April 16, 1914

CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

I understand that it was somewhat irregular in form, and, following the usual practice in regard to long questions, we reduced it as much -as possible. I will, however, look into the matter.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   VANCOUVER ORANGE LODGE RESOLUTION.
Permalink
LIB

William Chisholm

Liberal

Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:

I desire to -ask that the question be put on the Order Paper in the original form, because the -answer cannot be intelligible without the resolution.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   VANCOUVER ORANGE LODGE RESOLUTION.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

Of course, the hon. member will understand that -questions and resolutions submitted cannot always be put on the Order Paper in the form in which they are presented to the House; if so, they would frequently be irregular. After conference with the hon. member, it will be decided in what form the question will be put.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   VANCOUVER ORANGE LODGE RESOLUTION.
Permalink

THE BUDGET.


Consideration of the motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) for the House to go into Committee on Ways and Means, resumed from Wednesday, April 15.


CON

John Alexander Macdonald Armstrong

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. A. MACDONALD ARMSTRONG (North York):

Mr. Speaker; I have no intention of imposing on the good nature of the members of this House for more than a few moments, and I would not have craved their indulgence at all but for the tact that I consider it my duty to those who sent me to this House as their representative to place myself on record at least-with regard to the more contentious matters in connection with the tariff. The House listened last night with a great deal of attention to the able address made by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemi-eux). I for one always listen to that hon. gentleman with a great deal of pleasure-I believe in giving credit where

credit is due; in rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. I congratulate the hon. member on having delivered what, to my mind, was a very capable address. As a work of literary art, I think it would class as a masterpiece. I also congratulate the hon. member on his wonderful command of the English language and his extensive knowledge of the Latin tongue, as evidenced by the several Latin quotations he gave last night. I do not pretend to be a Latin scholar, but I recollect the phrase- ' He-reditas damnosa.' I noticed that my hon. friend from Rouville repeated that expression several times, and that he laid stress upon the first syllable of the last word. I presume that he sought to- convey to this House what he would like to do with the members of the Conservative party if he had the chance. I will willingly and freely congratulate the hon. member on that speech and on the manner in which it was delivered. But I regret that I cannot congratulate him upon the subject matter of that speech. If the hon. member's political epitaph is to be carved or framed according to the standards of that speech, I am afraid it will be this -and nothing more: ' He talked much and said little.'

The hon. gentleman did, in one respect, follow the lead given by other hon. gentlemen since the early days of this -session; he began by telling the House that there were many, many unemployed in Canada, and that a very unsatisfactory condition of affairs prevailed. He said it with a gleam of satisfaction in his eye. His political partisanship, his desire for political preferment, no doubt overcame his interest in the welfare of the Canadian people. He said that hundreds and thousands of unemployed were walking the streets of Montreal, a-n-d that the same condition prevailed in other cities throughout Canada. Apparently he is not satisfied with that condition, but wants to make it worse. According to his own showing, he wishes to recruit the ranks of the unemployed, to see more destitute homes and more hungry children in his native city of Montreal. For, forsooth, he has asked this House to eliminate the duties on agricultural implements. He is not satisfied with the condition of unrest that prevails in the manufacturing world, but wishes to disturb it to a greater extent, to remove any feeling of confidence that may exist, and to compel the manufacturers to retrench furtherf and to throw more hands out ot employment, Showing clearly that the hon. member for Rouville and many other hon.

members behind him are willing, in order to bridge the gulf that separates them from the Treasury Benches in this House, to walk over the half fed and half clothed bodies of the wives and children of the artisans of Canada. Hon. members opposite have at last come out in the broad light of day; at last we know where to place them. They have nailed their colours to the mast and have said: we will make a hid for the votes of the farmers of the plains and for them alone. That is what it looks like. They have no regard for the interests of the workingmen. I trust it will be heralded throughout the length and breadth of Canada just how anxious these hon. members are to help the artisans and labourers at the present time.

The hon. member made some very peculiar statements. He said that the big interests won the last election for the Conservative party. Well, there is one 'big interest we did not have, and that was the interest of the Honourable Lyman-hyphen-Melvin-hyphen-Jones. We did not have it then, and did not want it, and I do not know that we want it very badly now.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

But you have it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

Joseph Elijah Armstrong

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ARMSTRONG:

perjurers and impostors. I ask the hon. member for Rouville to take his mind back over the. history of his own party; to look over the list of broken pledges and neglected promises; to look over the record of the public treasury plundered and the public domain squandered for the benefit of a few of the political barnacles which were fastened on the Liberal ship of state. I can only say that if the shortcomings of this Government merit the punishment that the hon. member for Rouville mentions, the only punishment which I think would meet the political sins of hon. gentlemen opposite would be the tortures of the Inquisition.

I was never in my life as proud of the fact that I am a Conservative as I have been since the moment the hon. Minister of Finance took his seat after delivering the Budget speech. I am proud to be a Conservative, because once more we can make the proud boast that iso far as tariff matters -are concerned this party can claim consistency. From 1878 down to the present day the people of the country haye known exactly where to find hon. gentlemen on this -side of the House; I wish I could say -as much for hon. gentlemen opposite. I am -almost constrained to pity when I look across the floor of this chamber. First of all I would see, if he were in his seat, the hon. member for Red De-er (Mr. -Clark), a very able man, and a pronounced exponent of the principles of free trade. I would see sitting not far from him the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who in his heart is a protectionist, and who not long ago informed this House that reciprocity was dead. I would see sitting near him the smooth-tongued, soft-spoken member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), whose honeyed utterances so often have a tendency to pour oil upon the troubled waters of debate in this House. According to the public press, in the city of Hamilton the other day, that hon. gentleman said that reciprocity was not dead. Not far from him I would see the really genial and popular member for Beauce (Mr. Beland), convicted out of his own mouth the other night as being at heart a Conservative so far as the tariff is concerned. I would see also the smiling countenance of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German), a pronounced opponent of the principles of reciprocity, a gentleman who was man enough to stand out from his party and declare his principles upon the floor of Parliament. Then, last but not least, we have the right [Mr. J. A. M. Armslroug.l

hon. leader of the Opposition himself. I do not want to unlock the door of the cupboard and expose to view the old party -skeletons; this House has heard about it ad nauseam in the years gone by. I shall only remind the House of the days when the right hon. gentleman, in sonorous voice, proclaimed himself in the market places of Boston as being the Moses of the Canadian people who was going to lead them out of thraldom, and assured the people of the republic to the south that the ultimate aim of this country was independence; that we would break away from British connections as the ripe fruit would drop from the parent stem. I do not want to follow the right hon. gentleman in his varied career; I am not going to dilate upon the time when he advocated unrestricted reciprocity and continental free trade as they had it in England. The right hon. gentleman has turned more political somersaults as far as tariff matters are concerned than any man in the history of this or any other civilized country.

I wish to say a few words with regard to -some of the matters upon which hon. gentlemen opposite and those of us on this side -of the House disagree with regard to the tariff. I am going to confine my remarks to the two items of free wheat and free agricultural implements, because person-ally I am not sufficiently conversant with the steel industry in C-anada to make any comments upon it. I, may -say -at the outset that hon. gentlemen opposite, especially those who represent western constituencies, have taken, to my mind, a very peculiar view of this -question. I listened to the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) when early in the session he introduced an -amendment to the Address calling for free wheat. I beard the tale of woe of the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) when he talked upon the question of free agricultural implements. One would think when listening to the wailings of these hon. gentlemen, that that portion of Canada lying between the western boundaries of Manitoba and the foothills of the Rockies was a plague-stricken country. Listening to their -lamentations I coul-d almost hear the little children on -the side lines and concession ro-ad-s crying for their daily bread. I could -almost see the heartbroken mother, the tear-s of ago-ny streaming down her cheeks, lifting u-p her hands in supplication to the great Architect of the Universe and asking that she -and hers might be provided wi-th the ordinary necessaries of life. I could see in- my mind's

eye the distracted, husband and father pacing up and down outside the little shack upon the homestead, tearing his hair and calling down curses upon the head of the right hon. Prime Mmister and the other members of the Government because, forsooth, they had not seen fit to grant him free wheat and free agricultural implements. It is passing strange, Mr. iSpeaker, that, of the hundreds and thousands of sons and daughters of Ontario who left their native province to settle in western Canada, 999 out of every 1,000, when asked would you like to come back, answer, no. Strange, is it not, that they do not want to leave this plague-stricken land,_ where destitution and poverty are walking hand in hand if we are to heed the baleful wailings of hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. member foT Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles)^ went further in speaking of agricultural implements and he said that the farmers of Canada, living along the International boundary, could not bear to look across that imaginary line, and I could almost see the tears coursing down his cheeks as he spoke of these men, who could not bear to see the farmers across the line getting their implements a little bit cheaper. Strange, is it not, that, according to the census returns, every year sees hundreds-yes, thousands -of our neighbours from the weste-n States, leaving their farms and coming into western Canada? Strange is it not, that thev wish to leave that country where the fields are always green, where the sun always shines, where the tariff always suits them, where agricultural implements and everything they need are so cheap, strange it is to see them leaving a land flowing with milk and honey and coming to this downtrodden and plague-stricken country? It is high time that members of this House realized more fully their duties and responsibilities. I do not see that any good can be gained or any object attained by members from the West trying, as they have done time and time again, to draw a line of cleavage as between Eastern and Western Canada. It must be realized that this country does not consist only of the East or only of the West, but that it is a great confederacy stretching from ocean to ocean, which can only prosper by all the provinces standing shoulder to shoulder, ready to give and take, and to make sacrifices one for the other. In that way alone can we build up here, on the northern half of this continent, a great, free, happy, united and contented people.

I wish to say a wo"5 or two regarding

another matter, not in connection entirely with the tariff, but of vital importance to the farmers of the whole country; viz, the question of repairs to farming implements. This may be considered a small matter, but any one interested in farming or representing a farming community knows that it is a big item and amounts to a lot.

I have it on the best of authority and it is on account of the information I have received that I want to sound this note of warning to the manufacturers-that on the heavier classes of farming implements, such as binders, reapers, &c., if a man should buy the implement piece by piece and assemble it, the cost would be enormous. A binder may be purchased complete for $140; but I am informed that by buying it in parts and then assembling it, the cost would be nearly $1,000. I know for a fact, I have it from local managers and agents of the Ford Motor Car Company, that a Ford car can be bought piece by piece and can be put together for about $100 in excess of the price of the finished article assembled at the factory. A car is a luxury, but a binder is an absolute necessity; and if the Ford people can produce that luxury and supply the parts of it at the increase I have named, there is no reason under the sun why the manufacturers of implements cannot do the same. According to the information I have received, this is nothing less than legalized robbery. A farmer may break a piece of machinery in the middle of harvest. It does not matter what thait piece costs, he has to have it and will pay the price without squealing. But the fact that he is willing to pay the price is no justification for the charges made by the manufacturers. I draw these facts to the attention of the Government, because I think they are worthy of the attention of this or any other Administration.

I wish to reiterate here what I have said upon the hustings time and time again, although it has no reference to the Budget, that I consider Senate Teform one of the most important matters before the people of Canada to-day. I wish it to be distinctly understood that I am speaking of the Senate as a body and not in any individual sense. I have no personal animus against any hon. member of that body. I have the greatest respect for every one of them whom I know. I know there are many able members of that body, but it is the system to which I object. I say the existence of that body as it is now constituted is unjustifiable in Canada. I say that it is absolutely

out of date, and that its very existence is an insult to the intelligence of a free people.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

Older. I think the hon. member is going too far. The rule is distinctly laid down that it is not permissible to speak disrespectfully of the other Chamber.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

Joseph Elijah Armstrong

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ARMSTRONG:

I gracefully withdraw the remark. I regret that the rules of debate do not permit me to convey my idea in the only language I thought applicable to the case. I cannot understand by what process of reasoning any man will argue or can argue that a body of men who are appointed, not chosen, who are responsible to no one but to God and their own consciences, should have the right to veto legislation passed by the chosen representatives of a free people, who are responsible to the people. I regret that the restrictions of debate do not permit me to deal with this matter quite as lucidly as I would like. I want to make myself clear in this. The Senate of Canada, as is well known, is looked upon with levity throughout the length and breadth of the land. Wherever the name is spoken, it is apt to provoke a smile, and I am satisfied that the people of Canada, from ocean to ocean, year after year, are becoming more seized of the fact that some change must be made in the constitution of that body.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
IND
CON

Joseph Elijah Armstrong

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ARMSTRONG:

I am very glad indeed to hear the right hon. leader of the Opposition say, Hear, hear. I believe that he is not entirely insincere. I would ask him to carry his mind back in the political history of this country to 189.3, to the platform that was enunciated by his party at that time, and he will find as one of the cardinal planks in that platform, on which he went to the country, that he pledged himself to reform the Senate. For fifteen long years he held the reins of power, but no change was made in the constitution of that body except as to its political complexiou.

I have stated that I am opposed to free wheat. I am opposed to the principle of free wheat, because, in my opinion, it is just the thin edge of the wedge, and ultimately will lead to free trade. I am opposed to free wheat because I believe it will not be of any lasting benefit to the farmers of the West, while on the other hand it will be a lasting detriment and

do lasting harm to the mixed farmers of the rest of Canada, I am opposed to free agricultural implements because it means, in the first place, free trade, and in the second place, more destitute homes, more men out of employment, a bigger army of unemployed, and more hungry children walking the streets of the great cities of Canada. That in my view would be the result if any change such as is contemplated or advocated by hon. gentlemen opposite should be made at the present time.

The member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) dilated upon the hardships that had been endured by the early settlers in western Canada. I appreciate the hardships endured by the early settlers of Western Canada. I do not wish to depreciate or detract from any credit due to them, but I do want to point out that there is another section of this country, a province known as Ontario, whose history will give many instances of just as much self-denial and a great deal more self-denial and privation than the history of the West can ever show. When this province of Ontario was first settled, the .settlers did "not find hundreds and thousands of acres of arable land waiting but the touch of the ploughshare, the drill, and the harrow to yield thousands and hundreds of thousands of bushels of wheat to the granaries of the world. They found a wooded wilderness and in the heart of that they had to carve out homes for themselves, for their wives and for their children. I have the honour of living on a farm that came into the family in 1837-200 acres of virgin forest. Fifty years of unremitting toil was required before that farm was brought into its present state, and it is only a sample of hundreds and thousands throughout Ontario that to-day bear silent testimony to the hardships and privations endured by the generations that have gone before. In dealing with questions such as free wheat and free agricultural implements, in dealing with any question of great end far-reaching importance, it is not sufficient, to my mind, to argue that just because the western part tf Canada or any portion of Canada want a particular law it should be enacted. It is the duty of this House and of every member of this House to realize that in dealing with these questions he must have regard to the interests of the whole of Canada. Canada cannot live by any one industry alone. The farmer must co-operate with the manufacturer; the manufacturer is just as important as any other class. The labourer is just as

important as the manufacturer. The artisan is as important as the labourer, and so on all along the line. They must stand together if they are going to do anything towards the real development of the country, and I say that the members from the West are not fulfilling their duty as representatives of the people of Canada, in drawing, or trying to draw as they have done, a line of cleavage as between eastern and western Canada.

When I commenced speaking I stated that I had no intention of taking up very much of the time of the House and I intend to keep my word. I have endeavoured to make myself clear upon the points that are of most importance in this Budget. I am opposed to free wheat and I have endeavoured to give my reasons why; I am opposed to free agricultural implements and I have endeavoured to give my reasons why. Let me extend to the hon Minister of Finance my hearty congratulations on his having, in my humble judgment, dealt with a very serious question at a very serious time in a very able manner, having due regard to all classes and interests from one end of this Dominion to the other. I am sure that in saying that I voice the sentiments of the majority of the people from ocean to ocean.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Archibald Blake McCoig

Liberal

Mr. A. B. McCOIG (West Kent):

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I wish to congratulate the hon. member for North York (Mr. J. A. M. Armstrong) on the force which ho has put into the remarks he has offered this afternoon. After congratulating him on the energy he has displayed, I regret that I cannot extend my congratulations further. I also wish to add my thanks to the Minister of Finance for allowing not only ditching machines but also their repair parts to come into Canada free. That is appreciated by the farmers in our sections of the country and I feel satisfied that it will assist them in working out what they have long wished for, that is, a better system of drainage for the farms in Kent and other counties in southwestern Ontario. In passing, I might also say that I appreciate the assistance that has been given the farmers in our section of the country by the Postmaster General in extending to them the free rural mail system adopted by the previous Government. I trust the present Postmaster General will not forget his solemn promise to me personally that he will continue to extend the routes in sections of West Kent in which there is now no rural mail service. The farmers are very much indebted both to the

former Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) and to the present Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) for the way in which that system has been and is being carried out. The system of free city delivery is also working wel in the city of Chatham with possibly one ot two exceptions in the business portion of the city to which I am pleased to call the attention of the Postmaster General in the hope that the delivery will be improved in the near future. I do not think it is necessary to reply further to any of the remarks of the hon. member for North York except to say that there may be more in his remarks with regard to repair parts of farm machinery than some men not familiar with farm machinery may be aware of.

Speaking of free agricultural implements, let me go back to the time of the first amalgamation of the Massey-Harris Company, concerning whose president the hon. member for North York says he is not particular whether he joins the Conservative party or not. In 1891 an amalgamation took place of the Massey Company and the Harris Company, then enjoying a protection of 35 per cent-for the express purpose of controlling the entire machine trade of the Dominion of Canada. Some time after the amalgamation, the Patterson Company of Woodstock and the Wisner Company of Brantford also amalgamated. The Massey-Harris Company feared the opposition of this new amalgamation, which received a large portion of the trade of Canada in the short time of its existence. The Massey-Harris Company tried to make some arrangement with them, either to amalgamate or buy them out. They were successful in making one big company of the two concerns, and for a time after they bought the Patterson Company out in 1891 the Massey-Harris Company controlled the machine trade of the Dominion. During that time they were successful in receiving for their agricultural implements just what prices they saw fit to ask from the farmers. I can prove that, and if the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) were in his seat I would ask him if that is not correct. They received at that time from $125 to $145 for their binders, which at that date were not to be compared with the machines supplied at the present time. Up till 1894 when the Government reduced the tariff from 35 per cent to 20 per cent they practically had a monopoly of the machine business of this country. When the tariff was reduced in that year they

had to compete with the Deering Harvester Company and the McCormick Company. What was the effect of that competition? What was the benefit to the farmers of the Dominion? Sir, the minute that the Deering and McCormick companies began to bring their implements in they made a reduction on repair parts of 25 per cent, and the Massey Harris Company were compelled to do exactly what the hon. member for North York has been complaining of, they were compelled to reduce their price on repair parts 25 per cent. Furthermore, they were compelled to provide an entirely different machine. The binder that they had been manufacturing for years was a heavy, cumbersome machine, and one that necessitated the use of an extra horse to draw it. It was far from being equal to the machines that were brought in from the United States. When the competition started they at once found it necessary to improve their machine. They got out a machine in a few years which was a great improvement on that which they had formerly produced, *a machine with roller and ball bearings, a transport truck and a sheaf carrier, and they sold it at exactly the same price to the farmers of this country. The point 1 wish to make is that when competition was brought in they were compelled to give the people of the country a far superior article at a reduced price as compared with what they were giving them prior to 1894. I believe that what the hon. member for North York has said is true, that the Massey Harris Company controlled me machine business of this country, and that was possibly one of the reasons why we find that not later than this last general election the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers), who, we are all sorry to know, has been indisposed, and whose early recovery and return to the House will, I am sure, be a source of gratification to us all, made the following statement in the city of Chatham, as reported in the leading Conservative paper in the southwestern part of Ontario:

What the farmers of the Dominion want is not free wheat coming into the country, but free farm machinery.

That was the statement of the present Minister of Labour, one of the leading members of the Opposition at that time, and one of the hardest things I had to do in my own constituency was to convince the farmers that the Minister of Labour was only joking, and that if a Conserva-

tive Government came into power it would do nothing to carry out the principles which he advocated upon that occasion.

Let me go a little farther. I do not doubt, Mr. Speaker, that you remember that the former Conservative member for Maeleod, Mr. John Herron, .speaking on the 30th of March, 1910, as reported an ' Hansard,' used the following language:

I wish to say a few words on the resolution now before the House. I think it would be a much greater benefit to this country to put binders on the free list than feathers or perfumery, and things like that of which we have: heard tonight. I think this would have been a grand opportunity for the Government to fulfil some of the pledges they made years ago to the farmers of the Northwest. We know that prior to 1896 the Prime Minister and his followers made pledges that if they were in power they would put farm implements on the free list. I do not know whether the Prime Minister himself made that statement emphatically, but many of his followers who afterwards became ministers did make it. I think this would have been a fitting opportunity to insist upon reciprocity in agricultural implements between the two countries as well as* in wheat and other grains. *

Mr. SAM. SHARPE: What is the date?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Archibald Blake McCoig

Liberal

Mr. McCOIG:

March 30, 1910, page

6,000. We hear hon. gentlemen opposite talking about the difference of opinion among members on this side of the House and explaining that on the other side of the House they aire a united party and all of one opinion. That statement will not be borne out if we .read a little further in.

' Hansard ' and see what the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid) said, speaking on the same day, and upon the same important matter. As reported upon the next page of ' Hansard,' the Minister of Customs, who, I .am sorry to say is. not in his seat, said:

What surprises me is that the Minister of Finance did not try to negotiate a reciprocity in so far as agricultural implements are concerned. Then there is wheat, the great output of the northwest. If we could get wheat into the United States it would he a great help to the farmers of the northwest.

Then he goes on further and states:

But the Minister of Finance did not take the farmers into consideration at all, in so far as the northwest was concerned, and did not try to get any of these articles on the free list.

4 p.m. Is this not amusing to one who was sitting silent there on the other side and hearing these gentlemen, day after day, appealing to the Government of the day rto do just exactly what we are proposing to do at the present time? Yet these hon. gentlemen, holding posi-

tions in the 'Government now, 'are.not offering to do one of the things which they urged the late Government to do. We heard the hon. member for North York declaring that hon. gentlemen opposite were a great and united party.

In view of the situation which confronts us mow what is the conclusion at which we must arrive? It is that they were taking an insincere position 'at that time and that they were merely saying these things fox the purpose of stumping the country. It is reported that Sir Wilfrid or some of the members of his Government promised free wheat and free implements in days gone by. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) came into my riding, to the old Liberal 'Stronghold of Tilbury, which returned a Libaral majority in the past and will, I have no doubt, do so again. While addressing a meeting in that town, and being asked to give an account of the condition of the country by Mr. John Richardson, an old stalwart, we find the hon. gentleman, as reported in the leading Conservative newspaper, the Chatham Planet, of September 16, 1911, making nse of the following language:

First of all, I would thank Providence.

Where does the Government come in? followed up Mr. Richardson.

I am coming to that. T will be perfectly fair to you as a L'beral. I would first thank Providence, then Canadian brains, Canadian pluck. British mo"ey. and. lastly, the successful administration of a government which has crowned a constructive policy with this reciprocity folly. If it were not for this reciprocity agreement I would he following Laurier to-day.

Mr. Speaker, we all remember how, on many occasions, you stood up and advocated. the opening up of other markets for the natural products of the country, and when you now see your old colleagues going back upon the pledges which they made in days gone by, is it not a matter of regret that you are now, by reason of your position, deprived of the privilege of coming to the assistance of those now fighting in the interests of the farmers?

With reference to the implement proposition, we have had our friends going all over the country and saying that they would not hesitate for a moment to join with us on this great and important question and endeavour to do something more than merely reduce the tariff on binders and mowers. We know that the Minister of Finance smiled when he said to the House the other day that he was going to make a reduction of five per cent and then followed it up by saying that this reduction was to be on

binders and mowers. He knows that a small reduction upon binders and mowers does not amount to anything as far as assisting the farmers is concerned, because he is aware of the fact that in the United States there are only three leading manufacturers, the McCormick, Deering, and Massey-Harris concerns, and that a reduction on these implements would only mean that they would send binders and mower3 into this country to compete with the machines that they themselves are manufacturing here. They are the only people who are manufacturing binders and mowers in the United States to any great extent. If some hon. gentleman opposite may wish to include also the Plano, Champion, and Milwaukee, I would say that they were all in the big merger which was in existence up to a few months ago in the United States and will, I suppose, be working the same old game that they worked previously. This five per cent reduction on binders and mowers only means that they will be taking the money out of one pocket and putting it into another. If the American manufacturers came over here, because they are all one and the same concern on both sides of the line, they would simply be fighting themselves.

But what does the minister do? He leaves the tariff on the most important implements just as it was before, and tries to make out that he is doing something for the farmers. In my own constituency and in other parts of the country it is a well known fact that one binder and one mower in many cases will be sufficient for the purposes of two or three farmers. I see the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Wilcox) smiling. He will agree with me that in many sections of the country two or three farmers will use one binder and one mower. In many sections of Ontario binders will last from ten to twelve years, but never more than fifteen or twenty with ordinary use and good care.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

Oliver James Wilcox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WILCOX:

My hon. friend said that the Minister of Finance must have smiled when he announced his reduction of 5 per cent. Did my hon. friend's party laugh out loud when they reduced the duty by 2$ per cent in 1897 ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Archibald Blake McCoig

Liberal

Mr. McCOIG:

I do not catch the point. The hon. gentleman does not understand what I am trying to get at, and I am sure I do not understand what he is trying to get at. If he is desirous of encouraging the agricultural implement industry, as he

claims he is, he cannot have any objection to reciprocity.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

Oliver James Wilcox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WILCOX:

My hon. friend misunderstood me. He said that the Minister of Finance must have smiled when he was about to announce the reduction of duty of 5 per cent on binders. I ask my hon. friend what effect it had upon his party and his Government under the Fielding tariff when they only reduced the duty by 2i per cent.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Archibald Blake McCoig

Liberal

Mr. McCOIG:

My hon. friend knows that we did not stop at binders; we made a reduction of 5 per cent on all implements with respect to which the farmers desired the duty removed.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

April 16, 1914