink

CHAMBLY CANAL-STONE CONTRACT.

CON

Mr. MONK asked :

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Has the contract for the different kinds of

stone required for the Chambly canal during the present year been granted ? *

2. If so, to whom, and what are the prices accorded for each quality ?

3. Did the government receive more than one tender ?

4. If so, what are the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender ?

5. Was the contract in question accorded to the lowest tenderer ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   CHAMBLY CANAL-STONE CONTRACT.
Permalink
LIB

Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of RailWays and Canals) : (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

1. A contract for crushed stone for the present year has been granted.

2. To J. E. Hebert, St. Johns, Quebec, at $2.45.

3. Y*es.

4. J. E. H5bert, St. Johns, Quebec, at $2.45; N. Mailloux, St. Johns, Quebec, at $2.50.

5. Yes.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   CHAMBLY CANAL-STONE CONTRACT.
Permalink

SECOND READINGS.


Bill .(No. 136) respecting the Similkameen and Keremeos Railway Company.-Mr. Morrison. Bill (No. 137) respecting certain patents of the Canadian Office and School Furniture Company, Limited.-Mr. Clare. Bill (No. 138) for the relief of Andrew William Mann.-Mr. Macdonald. Bill (No. 139) for the relief of Jennie Davison Moore.-Mr. Macdonald.


THE PREFERENTIAL TARIFF.

LIB

Hance James Logan

Liberal

Mr. HANCE J. LOGAN moved :

That in the opinion of this House, the preferential tariff should only apply to importations through Canadian seaports.

He said : Mr. Speaker, this notice of motion has been standing in my name on the order paper for some weeks, and I have been in hopes that the government might adopt the policy which is enunciated in it, but now that the buuget has been brought down my hopes are disappointed in that regard. I cannot hope therefore to have the policy adopted during the present session ; but, believing as I do that it is in the best interests of Canada that this policy should be adopted at another session of parliament, I crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I give my humble views as to why this policy should be adopted in Canada.

Some one may ask : Where is the demand for such legislation from any public body ? There have been many resolutions passed by boards of trade and other bodies, and one I believe by a provincial legislature, asking that such legislation be enacted. I have in my hand a resolution passed unanimously by the Halifax Board of Trade as far back as February 25, 1901. That resolution was communicated by telegraph to the Hon. W. S. Fielding, as follows :

Resolved that this council cordially endorses the suggestion of a member of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, which provides that the customs rebate of thirty-three and one third per cent on goods manufactured in Great Britain be allowed only when said goods are landed at Canadian ports, and pledges itself to use every means in its power to urge the adoption of the measure by the government.

In the month of August, 1901, a conference of the boards of trade of the maritime provinces, held at Chatham, N.B., passed the following resolution :

Resolved, that in the opinion of this board the preferential customs tariff as applied to imports from Great Britain should only apply to goods imported directly through Canadian ports.

At a conference of all the Canadian boards of trade, held at Toronto in June, 1902, this matter was very thoroughly discussed. A resolution favouring it was moved by a gentleman from St. John. After a considerable amount of discussion, the resolution was amended on motion of Mr. Munro, of Montreal, and the following resolution was passed unanimously :

In order to encourage the importation of British goods via Canadian ports, this conference desires that the preferential rebate on goods imported from Great Britain arriving by United States ports shall be limited to 25 per cent.

Many able arguments were made at that conference on behalf of the original reso-

iution. If you will allow me, I will quote from a speech delivered by Mr. Gaskin, of Kingston. He said :

I was more than surprised when I heard that the Dominion government made a preferential tariff on goods coming from England and did not stipulate they should come through Canadian ports. I remember, a number of years ago. that Canadian boats were allowed to carry grain from Chicago and Milwaukee to Port Col-borne. That grain went over the Welland road to Port Dalhousie ; it was taken by Canadian boat from Port Dalhousie and brought to Oswego. The Americans tried to stop that, and they have stopped everything since that was of benefit to our Canadian boats. I remember a number of years ago when I was captain of a steamer, just after the American war, I went into the port of Cleveland to report at the custom house, and they presented me with a bill of $140 or $150, and what do you suppose that was for ? For a war tax in the United States. That is the treatment we have been receiving from a Canadian standpoint, and I do certainly say the government made a great mistake in allowing that preferential tariff to apply to merchandise coming through the United States.

I will also quote from a speech delivered by Mr. George E. Drummond, who afterwards became, and now is, the president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Mr. Drummond said :

It is a shame that we should permit our exports from Canada, from the west and from the centre of Canada, to go out via American ports if we can send them by Canadian ports. There is no question, as Mr. Gaskin said, that if you can fill these boats both ways that will mean cheaper freight rates for the men of the west, and that our rail-ways will meet us in a generous spirit I am perfectly confident, if the volume of trade will permit of it. For that reason I propose to support this motion. My friend from Windsor has spoken of what the Americans might do. I tell you that when the Americans meet in such a conference as this, they do not care very much what Canadians are going to do. They believe in themselves. We in this country have never had confidence in ourselves ; our banks would not be laden down with $250,000,000 earning three per cent if our people had confidence enough to develop Canadian transportation and develop Canadian mines.

Topic:   THE PREFERENTIAL TARIFF.
Permalink
?

Mr. D. R.@

Wilkie, of Toronto, spoke as follows :

We have granted this privilege of preferential tariff in favour of British goods, and it was said at the time that we did this we would suffer for it, the Americans would retaliate. What have they done ? ' You are really getting on to our game, you are finding us out.'" I know leading protectionists of the United States, and they told me plainly, 'You do not know how to manage your own affairs, do not be afraid of us. Our whole policy is not dictated by a desire to injure Canada. We have our own business 'to look after, and you are only a small factor in the matter. We are not doing this to injure you, we are doing it to benefit ourselves.' Let us tjnnk the same way, let us benefit ourselves. As to the argument of Mr. Saunders, that he was forced to export his goods by way of Bos-Mr. LOGAN.

ton or New York, what does that mean? It means that owing to our allowing this preference on British goods coming through Boston and New York, instead of limiting it to goods that come only through Halifax, St. John, Quebec and -Montreal, he was forced to send his goods to Boston and New York. But force them to bring our goods through Canadian ports and you will have cheaper freight rates for Canadian produce from your own ports. I do not think we should give way in this matter. Retaliation is a barbarous word, and it is not followed out except we want to injure, and we are not going to injure the United States, and as long as we are going to benefit ourselves, we should consider ourselves.

I will not weary the House by reading any further from that*report. Shipping is certainly one of the greatest industries of any country, and to encourage the shipping industry is to encourage the building up of the nation. To build up a nation it is important to make it a maritime nation ; and in order to do that, we should assist in building up maritime ports. In this country we are doing a great deal for the west. As a representative from the east, I am willing that we should spend large sums of money in developing the west as the future granary of the world ; but we should not forget that there is an east as well as a west. It may be said that we are selfish in asking this. I claim that we are not selfish. This is a broad national question, and the people of the west should be willing to assist us in bringing goods to the maritime ports and building up Canada as a whole. [DOT]

Now, what are the objections to this proposition ? The first is that it would increase freight rates. At the present time the freight rates fronj Great Britain to Winnipeg are the same via St. John as they are via New York, Boston or Portland. I do not see any reason why they should be increased. It is said that if we gave the freight to Canadian lines, they would increase the freight rates. That is not saying much for their patriotism, but if they showed a disposition to do so, we could hold this over them as a lever, to see that they did not. I am sure that with the number of lines running between Canada and Great Britain, there would be sufficient competition to keep the freight rates down to a reasonable level. At the present time, one of the great difficulties of Canadian shipping lines is that they do not receive a return cargo. Last year we sent $131,000,000 worth of goods to Great Britain, and of that amount we sent over $41,000,000 through United States ports, while our ships were going from Canadian ports half laden to British ports. This is not Canad-ianism ; it is not a national spirit ; and if we can do anything to encourage a Canadian, national spirit in this country, we should do so, and do so at the earliest opportunity.

It is said that we have not facilities at Canadian ports. We shall never have those facilities unless we encourage Canadian ports to provide them ; and it is the duty of this government to assist them to provide facilities for shipping goods inwards ox-outwards. The argument has been .used that we have not the facilities. I have here a letter from a member of the great pioneer steamship line of Canada, Mr. Andrew Allan. In a letter I had written to Mr. Allen I stated it was claimed that more rapid transit could be secured via New York than by the St. Lawrence route, and Mr. Allan in reply says :

I maintain, that as far as our Liverpool steamers are concerned, we are now in a position to deliver traffic to Canadian houses as rapidly by our routes as can be done by any United States port.

Mr. Allan should be in a position to speak on this matter.

A further objection to this legislation which has been raised is that by it we may offend the United States, that the legislation is too drastic as against the United States. I do not admit that Mr. Speaker, and even if the legislation is drastic as against the United States it would be only adopting the United States policy. The historic policy of the United States has been along these lines. If Great Britain had adopted the policy adopted by the United States as far as coasting law is concerned, she would have paralysed the shipping industries of that country years ago. For the past one hundred years the United States has extended its navigation laws to all its outlying possessions. As early as 1817, under President Madison, Congress first provided that commerce between the territories and possessions of the United States should be regarded as coastwise and confined to vessels built in the United States, officered by the United States citizens and flying the United States flag. This policy has been continued from that time down to the present day. Whenever territories are annexed to the United States suitable legislation has extended this policy to embrace within the provisions of the coasting laws, trade with the newly acquired territories. In 1808 the navigation laws as to transportation of merchandise were extended to Alaska. In an Act approved of April 12, 1900, dealing with Porto Rico, it is provided in section 9 as follows :

That the commissioner of navigation shall make such regulations, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, as he may deem expedient for the nationalization of all vessels owned by the inhabitants of Porto Rico on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and which continued to be so owned up to the date of such nationalization, and for the admission of the same to all the benefits of the coasting trade of the United States ; and the coasting trade between Porto Rico and the United States shall be regulated

in accordance with the provisions of law applicable to such trade between any two great coasting districts of the United States.

By an Act in reference to Hawaii approved April 30, 1900, it is provided :

That all vessels carrying Hawaiian registers on the twelfth day of August, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, and which -were owned bona fide by citizens of the United States, or the citizens of Hawaii, together with the following named vessels claiming Hawaiian register-

Naming the vessels.

-shall be entitled to be registered as American vessels, with the benefits and privileges appertaining thereto, and the coasting trade between the islands aforesaid and any other portion of the United States, shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of law applicable to such trade between any two great coasting districts.

They have extended their coasting laws half way across the Pacific and taken in the Hawaiian Islands. Later on they secured possession of the Philippine islands, at the antipodes, many many thousand miles away, and in spite of the fact that their tariff law is as stringent against the Philippine islands as against any other country ^except for a preference of 25 per cent, and in spite of the fact that they require the Philippine islanders to sell them hemp without the tax of $7.50 a ton, which is charged upon hemp sent to Canada, they have extended the coasting laws of the United States half way around the world to embrace the Philippines. Are we then to be told in Canada that we cannot adopt a policy to encourage Canadian ports and the shipment of Canadian goods by Canadian lines for fear of offending the United States of America ? Let me read the Act in reference to the Philippine islands, and I will ask members of the House to pay particular attention to section 2. It is Bill No. S 2259, United States Congress, and is as follows :

Be it enacted that on and after July 1st, 1905, no merchandise except supplies for army and navy shall be transported by sea under penalty of forfeiture thereof, between ports of the United States and ports or places in the Philippine archipelago directly or via a foreign port or for any part of the voyage in any other vessel than a vessel of the United States.

On section 2.

That on and after July 1st, 1905, no foreign vessel shall transport passengers between ports of the United States and ports or places in the Philippine archipelago either directly or by way of a foreign port under a penalty of $200 for each passenger so transported and landed,

In other words, if a Canadian vessel should carry any passengers or freight from a port in the United tSates, to the Philippine islands, one of the possessions of the United States, that freight would be liable to for-

feiture, and the boat to a fine of $200 for each passenger carried.

By the Cuban customs regulations, 1901, it is provided : that coastwise trade can only be exercised by Cuban vessels or those of the United States, so far as it relates to the transportation of merchandise.

That, Sir, is the legislation of the United States of America. The United States of America have built themselves up largely because they believe in themselves, are proud of their country and dare to legislate for their country irrespective of what other countries think or do.

We have to a somewhat limited extent adopted this policy of giving a preference to Canadian seaports. In item 608 of the tariff tea and ground coffee imported direct from the place of production, and tea and ground coffee purchased in bond in the United Kingdom are admitted free, otherwise a duty of 10 per cent is charged upon them. In item S7 of the tariff, salt from the United Kingdom or any British possession is admitted free, otherwise there is a duty varying from 5 to 7i cents per 100 pounds. In the treaty with France we provide that the goods must be transported direct from France to Canada and not by way of any other country. To that extent we have adopted this policy. It is legislation it seems to me, along the right lines, legislation along Canadian lines, to build up Canada, to build up Canadian seaports. We have gone a long distance towards giving a preference to the motherland ; let us in giving a preference to the motherland, give a preference to the ports of the Dominion of Canada and let us while we say ' Canada for the Canadians ' adopt the policy of ' Canadian seaports for Can-adihn imports.'

Topic:   THE PREFERENTIAL TARIFF.
Permalink
?

Hon. W. S.@

FIELDING (Minister of Fi-nance(. I#am glad my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) has to-day brought forward this motion of which he gave notice some time ago, not that I expect that it can be adopted immediately as part of the budget of this year,-and I do not suppose my hon. friend (Mr. Logan) now expects that,-but I feel that it is a subject on which discussion may do much good. It is a subject on which there is need of education, not only outside of the House, but, possibly inside the House. I am aware that possibly, from some points of view, objections may be raised to the motion of my hon. friend. But, for my own part I am heartily in favour of it, and, if he decides to divide the House upon it, I shall have pleasure in giving my vote in support of the motion. For the purposes of the present budget and the present condition of affairs we cannot deal with it. But I hope there will be such an educational movement on the question that, at no distant day, we may adopt it as part of our practical legislation. If that can be done at no distant day no one will rejoice more than I shall.

Topic:   THE PREFERENTIAL TARIFF.
Permalink
LIB

Hance James Logan

Liberal

Mr. LOGAN.

I think that the reasons my hon. friend has given in support of his motion are strong, and I believe that the more the subject is discussed, the more likely we are to reach the conclusion that he has reached after so much consideration. So, while I do not say. that his motion will receive the assent of the House, to take effect at once, it is a move in the right direction. Even if it is not received with unanimous approval, as I would desire to see it received, I trust that the time will soon come when we may accept it as part of a thoroughly national policy. But it is certainly a subject upon which discussion is desirable and education is necessary. I congratulate my hon. friend upon having given it the attention he has, and I repeat that, if it is necessary for his purpose to divide the House upon it, I will cordially vote in support of the motion.

Topic:   THE PREFERENTIAL TARIFF.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).

It is certainly cheering to see the Minister of Finance condemning himself and his government-for that is what his speech amounted to. He and his colleagues have had, and now have, power in their hands to carry out the spirit of this motion, and yet they have failed to do it. He admits the injustice done to Canada, and declares that he knows that wrong is done, but only says that if the House will give its sanction he does not know but that he will deal with it to the future. But, though they have had it in their power to do justice in Canada they have refrained from doing it. What their reason may be is not known to us-it is for those hon. gentlemen to explain. And it seems to me that the hon. member (Mr. Logan) who moved this motion is also worthy of censure. He has had this notice of motion on the paper for weeks. What would naturally be his object in putting it on the paper but to bring the attention of the government and of this House to the need of the change he proposes, with a view to having the government deal wi,th it in connection with the tariff ? Had it been brought forward in time, and a favourable expression of opinion from the House secured, the Finance Minister might fairly have been expected to take note of it and act upon it when he brought down his budget. But the hon. gentleman, though putting a notice upon the paper seems to have allowed the time to pass, and did not bring it forward until now after the budget speech has been delivered. And then the minister congratulates him on what he has done and declares that if the hon. gentleman presses his motion to a division he will vote for it. That is a_wonderful admission on the part of the government, and a most amusing one. I am glad to notice that at last, though late, there are some members on that side who are not prevented from expressing

tlieir views on this question by fear ot offending the United States. This everlasting cringing to the United States that we have had exemplified by members of the Reform Party during the whole time that I have been in this House, now twenty-six years, has been humiliating to every Canadian, and, if possible, more humiliating to representatives of Canada in this House. When any matter of a similar nature to this was brought before the House and it was recommended that we should take practical steps, what was generally the answei' from the other side? These hon. gentlemen told us not to exasperate the Americans or the Americans would retaliate. For twenty years we were told that by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) in regard to our proposal to prevent the Americans taking away our logs, but to compel them to manufacture them into lumber on this side. That hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) told us that the Americans would retaliate, that they would double the lumber duties, that they would prevent us from marketing our lumber-in fact that they would desfroy us if we attempted co stand up for our own interest. And we have the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright) declaring that the whole trend of the Conservative policy was to keep the Americans in a state of annoyance and so prevent us from securing a reciprocity treaty. And we were assured that the sunny ways of the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when brought to bear upon the obdurate hearts of the Americans, would cause them to see the selfishness of their ways and amend. And that right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) signalized his entrance into office by the declaration that, to soften the hearts of the Americans and secure a reciprocity treaty, he was willing to give away all our fishing privileges on the Atlantic. But there was a sudden and unexpected howl from the maritime provinces, and we have heard nothing more of the right hon. gentleman's proposal since then. But he did everything possible to please the Americans ; the commission went into Washington to soften their hearts and bring them to a sense of their duty. But it was found to be labour in vain, like washing a nigger to make him white. At last we have come to the conclusion that it is better to look after ourselves. X often asked myself when we might hope the hon. gentlemen opposite would reach that conclusion, and they seem to have awakened to the truth at last. AY hat are hon. gentlemen sent here for ? Not to legislate for the United States, but to legislate for Canada.

I am glad that one member on that side has at last found courage to declare that he is in favour of looking after the interest of Canada in this matter. It would be

amusing, if it were not humiliating, to hear the answer of the Minister of Finance. That hon. gentleman says he will vote for the motion. He will vote in favour of doing a thing that he could have done by legislation long ago. The people will understand that, and they will judge of the hon. gertleman's sincerity.

Topic:   THE PREFERENTIAL TARIFF.
Permalink

June 20, 1904