April 15, 1914

CON

Oliver James Wilcox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WILCOX:

January 28, 1913. I

contend that that is not fair. I contend that, if we are to have a protective system in this country, it ought to be fair and equitable to all. interests and there is no just ground why the farmers should have to grow and sell their corn in the open market, when the United States produce seven-eighths of the corn crop of the world, and when every other product which the farmer raises, is entitled to, and does receive, the advantage of tariff protection.

In looking over the political history of this country during the last fifteen years, I would say that the greatest weakness in the Government has been that it has practically been one mam government. I understand party government to be organized public opinion and that members are elected to this House because they represent the majority of public opinion in the particular district from which they come. Upon this point the Hon. Edward Blake said:

I understand it is the duty of the leader to be, as far as possible, the leader of the whole party, and not of any section. It is a part of

It is very much to be regretted that the Government has been hampered in its measures for the benefit of the whole country by the opposition of the Senate of Canada. I regret that the Senate has seen fit to defeat the Highways Bill, but I remember the words of Edward Blake:

You might as well ask a wolf to select a sheep dog to protect the sheep from the ravages of the wolf, as to ask the Senate of Canada as it is now constituted to do their duty to this great country, or the Empire, if they thought such a course would militate, against the poli-such a course would militate against the poli-mons.

That is a reasonably good showing for any Government to make in the short period of two years. It is no exaggeration to say that the present Administration is endeavouring to the best of its ability to carry into effect the will of the people of this country. The Premier of this country, the Right Hon. R. L. Borden, issned a < manifesto in which he set forth his policy. Upon that policy he was elected, and he has consistently, honestly, conscientiously, intelligently .and to the best of his ability endeavoured to carry into effect that which he promised the people before the election of 1911. I believe the people will accept what he has done as in their best interest, and will agree that he is giving .an honest and conscientious administration.

Topic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Liberal

Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Rouville):

Mr. iSpeaker, I hope not to delay this House too long by the remarks which 1 intend to offer on the questions of to-day. I have listened with great attention to the .speech delivered by my hon. friend from North Essex (Mr. Wilcox). I noticed that in one portion of his speech he was very fond of quoting what he considered a very high authority against free trade, which nobody preaches in this chamber. He quoted Mr. Ellis Barker in order to prove that free trade brought poverty and destitution in England, which of all countries to-day is the most prosperous, and which has been able to fare best during the cycle of commercial depression and financial stringency through which the whole world has passed of late; but I suppose that my hon. friend, when quoting Mr. Ellis Barker, had in mind that under a high protective tariff there is no poverty and no destitution. This is not the place n-or the time for an academic debate, but I shall only answer my hon. friend's argument by quoting just a few lines from the Montreal Gazette of yesterday, showing the

conditions under a protective Government which boasts of its high protective principles-.and we are supposed to fare well even during the financial .stringency and the hard times which exist in all parts of the world. The Gazette does not report what happens in the county of Essex or in the beautiful town of Windsor, but it reports for the small town of Montreal and for the poor people of Montreal. Here is what I read:

More destitution than in winter-Free refuges find demands for shelter greater and work scarcer-Unemployed fill city, while immigrants seeking work are adding to the down-and-out class, say charity workers.

Let me quote a few lines:

That conditions of unemployment and destitution in the city following an unusually severe winter, have not improved at all with the advent of spring, and are if anything worse here than in the middle of the winter, is the consensus of opinion of the superintendents of the various free and cheap refuges in Montreal, who come into more intimate contact perhaps with the down-and-outs than any others.

And there is a whole column quoting facts and figures as regards the hard times in the city of Montreal.

My hon. friend stated that he was a strong party man, and I have no objection to his being a party man. I also am a party man. I believe in a system of government toy party, and he and I are in excellent company, because the greatest parliamentarian of the eighteenth century, Edmund Burke himself, declared that party government was the best measure ever devised by man to govern men. My hon. friend belongs to the Conservative party. I take pride in belonging to the Liberal party. His party, in my . judgment, represents reaction; the Liberal party represents progress. When I read the Budget speech of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, I am obliged to say that the characteristics of his Budget are as reactionary as the party to which he now1 belongs. It is a most reactionary Budget; it is a complete surrender to the interests and the manufacturers of Canada. The country was awaiting anxiously a downward revision of the tariff, and it is now committed to an upward revision. Minus a five per cent reduction on some agricultural implements, which is a mere sop to the farming community of Canada, the tariff this year completely ignores the great farming community, while it disregards all the real grievances of the West. It bangs, bars and bolts the door to the consumers clamouring for a reduction of taxation. I am not surprised at that; nobody is surprised. The interests are predominating in this country

under this benign Government. We all know that the big interests won the election of the 21st of September, 1911. Now they receive their reward 'at the 'hands of the Government. The farmers on the other hand receive the cold shoulder, while to the consumer is thrown a polished stone which will come under the form of a blue-book when the Commission on the High Cost of Living finds time to report. Considering the consequences of that reactionary Budget, with its tendency towards an upward revision of the tariff, I would be inclined to say, repeating an old historical saying, 'It is worse than a crime: it is a blunder.'

My hon. friend the Minister of Finance prefaced his remarks with a declaration of principles. He stated that from now on he, his Government and his party stood for the National Policy; he reiterated the statement that the Government was committed to a policy of protection. Nor did he fail to intersperse his speech-a very able speech-with sneers at those of us who still believe that reciprocity was not such a bad thing for Canada after all. Since he has thought it proper to make this declaration of principle in favour of high protection, may I not he permitted to malke a little historical survey to show him what protection was meant to be 'from its inception in this country? Perhaps it may be the fashion for some months to come to sneer at reciprocity and to say that the Liberal party blundered in 1910-11 in advocating that policy. Well, I think I can easily demonstrate, and I think you yourself, Mr. Speaker, being one of the fathers of the House, could teach the hon. gentlemen sitting at your right, that when -they sneer at reciprocity they, by that very act, defame their own party, deride their own policy and denounce their old -chieftain, Sir John A. Macdonald. Sir John A. Macdonald was himself 'an -ardent -advocate of reciprocity, as you well know. The National Policy which he was instrumental in introducing was meant, in his judgment, to pave the way to reciprocity; it was to be- to use his own language-the key to unlock the gates of wider markets; it was to be the lever to remove the fiscal barriers standing between this country and the United States of America.

Now, what happened in 1877, when Sir John Macdonald occupied the seat now occupied hy the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Lauri-er)? We had at that time a low tariff. Hon. Alexander 163J

Mackenzie was the Prime Minister of Canada. We were passing through an economic crisis which hovered not only over Canada hnt over the United -States and the world [DOT]at large. Sir John A. Macdonald was watching his opportunity to impress the people of Canada with the -belief that the time had com-e for a change. On the 7th of March, 1877, he moved the following amendment in this House:

This House is of the opinion that the welfare of Canada requires the adoption of a National Policy which, inter alia, will restore prosperity to our struggling industries now so sadly depressed; will prevent Canada from being made a sacrifice market; will encourage and develop an active interprovincial trade; and moving, as it ought to do, in the direction of reciprocity of tariffs with our neighbours so far as the varied interests of Canada may demand, will greatly tend to procure for this country eventually a reciprocity of trade.

Now, when my hon. friends opposite sneer at reciprocity, they sneer at protection which in its inception was designed, according to the very language of Sir John A. Macdonald, the great Conservative chieftain, to bring about a reciprocity of trade between Canada and the United States. What followed? Sir John Macdonald took office in 1878, and in 1879 his Minister of Finance, Sir Leonard Tilley, introduced into this House a new customs tariff. I am only repeating what has already been repeated on many occasions, but it is well that the younger generation of Tories should know what their -ancestors did in this House of Commons. When Sir Leonard Tilley introduced this Tariff Act of 1879, it -contained the following as section 6:

Any or all of the following articles, that is to say: animals of all kinds, green fruit, hay, straw, bran, seeds of all kinds, vegetables, including potatoes and other roots, plants, trees and shrubs, coal and coke, hay, hops, wheat, peas and beans, barley, rye, oats, Indian corn-

Et cetera, et cetera.

-may he imported into Canada free of duty, or at a less rate of duty than is provided hy this Act, upon proclamation of the Governor in Council which may be issued whenever it appears to his satisfaction that similar articles from Canada may be imported into the United States free of duty, or at a rate of duty not exceeding that payable on the same under such proclamation when imported into Canada.

You have in that section practically the same list which was included in the famous reciprocity pact, known as the Knox-Fielding pact of 1910-11. This was the Conservative policy for many years. This section 6 remained in our Customs Act until very lately. But there was this

difference between the political parties: for many years the Conservative party when in office tried in vain to obtain concessions from the Washington authorities; they sent pilgrim after pilgrim to the White House, but without avail. On the contrary, the Liberal party, after taking office, having received' one rebuff declared that we would never return to Washington. We awaited our opportunity; and it came in 1910-11, when the President of the United States sent commissioners to Canada in order to ascertain if she would be willing to enter into a reciprocity pact. That is the difference between the two parties. Both parties in this country for half a century at least have advocated reciprocity. The difference between the Conservative party and the Liberal party is that the Conservatives sent delegates to Washington, whereas under the Liberal regime the officials at Washington came to Ottawa.

I listened with a great deal of attention to the speech of my hon. friend the member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames). He is a highly educated gentleman, who knows the politics of this country very well indeed, and his remarks are always interesting. In order to blacken as much as possible-I will not say the reputation, but the history of the Liberal party during their tenure of office of sixteen years-the hon. gentleman was obliged to use Latin words. He could not find in the English or in the French language any words sufficient to describe the regime of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, and he went to his Roman law to find that the only term he could use was hereditas damnosa. On many occasions during the course of his speech the other day he characterized the Administration of the right hon. gentleman as hereditas damnosa. He gave a few comparative figures to justify his support of the present Administration and to condemn the late Government. My hon. friend, in using a few comparative figures to justify his support of the present Government, reminded me of a little story which was once told by Sir Richard Cartwright at a public meeting in Toronto. A meeting had been held the day before at the Albany Club, and my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster), even in the dark days of 1893, had been ingenious enough to find, by his comparative figures and tables, that this country was extraordinarily prosperous. Addressing the meeting the next day, and speaking of two bon. gentlemen whom I shall not name,

Sir Richard Cartwright said: ' A man can prove almost anything by the law of averages. I could prove by the law of averages that the hon. gentleman, Mr. So-and-So, is an honest man. I could even prove that he is a truthful one.' So with my friend the honouralde member for St. Antoine. By the law of averages, one reading his speech and knowing nothing of Canadian politics to-day, would come to the conclusion that all is well with the present Administration. Before I proceed to explain what the present Administration has done during the last two and a half years, I may be permitted to recall some facts and figures in order to answer the rather contemptuous remarks made by the hon. member for St. Antoine about the Liberal regime. In 1897 Mr. Fielding, the late Minister of Finance, introduced in this House a policy which, I believe, gave Canada 15 years of unbounded prosperity. I need not repeat to the House what were the changes brought about by his new tariff. The last speaker repeated the old story that Mr. Fielding changed practically nothing in the old tariff; but I have only to name the British preference, which reduced by 33i per cent the taxation of the people of this country, to prove that an immense change was made with the introduction of the fiscal policy of 1897. At all events, we judge a fiscal policy by its results. If I were to judge of that policy by the words spoken by the then leader of the Opposition (Sir Charles Tupper), of course I might be inclined to say that this great country of ours was very badly governed for fifteen years. Indeed, when Sir Charles Tupper received the news that the British preference would be introduced {hat the specific duties would be wiped out, and that some of the -ad valorem duties would be reduced, he used the following language:

The result is that this tariff goes into operation, and the hon. gentleman knows that the industries of this country are already paralysed in consequence, while hon. members gloat over the destruction of Canadian industries. I was reading the wail, the sorrowful wail, of these industries in the Montreal Gazette, where one manufacturer after another declared that their industries were ruined; that their mills must close* and that they saw staring them in the face a return to the deplorable state of things that existed when the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House was in charge of the fiscal affairs of this country. I say that a deeper wrong was never inflicted on Canada. I feel that so far from rejoicing at it from a party standpoint, I deplore from my heart the ruin that is going to be inflicted upon the best interests of Canada and upon its great industries.

That was the prediction made by Sir Charles Tupper in 1897.

Topic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON:

This statement has been read time and again in the House during the present session. Will the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him whether Sir Charles Tupper, when he delivered that speech, had reference to the first tariff that the hon. Mr. Fielding brought down, or to the tariff that was put in force by Mr. Fielding?

Topic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB
CON

David Henderson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HENDERSON:

The hon. gentleman must remember that a great number of changes were made before the tariff was put into operation, and what Sir Charles Tupper had reference to was the tariff as brought down in the first instance, which was afterwards modified to a very great extent.

Topic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX:

I sat in the House in those days, and I have a fair remembrance of what happened. The Fielding tariff stands to-day on the statute book, and it was that tariff which was assailed by the then Opposition and its leader. The policy especially assailed in that statement of Sir Charles Tupper was the British preference given by Mr. Fielding. What were the results of that policy? The revenue of 1896 was $36,618,000, in round figures. In 1911, fifteen years afterwards, it had rolled up to 117,000,000; that is to say, in fifteen years it had trebled. The hon. gentleman in 1896 closed the fiscal year with a deficit of $519,000, in round figures; we closed the fiscal year 1911 with a surplus of $30,500,000.

Their average deficit in twelve years was $415,508; our average surplus in fourteen years was $10,471,371. Then, as to trade figures. In 1896 the total trade was $239,025,360; in 1911, $728,000,000; or, from 1868 to 1896, barring of course the five years of the Mackenzie regime which was only an accident, the increase in twenty-eight years was $123,000,000. The increase from 1896 to 1911 was $410,000,000-three times more revenue and three times more trade. As regards our trade with Great Britain, in 1896-97 it amounted to $106,000,000 in round figures; in 1910-11 it .amounted to $246,573,720. My hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) is supposed to be an Imperialist of the Imperialists. Who gave the British preference to the mother country? And who opposed the motion moved dn this House in 1900 by my friend the member for Halifax, now Mr. Justice Russell? The whole Conservative party opposed it.

My hon. friend from St. Antoine is interested in manufactures and is also a Montrealer. Montreal is the great industrial centre of the country. In 1896 the population of Montreal was 249,000, and in 1910, 550,000, or an increase in fourteen years of 301,000. In 1896 the value of property in Montreal was $170,731,000, and in 1910 $426,550,000, or an increase in fourteen years of $255,818,000. Briefly, this is the hereditas damnosa referred to by my hon. friend from St. Antoine. As a matter of fact, the revenue of this country was never so buoyant, trade was never so brisk and the industries of Canada were never so prosperous as during the Liberal period from 1896 to 1911. For Canada, it was a period not only of commercial but of national expansion. Hon. gentlemen opposite may say: But you maintained the

same National Policy. If we maintained the same old National Policy we used the same instrument which hon. gentlemen were using before 1896 to govern this country and with what results? Let us take the fourteen years before and after 1896. In the last fourteen years of the Conservative regime ending in 1896 imports decreased by $14,000,000. In the last fourteen years of the Liberal regime imports increased by $300,000,000. In the last fourteen years of the Conservative regime exports increased by $22,000,000; in the last fourteen years of the Liberal regime exports increased by $171,000,000. The total trade of Canada during the last fourteen years

of the Conservative regime increased by $8,500,000. During the last fourteen years of Liberal regime the total trade increased by $471,10 p.m. 000,000. Therefore we look back with pride to the Liberal Administration. Our per capita increase of trade was the largest of all the trading nations of the world. Besides, the West was settled whereas before it was only a solitude. We solved the problem of transportation, we carved new provinces in the West, we organized the Railway Commission which in latter days has so greatly alleviated the burdens of the taxpayers of the West. From a national point of view Canada never loomed so large as during the Liberal Administration, not only in the British Empire, but in the whole world. My hon. friend from St. Antoine is a great imperialist in Words. I said a moment ago that we gave the British preference and that he himself denounced it. To-day the western farmers are clamouring for an increase in the British preference My hon. friend from

expenditure on consolidated fund account was $87,774,000, and in the -second fiscal year of this Government, the total expenditure on consolidated fund account wa-s $126,500 000. For the last fiscal year of the Laurier Government, the expenditure on both consolidated fund account and capital account was $122,861,000, and for the second fiscal year o' the Government now in office, the expenditure on the same account amounted to $183,500,000. In the three years, the consolidated fund expenditure will have increased by nearly $39,000,000, and the total expenditure by about $60,639,000. And yet, Iron, gentlemen opposite when they were in Opposition, said that the Liberal Government was extravagant, and that the ministers were spendthrifts. The Prime Minister, then leading the Opposition, declared that the expenditure of the Liberal Government meant nothing less than corruption. The right hon. gentleman promised solemnly, were he returned to power, to reduce the expenditure by at least $10,000,000, as regards the administration of affairs. '

It is fortunate for you and for me, Mr. Speaker, that we live in the twentieth century. Had we lived in the middle ages, had we lived even in the eighteenth century, we would have seen the present ministers not only branded as impostors, but subjected also to the block and to the hatchet. I read a few days ago that the. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) was, very -anxious to go to -Great Britain to represent Canada there, and he would be a very, creditable representative of, at least, the, present Government. I am told that the* hon. gentleman has never crossed the seas.. If lie goes to London I advise him to do, what all young Canadians do on their first visit. They go first to Westminster Abbey, and it is worth crossing the Atlantic just for that; and then they go to the Tower of London, where they -see the instruments of torture. Years ago, on my first visit to the Tower, I was very much impressed when I saw the block where fell the head, of the fair Lady Jane Grey, and when I, saw7 the iron rods-they were not protected in those days-that used to pierce the tongues of the perjurers and imposters. I *would advise the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Militia to visit the Tower of London, and there they will see what instruments of torture were used in the old days against perjurers and imposters. Far be it from me to say they are perjurers and imposters, but it is well that they should look for the worst.

The Minister of Finance had to boast of something, and so he boasted of a surplus of $36,000,000, but that is poor consolation for the thousands who feel the bite of the hard times and of the high cost of living. The cost of living is abnormally high, as may be seen from the fact that in 1911 the average wholesale index price in Canada of 255 articles of general consumption was 128.9, of the average price level during the decade from 1890 to 1899. A year later it was 133.1, and in October last the average price was 136. The March statement of the Labour Department, giving the index number of wholesale prices, shows that there has been another increase in the cost of living during the month, and the index number now stands at 136.7, as compared with 136.1 in February and 136 in October of last year. The more important increases have occurred in grain, fodder, animals, meats, canned salmon, vegetables, flour and oatmeal; the increases took place in the products of the canners and the millers, about whom the Minister of Finance is so solicitous that they should have protection, while at the same time he takes no heed of the consumer.

The Minister of Finance and the gentlemen who surround him may ask: Can you reduce the cost of living? Yes, Mr. Speaker, we can reduce the cost of living, slightly at least, and a little always helps. We could reduce the cost of living, first by reducing taxation. What has this Government done to reduce taxation? Nothing. On the contrary, last year the Government levied a toll of over $11,000,000 on foodstuffs, valued -at $50,000,000. I give facts and figures to show this:

Dutiable food stuffs imported into Canada during the fiscal year 1912-1913, with the amount of duty collected in each case:

Value of Duty

Imports. Collected.

Sugars $17,392,146 $ 4,162,672Fruits and nuts

Vegetables (canned and 8,782,395 1,821,422fresh) 3,242,284 896,262Meats and poultry . . . . 5,338,673 1,040,547Eggs 2,783,665 327,123Fish 1,608,663 361,115Butter

Prepared cereal foods in 2,081,987 252,311packages 3,650,101 42,069Breadstuffs, etc

Grain, flour and meal, 1,260,357 261,403etc 3,638,121 482,163Lard

Cocoa and preparations 1354,442 242,897of cocoa 1,057,306 179,818Mustard

Coffee (when prepared 216,434 44,707or roasted, etc.) .. . . 268,100 35,365

Value of Duty

Imports. Collected.

Pickles

456,546 1,166,651Spices

378,568 50,643Total $53,679,793 $11,367,172

Topic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Thomas White (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. T. WHITE:

And for 1910 and 1911, how much?

Topic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB
CON
LIB
CON

William Thomas White (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WHITE:

It would not be difficult.

Topic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX:

That is no excuse. My hon. friend has passed the age of saying: You did it; you are another. He is a .statesman, and has promised to give this country prosperity, good times, cheap living, for all consumers. Besides, in 1910 and 1911 there was no question of high cost of living.

Topic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

William Thomas White (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WHITE:

Oh, was there not?

Topic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX:

There was money all around, there was prosperity and general contentment, whereas, as I have stated, the refuges and the hospitals in Montreal are now filled every day and every night,, with the bread-liners and the bread-rioters.

These articles were imported into Canada because they could not be obtained here, either .at .all or in .sufficient quantities to meet a real need. One-fifth per cent lias been added to the cost of living on these foodstuffs before they are permitted to pass from the importer to the consumer. The Government has completely ignored the consumers in the present Budget. The favoured ones are the food monopolies -the canners' combine, the cold storage men, the packers, and the big commission houses. The farmer, the' Government say, is also entitled to protection. It is always very clever to argue the farmer into the protective .system. It is always with flowery words that you put the collar of serfdom around the neck of the farmer. Of course, the farmer is entitled to protection, and I will show .in .a few moments how you can protect him; but have you forgotten that the farmer is also a consumer? He pays duty on sugar,

on rice, and on several other commodities which he does not produce, and he would be quite happy if that .article which our country cannot produce should come free into Canada. I listen to the voice of the farmer when I want to know his desires, his inclinations, and what

does he say? I was very much impressed when last fall the farmers of the West and of Ontario invaded the council chamber of this Dominion; I was impressed by the memorial which they presented to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. Here were the tillers of the soil, the men who represent more than half the population of Canada; what language did they .speak on that occasion:

We submit that the wider market afforded us by accepting the offer of the United States for free interchange of natural products would have the same effect in stimulating the raising of wheat, oats, barley and flax as free access to the United States market for cattle has already done for that line of farming enterprise, not only because it would provide another market for grain, but also it would provide a competitive route for transporting grain to Europe. We ask that all foodstuffs be placed on the free list, as we believe that the taxing of food is a crime against humanity.

These words have been jeered at by same hon. members, but who can deny that they were the honest statement of the great farming community of Canada?

Let me quote here the words of Pierce on tariff, one of the great authorities on fiscal questions. He deprecates the lack of public spirit in those high tariff countries where the writers have words of praise only for the wealthy and the few. He says:

You would think from the current discussion of economic subjects that the only matter of interest to the American people was the wealth and prosperity of the great corporations, and that the welfare of the consumers, the great body of the people, was a matter of little im. portance. It seems to me that it is about time for a full review of the question from the standpoint of the consumer. Government cannot at one and the same time be a fountain of generosity to the manufacturer and of justice to the consumer.

Let me engrave this crisp sentence in the noble head of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance:

Government cannot at one and the same time be a fountain of generosity to the manufacturer and of justice to the consumer. Privilege in any country is not for the many but for the few, for the simple reason that when privilege is expanded to the consumers, who are the entire body of the people, it is no longer privilege. The richness of the soil and of mineral deposits and the natural advantages in our country have made the lot of man so fortunate, and the absolute freedom of trade between our states and territories has tended to mitigate the burdens of protection so greatly, that the ordinary man, absorbed in his work, heeds but little the extortions which protective tariffs impose upon him until, perchance, hard times come and he feels the sting of want.

He adds :

The result is to rate low the rights of the whole people and to rate high the interests of a class.

I would say, reading the last changes in the customs tariff, that my hon. friend has rated low the rights of the consumers and has rated high the interests of the manufacturers.

I said that the present Government was responsible partly but, since the new tariff, chiefly for the high cost of living. I have explained how, in my humble judgment, you can reduce the high cost of living by reducing taxation. Now, how can we face the hard times? I will not say that the Government is wholly responsible for the hard times. I must be a Christian and honest, but surely the Government cannot face the hard times by increasing expenditures, or it then is guilty prima facie. It can face the hard times toy decreasing! expenditures. That is what you, Mr. Speaker, preached honestly, when you sat on this side of the House, and your silence at present is very eloquent.

Let us take the Departments of Public Works, Interior and Militia. Here is a list of expenditures for these departments for the last two years and for the present year. I am not going into past history; I am giving my hon. friend what happened in 1911. In 1911 the expenditure on public works wa? $10,818,834. In 1912, when, the brilliant Minister of Finance-forty-seven years old-emerged from that meeting of the ' noble eighteen ' in Toronto and became the new leader of fiscal opinion, the expenditure on public works jumped to $11,651,947. In 1913, it went on to $13,158,677; in 1914, estimated $18,000,000; and in 1915, to be voted $20,330,048.

It is "worse in the Militia Department, and to this I call the attention to my pacifist and .peaceful friends from the counties of Ontario, where militarism is no more popular than in the counties of the province of Quehec, at least among the farmers. For, when I speak of Ontario, I must be careful: Toronto is not Ontario; there are thousands and hundreds of thousands of farmers in the province of Ontario who deprecate this enormous expenditure through our Militia Department to-day. In the last year of Liberal rule, the expenditure on militia was $6,868,651. And poor Sir Frederic Borden, then Minister of Militia, was branded a spendthrift and was roasted to death in this House of Commons here by your associates, Mr. Speaker, (Mr. Blain)- you were generous, humane and Christian, you avoided all such bitter criticism; but your associates declared that he was a spendthrift because he asked $6,868,000 for

militia purposes. But what would the good farmers of Peel, of Grey, of Grenville -not to speak of Terrebonne-say if they knew that under the present Minister of Militia (Colonel Hughes), the expenditure increased to more than $9,000,000 in, 1913. But not .satisfied with this the minister jumped it higher in 1913-14 ,and spent almost $11,000,000 on militia, exclusive of what was spent on drill halls and armouries. Not to speak of the bonnie Bel-air scandal, I say that this expenditure as it Tuns now under the direction of our Minister of Militia, is simply pure madness. The farmers of this country do not approve of it. We all stand for moderate militia expenditure. We are not against a reasonable expenditure foT militia purposes; but I say that in the face of the hard times through which we are pass'ng and with the peaceful spirit existing in this country, to spend lavishly as the Minister of 'Militia is pending for militia purposes is pure folly. An expenditure of $11,000,000 is almost scandalous, but he will reach more than that next year. The minister's own trips to Europe are to say the least Quixotic. The list of his honorary colonels-by the way-I do not know whether the Minister of Finance wears the plume and the gold-braided uniform-this list as published in ' Hansard ' the other day-is simply a farce. If I were a soldier or an officer in His Majesty's army in Canada, I should be ashamed to think that every Tom, Dick and Harry, every wirepuller or ward politician, can become an honorary colonel undeT the benign rule Of the Minister of Militia. Sir, this expenditure on militia has reached the breaking point, and you know it, Mr. Speaker, and the good farmers in Peel county know it. Militarism is not condemned only by pacifists or by Norman Angell's disciples-and they are many-but by the statesmen of the whole world. I was reading the other day the Contemporary Review of London, and there I read that Count de Witte, who established Russian finance on the solid basis which enabled that country to bear the strain of the war with Japan, with the ensuing general strike and the so-called revolution, used the following language:

When I try to realize what is meant by the ' peace ' of to-day, I feel tempted to call It economic war. Certainly it is little better than war. Speaking without exact figures, I should say that some 40 per cent of the outlay of the various States is absorbed by the armies and navies which are to carry on the great campaign of the future, and by the debts left by the campaigns of the past.

Sketch a picture in your mind's eye of all that these sums, ' if propertly spent ', could

effect for the nations who now waste them on heavy guns, rifles, dreadnoughts, fortresses, and barracks. If this money were laid out on improving the material lot of the people In housing them hygienieally, in procuring for them healthier air, medical aid, and needful periodical rest, they would live longer and work to better purpose, and enjoy some of the happiness or contentment which at present is the prerogative of the few.

In this I have .quoted, a statesman who belongs to a nation which hardly knows parliamentary government and liberty, the great nation of Russia. Now, let us come to the nation Of all nations, Great Britain, the Mother of Liberty, and the Mother of Parliaments, and let me quote the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that country, the right hon. David Lloyd George. Speaking on the 1st of Jannary last, he sent the following message to Euiope at large:

Pointing to the enormous burden which armaments impose on the taxpayer, and to the fact that the growth of armaments still leaves the nations in the same relative strength, Mr. Lloyd George thinks that the present is the most favourable moment in twenty years for a policy of retrenchment.

' He cites three reasons :

First, Great Britain's relations with Germany are more friendly than for many years, both realizing that there is nothing to gain and everything to lose by a quarrel.

Second, all the continental nations are now directing their attention to strengthening their land forces, Germany having realized that her exhaustive attempts to develop her naval power must give place to improving the army, which is vital to the existence of the Empire.

Third, the spread of revolt against military oppression throughout Christendom, certainly throughout western Europe.

The third reason Mr. Lloyd George considers the weightiest of all, and he believes that this is the right moment for a hold step towards the restriction of the growth of armaments, and thinks it imperative that in the highest interests of civilization he should seize it.

There, you have opinion from the two poles of parliamentary government, you have it from Russia and you have it from Great Britain. And, while in Russia and in Great Britain they are deprecating increased expenditure for military purposes, in Canada, a young nation, at peace with its only neighbour, at peace with the whole world, a nation striving for peace and seeking only the prizes of peace, we are increasing wantonly and shamelessly the expenditure on armaments. I say it is a scandal, and the Government should put a stop to such ridiculous expenditure as that now proposed by the Minister of Militia.

Topic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

John Hampden Burnham

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BDRNHAM:

Does my hon. friend prefer to go by what the Czar of Russia and Mr. Lloyd-George say, or by what they do? The Czar of Russia is increasing vastly his military forces and is aspiring now to

have an immense navy; Lloyd-George is consenting with the rest of the ministers to a large increase in the naval Budget of the old country.

Topic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX:

Which proves, indeed, that in both countries there is madness amongst the scaremongers. Sir, the best minds in England and in Russia are trying to stop that expenditure. If my hon. friend wants to know the opinion of Canadians on this subject, let him go before the farmers of Peterborough, and they will tell him whether they approve of that expenditure or not. We are told that free food deprives the farmer of protection. Well, can you not recoup him by reducing the cost of production and ;by giving him free implements? I can only repeat here briefly the arguments which have already been adduced by some of my colleagues from the West. I said a moment ago that between 55 and 65 per cent of the population of Canada was engaged directly or indirectly in agriculture. From the soil is extracted the produce which provides the purchasing power for manufactured goods and leads to diversified industry. Canada is the greatest farm in the world to-day. It has the largest consecutive wheatfield in the world, 900 by 300 miles. Her western fields form an empire, and a world granary. Her far-flung West is a melting-pot of the nations. Winnipeg, to use the language of Sir William Van Horne, is the spout of the thousancl-mile hopper between the Rockies and the prairie capital. The eyes of the world are on this nation in the making; her prosperity depends largely upon the farmers' welfare.

Let me give the House a few figures, which I take from the speech delivered the other day by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). I am bound to say that the members from the West, generally speaking, are exceedingly very well informed on the tariff question. One hundred and fifty-four million acres have been selected by the Government in the West on account of their suitability for cultivation. In 1901 only 2,500,000 acres were under cultivation; in 1911 there were 17,500,000. That, in a large degree, caused the great prosperity of Canada-during the fifteen years the right hon. leader of the Opposition held the reins of power. The crop of last year yielded 466,000,000 bushels, worth $180,000,000, so that with twelve per cent only of the area suitable for cultivation, the great Canadian West produced $180,000,000 worth of crop. What will it be when the 154,000,-

000 acres are occupied and tilled by Canadian farmers? We can then supply the whole world. But the production must be profitable. We have our competitors; I saw the figures in the excellent report of the Grain Markets Commission of the province of Saskatchewan-a most lucid and able report on the wheat and transportation question, which I commend to every member of the House. We have competitors in India, Russia, Argentine, Italy and Australia.

Topic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB
LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX:

The United States too. We must make the production as profitable as possible so as to enable our Canadian farmers to meet their competitors on the other side of the water. The Government can reduce the cost of production, and how? By reducing the cost of agricultural implements. High tariffs will always bring stagnation where there was prosperity in a farming community. The homestead entries have gone down; there were 10,000 less homestead entries for the year ending March 31, 1913, than there were for the year ending March 31, 1911. Land sales have also gone down; they were only 9,000,000 acres in 1913, as against 19,000,000 acres in 1911.

1 say these are facts and data which go to

prove that unless this Government will reduce the cost of production by reducing the duties on implements, the West is doomed-the West is sacrificed. But we are told-of course

it is small politics always to revert to the past to explain present circumstances-we are told: your reciprocity agreement gave less than the present reduction of 5 per cent. This is no argument. We are in 1914, not in 1911. For our shortcomings we are here and you are there. Conditions have changed, and besides, we must take the reciprocity agreement as a whole. It covered a vast field of interest. The farmers of the West were well satisfied with even a small reduction of 2i per cent on agricultural implements, considering the boon that they were receiving by the whole of the reciprocity pacf^the long free list, the benefits of which were to accrue to the farmers and the consumers of this country. To-day they have no market-we offered them the greatest market in the world. My hen. friend knows that Mr. Underwood in his tariff has removed entirely the duty on farm implements going into the United States, thus giving the American farmer an advantage over the farmer on this side of the boundary line. I am not surprised that the

American settlers are leaving the Canadian West and returning, to the United States. What are the figures? I was astounded the other day, when the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) gave these figures to the House, to learn that there were more farmers leaving the West for the United States than there were farmers coming from the United States into Canada. Let me repeat the .figures: In 1907-8 there went

from Canada to the United States 58,000 farmers and there came from the United States into Canada 58,000 farmers. In 1908-9,

84.000 went from Canada to the United States and 59,000 came from the United States into Canada. In 1909-10, 94,000 went from Canada to the United States and 103,000 came from' tne United States into Canada. In 1910-11, 105,000 went from Canada to the United States and 121,000 came from the United States to Canada; in 191112, 107,000 went from Canada to the United States and 133,000 came from the United States to Canada; in 1912-13, 143,000 went from Canada to the United States and

139.000 came from the United States to" Canada. I am not surprised that the American farmers are leaving the Canadian fields for the greener fields of the United States, in view of the fact that the Underwood tariff gives them this preference.

Topic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON
LIB

Rodolphe Lemieux

Liberal

Mr. LEMIEUX:

Yes. I took them from the Grain Growers' Guide, a most reliable authority. I am not against the manufacturers of 'agricultural implements. Why should I be? They are very industrious Canadians. They have done well for the country and the country has done well by them in the past. They have built up a splendid industry. I am not against them but I say that at the present time they can hold their own very well. First of all. they are masters of the Canadian market, secondly they compete successfully in the world's markets. They compete and hold their own with the United States in Great Britain, in Australia, in France, and even in Russia. Canadian mowers, threshers, cultivators and ploughs hold their own against similar American implements in all those countries. It was a source of great pride to me when travelling through South Africa, Japan, France and England to see Canadian agricultural implements being used by the peasantry of those countries. If our implement manufacturers can compete in the world's markets surely they can stand a little reduction in the tariff which would

give our Canadian farmer a chance to produce at less -cost, thereby increasing his purchasing powers. Taking manufactured goods as a whole we import ten times as much as we export. In 1913 we exported manufactured goods to the value of $43,692.700 and we imported goods to the value of $462,461,000 in round figures. The contrary is the case in regard to agricultural implements. In 1913 we imported to the value of $4,445,000, and we exported to the value of $6,152,000, which shows conclusively that this industry is no longer in the infant stage, that it stands on a different basis altogether from other industries. I quite understand that in 1879 and for some years afterwards the implement manufacturers were entitled to some measure of protection, but my 'hon. friend knows that their business grew and that they gradually became masters of the Canadian market and can now compete in the world's market. As that took place we made reductions, in 1897 for instance, and I think the present Minister of Trade and Commerce made a little reduction when he revised the tariff in 1893, but I am not positive as to that. My hon. friend finds some consolation in saying: Oh well, the United States tariff and the Canadian tariff compare very well. The Minister of Finance the other day, said we were not overburdened with a high tariff as the United States tariff worked out at an average of 26 per cent, which is about the Canadian ave -age. He said that, to convey the impression that the Canadian workingman has to pay just as much in duty as the American workingman. With all due respect to my hon. friend, that is a very false impression to convey to the poor ignorant workingmen of this country. But even the poor ignorant workingmen and the poor ignorant farmers will see through that argument. The hon. minister takes no account of the free list in the United States. That is the crux ot the whole question. The average duty in the United States may be about the same as the Canadian duty for those things on which the American has to pay duty. In (Canada the duties apply to everything, while in the United States the tariff is taken off the necessaries of life. The people of the United States have free food, free agricultural implements; many important building materials, including cfement, are free, and a vast variety of miscellaneous commodities. Everything in our neighbour's free list has to pay a heavy duty coming into Canada. Bread, meat, fish, milk, cream, eggs, potatoes, fruit, coal-the principal things that enter into

ithe high cost of living-are all on the free list in the United States, but every one of them has to pay a heavy duty coming into 'Canada. That is the difference. If my hon. friend wishes to compare the Canadian and American tariffs,, he must first of all exclude the United States free list, *and then compare the duties on both sides of the line.

What has been the effect of the Underwood tariff in the United States? Our friends opposite, and especially the Conservative press, boast that the Underwood tariff has had no effect whatever on the *cost of living in the United States, and they, even gloat over its so-called failure. It is a little early to judge of the effects of that tariff, but we know one thing, the days of high protection in the United States are past, and past for ever. If you wish to know what are the effects of the Underwood tariff-and it is very well to consider that point-read the article in Bradstreet's, March 14, 1914, headed: ' Another Fall in Commodity Prices.' It reads in part as follows:

For the third time this year-

Mind you, the tariff has been in force just about six months.

-.Bradstreet's index number of commodity prices has followed a downward course. The fall is very slight, only three-tenths of one per cent for the interval between February 1 and March 1. . . . Though the changes in each

division are comparatively light, weakness has acted to a greater extent than firmness, but an analysis of the diverse movements within the groups will be more apropos when we come to consider the individual factors. In any case the present index number is the lowest reported since October of 1911.

That is the effect of the

11 p.m. Underwood tariff in this year of grace, 1914.

and it is lower than the numbers reported on March 1, 1913, 1912, 1910 and 1907, on which date in the last-named year prices touched a high point for the period 1S92-1907.

Let me give a list of the commodities . which have decreased in price since the Underwood tariff came into force:

Wheat, rye, flour, sheep, live, mutton carcasses, beef, butter, lard, coffee, sugar, peas, lemons, raisins, currants, hides, wool O. and Pa. wool, Australian, hemp, flax, print cloths, pig iron, eastern, pig iron, southern, pig iron Bess., steel billets, tinplates, steel beams, silver, copper, lead, tin, quicksilver, anthracite coal, Convilie coke, southern coke, castor oil, olive oil, rosin, tar, brick, nails, glass, yellow pine, hemlock timber, carbolic acid, hops, rubber.

I just quote a few; I need not quote any further. Bradstreet is a well-known

authority. The main fact stands out that since the first of the year the price of commodities has materially decreased in the United States. I will also recommend to my hon. friend to read an article published on page 223 of the December World's Work 'by Mr. Arno Dosch, a well known economic authority in the United States. It says:

How business is standing tariff reduction. I have just finished interviewing dozens of manufacturers to find out what effect the new tariff is likely to have upon industry.

I have never read anything so interesting as that which has been published here by Mr. Dosch on the effect of the tariff on the industries of the United States.

Topic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink

April 15, 1914