April 16, 1914

LIB

Archibald Blake McCoig

Liberal

Mr. McCOIG:

The hon. gentleman was not interrupted last night, and I trust he will not continue to interrupt me. I am sure we enjoyed his address very much, and we listened to it without interrupting him.

The point is this, that as to the important machinery which the farmers at present require, such as manure spreaders, disc drills, hoe drills, dump rakes, side delivery rakes, hay loaders, hay tedders, disc harrows, drag harrows, riding ploughs, gang ploughs and walking ploughs, my hon. friend the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) saw to it that there was no interference in any shape or form. I might also mention land rollers and other tools such as corn planters, corn cultivators, corn shredders and huskers, and sugar beet tools, which are most important to the counties of Essex and Kent, where we grow so much corn and on which the farmers get no concession in the way of a reduction of duty. My hon. friend (Mr. Wilcox) sat in this House for six years and never agitated for a duty on corn. He is supposed to be very close to the Government, but never before last night did he use the old argument for a duty on corn which Mr. L. Wigle in 1,900 used up and down the concessions of South Essex when fighting the former member of this House, Mr. M. K. Cowan. This old argument in regard to free corn which the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Wilcox) put forth in this House last night, was thrashed out election after election, but never once did Mr. L. Wigle defeat Mr. M. K. Cowan, who fought for free corn. I want to inform the hon. member for North Essex that the county of Kent can grow corn just as well as any other county in the province of Ontario. I am not prepared, as the representative of .

that county, to ask the Government of the day to put a tariff on corn, and I can tell my hon. friend that not later than last Tuesday I saw Mr. John Sewell of the township of Raleigh, which is in the com belt of Canada, actually buying corn to feed his stock. There are other counties which are not so fortunate as ours, in being able to grow corn, and the people of Kent are not so selfish as to desire to tax the farmers in these other counties on the corn they use to feed their live stock. I challenge my hon. friend (Mr. Wilcox) to tell me on what occasion, when there was a duty' on corn, the farmers of Kent and Essex got as high a price for corn as we have been getting during the last few years. I wait for a reply.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

Oliver James Wilcox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WILCOX:

,How can my hon. friend justify arguing for a higher duty than 28 per cent on tobacco, and at the same time advocate free corn ? If protection is good for one, why is it not good for the other P

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Archibald Blake McCoig

Liberal

Mr. McCOIG:

I knew my hon. friend

could not give me a straight answer. I expected the answer he gave. As far as corn is concerned, we want to let- the farmers of the province of Ontario in the different counties where they cannot raise it have the advantage of free corn which is a necessity for them as being a raw material of the livestock industry. We want to give free corn to the farmers in your riding of Grey, Mr. Speaker.

On the other hand, tobacco is a luxury, not a necessity. I drew the attention of the hon. Minister of Agriculture to the unfortunate position in which the tobacco growers of Kent were; in that they were held up by buyers, and that there were only two firms that could buy tobacco whereas thousands of men want corn to feed their stock. If the hon. members wishes to be fair, he will join with me in doing everything possible to assist the tobacco growers Nwho are to-day in an unfortunate predicament. If they were not in that position, I would not have appealed to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour, to take action under the Combines Act to compel the tobacco buyers to do what was fair and just to the growers who are trying to make a living on their farms. Tobacco is a comparative new industry, encouraged and fostered in its infancy by the late Government of this country who spent thousands of dollars, in working out a scheme that was in the loest interest of the tobacco growing industries. The Liberal Government, supplied free seed; and

gave lectures and instructed the farmers how to grow the crop. The farmers were encouraged to go into the business, and they did so; they bought tools to work the crop, and they built tobacco barns, which cost a thousand or fifteen hundred dollars each, and which are practically of no u"e for any purpose except for hanging and curing tobacco. Then the tobacco buyers stated that they were willing to pay a handsome price for the crop, but to-day these buyers, afraid that the Government will take some action, are going down to the county of Welland and telling the farmers there that they can grow tobacco equally as good or better than they can in Essex or Kent, the object being

to depress the price of the leaf. For what little tobacco is growm there they pay four cents a pound more than they pay in the county of Kent. And I challenge the hon. member for North Essex, I challenge the combine, to place samples of those tobaccos before the Minister of Agriculture, and I am willing'to stand corrected if he does not say that the Kent tobacco is as good as that produced in Welland. The combine are paying four cents a pound more in order to encourage the farmers of Welland to do the same thing as the farmers of Kent have done-to go into this business; and after they have got them into it, they will squeeze them, paying them just such prices as they choose. This tobacco can only be disposed of in the end to the tobacco users, and only through this combine can the farmers reach the consumers. I appealed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) to take action under the Combines Act. I appealed to the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel) on this subject. He gave us a ray of hope; he said he would take up the matter with his colleagues. I ask him now has he taken up the matter with his colleagues, or is he allowing the farmers to be held up as before? The hon. minister has nothing to say. I venture to believe that he has not taken the matter up with his colleagues; he has not broken the news to them. He allows the farmers to remain in the hands of the combine, and leaves the combine free to take the farmers' crop at whatever price they choose to give.

So much for tobacco. Now I come back to the question of free corn. My hon. friend is anxious to have a duty on corn. I am not in favour of a duty on corn. But what I am prepared to agitate for-and I hope the Minister of Finance will consider it- is the removal of the duty on the implements which the corn producers must use. Hundreds and hundreds of farmers are growing corn 'who have to import corn binders, corn huskers, corn shredders and other implements. They must have these implements because of the shortage

of labour, yet these machines are

practically not manufactured in this country. The Massey-Harris people intended to manufacture, and for a time, I believe, actually did manufacture, corn-binders. But their machines did not work successfully in the corn-belt of Essex and Kent. For the last two years they have been importing the Johnston corn binder, the Deering and McCormick binders are manufactured in Chicago. If it should turn out as the Minister of Finance stated, that corn harvesters would come in on the same basis as grain harvesters, the duty on these implements hereafter will be 12$ per cent. As the price of corn huskers and shredders runs from $250 to $300 and even more, and as the farmer must have them because hand labour cannot be found to do the work as cheaply as it is done by the machine, it is easily seen that even this duty represents a heavy tax upon the producers. If the hon. member for North Essex is so anxious to benefit the corn producers, I would suggest that he join with me in urging upon the Minister of Finance that these machines should be allowed to come in free. That would be a relief to the farmers who are supplying Ontario with corn in competition with the United States. If the hon. gentleman will assist, I will do everything I can to secure for the farmers the benefit of the removal of this duty.

Now, we have the hon. member for North York (Mr. J. A. M. Armstrong), who, I believe, represents a constituency of farmers, saying that he is absolutely opposed to free wheat. As representing a farming constituency in the province of Ontario, I wish to show you and this House why I am in favour of free wheat. Unless we remove this duty of 10 cents a bushel on wheat and 45 cents a barrel on flour, see what we shall be up against. The estimated wheat production of Canada in 1913 is

231.717.000 bushels, while the estimated consumption of Canada is only about

50,000,000 bushels, leaving a balance of

181.717.000 bushels to find a market. What are the farmers of the West going to do with it? They must sell it if they are going to pay the manufacturers of Ontario for the machines they have bought to seed and harvest that wheat; otherwise, the condition will be

worse than that at present, when, we are told, they are able to collect only 25 per cent of farm machinery notes in the western country. And if we do not leave the western farmers free to dispose of their wheat, oats, barley and flax at prices that will enable him to pay for his farm machinery and live, they will be compelled to go into mixed farming. We find the Minister of Agriculture in the province of Manitoba to-day issuing a pamphlet to show how mixed farming can be carried on in that province. And if the Government is going to tie up the western farmers in such shape that they cannot get rid of their wheat, they must turn to the production of something else. So they will go into the raising of cattle and hogs. And I would ask the hon. member for North Essex what is the man who is raising hogs in the East going to say when the western provinces are sending their cheaply-grown hogs down to our markets by the trainloads? This is too serious a matter to monkey with in politics; we have to consider it from a broad national standpoint. If we do not so consider it, the farmers of Ontario will find themselves in the position of having to compete with those carrying on mixed farming in the western provinces, where they can produce as cheaply again as we can in Ontario. It was only the other day that the morning papers announced that seeding is on in Alberta and that large tracts of land are being set aside to plant rape. Rape, as you know, Mr. Speaker, being a practical framer, is one of the best crops you can sow in the spring to feed hogs. Evidently they are preparing to go into the hog industry. If it were not that the United States Government has removed the tariff on hogs and cattle, we should have the hogs from the West competing with our hogs in this market. If my hon. friend from North (Essex, who is recognized as a practical and successful farmer, will look at it in a fair and nonpartisan light, he will see that it is in the interest not only of Ontario, but of all Canada to give the people of the West a market for their grain and allow us to continue the production of articles that we have produced in the past with such splendid success.

We hear hon. members opposite crying against going into other markets and saying that we want to retain the home market for ourselves. Let me just give you a few illustrative figures on that point:

During the month of November not a single bullock, calf, sheep or lamb was shipped from Canada to Great Britain. To the United States the shipments were 70,746 cattle valued at $2,864,809; 5,297 calves under one year old valued at $64,348; 7,936 lambs valued at

$37,592, and 490 sheep valued at $3,201.

If these are the figures for the month of November alone-and they can be proved by the information in possession of the Minister of the Department of Trade and Commerce, tvho knows more about the figures than I do-is it not important that we should try to do something along the lines suggested by the Opposition? Let me go a little bit further. I should like to know what the hon. member for North Essex would have to say if reciprocity had passed and he were still in Opposition; if, going up and down his concessions, he found the farmers who went into the horse industry a few years ago having to sell their horses at $25 on the hundred '.ess than the price they received for them prior to 1911? Would he not be one of those who would hold up both hands in holy horror and say that reciprocity had ruined the horse industry of this country? No later than last Saturday I bought a team of horses for $400 which would have cost $500 prior to 1911. It says here that the reduction of duty on horses to 10 per cent resulted in a shipment of 400 horses to the United States in November worth $101,496. In the face of the present 10 per cent duty against our horses, we sent 400 of them to the United States in November. What is o-ur esteemed friend the Minister of Militia going to do at this time? No later than yesterday the right hon. leader of the Opposition made an inquiry of the Minister of Militia with regard to certain information which. had been sent throughout the country in connection with an arrangement being made by the Minister of Militia with the National Livestock Exchange. The despatch is, in part, as follows:

An important arrangement has been made by the Minister of Militia with the National Live Stock Exchange, Limited, whereby the latter will lease for twenty-one vears 65,120 acres of crown lands in Alberta, south of the Red Deer river, and will breed thereon cavalry .remounts for the Canadian militia and the British army. The annual rental will be two cents per acre, and the exchange undertakes to raise not less than 1,500 horses per year.

Are you not proud, Mr. Speaker, in the thought that the Minister of Militia will take 65,000 acres of the land belonging to the farmers of Canada, who contribute their share to the revenues of this country, and

rent it to a company at two cents an acre to go into the horse raising business in opposition to the farmers not only of Ontario but of the whole of Canada? What will the hon. member for North Essex say about this? Will he appeal to the ministers from the province of Ontario, the people of which have been doing their duty and maintaining the dignity and prosperity of Canada for a great number of years? The Minister of Finance a few days ago said: we are going to educate the farmers with the money that is being given by the Minister of Agriculture. Is this the way we are going to educate them? Are we going to fight them, on the very thing that they are trying to work an existence out of? Or are we going to say that the Minister of Militia is making expenditures which are not condoned by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce? I believe that the time will come when the money of the people will not be .spent so extravagantly as it has been duiing the last couple of years Let me read to the House what a Conservative paper in the city of Toronto says. I think that members on the opposite side of the House will agree with me that the Toronto Saturday Night is recognized as a Conservative paper-at least, we may say that it is independent. This writer in Saturday Night, who is recognized as one of the best editorial writers we have in Canada to-day, says:

Peace-loving Canadians will be tickled almost to death when they view the estimates now being brought down in respect to the construction of drill halls. Here are a few specimens in Ontario: Barrie drill hall, $25,000; Berlin, $50,000; Brantford, $75,000 ; Fort William, $30,000 ; Galt, $35,000. And so on by the tens of thousands is the pap distributed throughout the country. A more useless, criminal wasW of public moneys has never taken place in Canada than is now being experienced in this fever for drill halls. If some of these funds were put) into an insane asylum for the incarceration of those who voted these estimates, something of real service to the country would be accomplished. I

I aan glad to see, by his smiles, that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) enjoys the truth. I hope that he and the Minister of Finance will use their influence, as coming from the province of Ontario, to see that the money of the people of this province In particular, who are contributing a large portion of the revenue of this Dominion, is not 'Squandered in this way.

So far- as the people of my section of the country with whom I came in contact during the Easter recess are concerned, among

both Liberal and Conservatives I have not found one man who has not asked me to stand up, when the proposal to extend further aid to the Canadian Northern railway comes before Parliament, 'and vote against it in the interests of the people of Canada. I understand that there rare a few independent members on the other side of the House; if the hon. member for North Essex happens to be one of them, I join hands with him and assure him that we will stand together on this important question and endeavour to see that the Canadian Northern railway gets no more money out of the treasury of this great Dominion. The reports show that this railway has received from the different provinces and from the Dominion in guaranteed bonds, cash and Lands, over $200,000,000. If this be true-arid it will certainly be investigated by the hon. Minister of Finance before he thinks of bringing down any resolution in the matter-and it is found absolutely necessary that we should do something to assist this road, speaking for myself I think the 'Government would be justified in going into the matter thoroughly with a view to iseeing whether or not they could take the road over from McKenzie and Mann and operate it for the benefit of the people of this country, the revenue thereby obtained going into the treasury of Canada-particularly in view of the fact that it has cost the people so much money up to the present and, under these conditions, the people would own what they are now paying for instead of the Canadian Northern Railway Company.

I assure you, Mr. 'Speaker, that I appreciate the kindness of hon. gentlemen in the courtesy they have extended to me in listening to my remarks, "and I again assure the hon. member for North Essex that if he is with me on the proposal to which I have referred, we will vote together against any proposed aid to the Canadian Northern railway when it comes before Parliament.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

John Wesley Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

Mr. Speaker, I desire first of all to add my congratulations to those which have already been tendered to the hon. Finance Minister, not only for the logical and convincing manner in which he delivered bis Budget Speech, but as well for the candour and sincerity which he displayed in his statements. The Minister of Finance, according' to the representations made by the hon. gentle-

mail who has just taken his seat (Mr. MeCoig) has, on more than one occasion, given evidence of his candour and fair mindedness. The hon. member was good enough to say of the Minister of Finance that, in making an address in some part of Ontario, he gave credit to Providence, first of all, for the prosperity of the country. I am not surprised that this should have attracted the attention of the member for West Kent, because hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have not been accustomed to hear their Cabinet ministers giving credit to Providence for any prosperity that may have existed in this country while they held the reins of power. It was their custom to attribute the prosperity to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and to contend that Providence had very little to do with it. If, however, there was a crop failure, or anything of that kind then Providence took the whole blame, and the Government was exonerated.

I do not intend'to occupy much time this afternoon in referring to the finances of the country. I am sure every hon. gentleman in this House, whether he sits on this or on the other side, is pleased with the state in which the finances of tlhe country are, and have been, during the regime of the present Government. In 1896 the net debt of the Dominion of Canada amounted to $258,497,432. In 1911, when the Laurier Administration went out of office, that debt had increased to $340,042,052, or an increase in the net debt of Canada, during the years of the Liberal regime, of $81,544,620. At the end of the fiscal year after this Government took office, the debt was decreased by $122,591. At the end of the next year, there was a further decrease of $25,617,835, a decrease without any parallel in the political history of Canada. At the end of the year just closed, the net debt was increased by $19,000,000, but this increase, when compared with -the increase of $46,000,000, which took place in the years 1907 and 1908, under the Liberal Administration, the Conservative party has no reason to be ashamed of. The net result, so far as the debt of Canada is concerned, is that our debt is over $6,000,000 -less to-day than when the Borden Government assumed office.

It is also a matter for congratulation that Canada's trade did not stop when the Government changed. We had been led to believe, and -the people of this country had been led to believe for many years, that the only Heaven-born statesmen that this country had ever produced were in the Liberal party, and that if there should be a change of Government everything would stagnate,

trade would stop, and business would go to the dogs. Well, trade has -not stopped. Our trade has continued to increase steadily and enormously since this Government took office, until now it has passed the billion dollar mark. The increase in our aggregate trade last year alone, over the trade of four years ago, exceeds the average total trade of Canada during the last ten years of Liberal Administration. Inasmuch as the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) drew particular attention to the aggregate trade of Canada, I draw his particular attention to that statement. Our greatest trade was with the United States, amounting to over $608,000,000. Our trade with the United Kingdom came next, amounting to over $316,000,000. The next countries in order are France, Germany, and the West Indies, with each about $17,000,000 in aggregate trade. Our aggregate trade is made up of imports of $692,000,000 and exports of $393,000,000, showing an adverse balance of trade of over $298,800,000. Our imports from the United States amount to over $441,000,000 and our exports to -the United States to $167,000,000, or a balance of trade against Canada of over $274,000,000. Canada sells to the United Kingdom $177,000,000 worth and buys from the United Kingdom $138,000,000, a balance of trade in favour of Canada of $39,220,000. It may be of interest here to note that of the fourteen larger countries with which Canada does business, all buy less from Canada than they sell to Canada, with the exception of the United Kingdom, Newfoundland, and Belgium. I know t-ha there are persons who have given considerable thought to trade questions who do not attach any importance to an adverse balance of trade, but I must say that I would prefer to see the balance the other way. It may be noted also that $198,386,000 worth of our exports, that is over one-half, go to the British Empire, and that over ninety per cent, of our exports to the British Empire go to the United Kingdom. It is also worthy of note that over fifty-two per cent of our total exports frem Canada are products of the farm.

I represent a farming constituency, so that I may be excused for paying special attention to the products of the farm. Our exports of animals and their products to the British Empire amount to $31,166,000, and to all other countries $14,607,000; or a total of $45,773,000. Our exports of agricultural products to the British Empire amount to $120,163,000, and to all other countries $38,792,000; or a total of $158,-

955,000. Our total exports of animals and

agricultural products to the British Empire amount to $151,330,000, and to all other countries $53,398,000; or a total of $204,-

748,000. Allow me to briefly summarize the destination of our exports. Of the products of the mine 22 per cent go to the British Empire and 63 per cent to all other countries; of fisheries 37 per cent to the British Empire and 63 per cent to all other countries; of the forest 25 per cent to the British Empire and 75 per cent to all other countries; of manufactures 29 per cent to the British Empire and 71 per cent to all other countries; of animals and their products 69 per cent to the British Empire and 31 per cent to all other countries; of agricultural products 76 per cent to the British Empire and 24 per cent to all other countries. These figures indicate very briefly the immense interest which the Canadian farmer has in the United Kingdom and the British Empire. They also indicate to my mind very clearly the paramount importance of maintaining Great Britain's supremacy on the sea, as the only safeguard of the integrity of the empire and of the safe conduct of our farm products to the various countries of the world. Canadian exports of grain and the products thereof, amounting to nearly $98,000,000 in 1913, and of cheese $20,697,000, are not offset to any appreciable extent by imports into this country of like commodities. But in regard to live animals, meats and vegetables, our imports for home consumption are about equal to our exports. As to butter and eggs we export none at all. In fact we import butter to-day to the extent of $2,783,000, and eggs to the value of over $2,000,000.

I contend that the best consumer the Canadian farmer has to-day is the citizen of Canada, and that any policy which has a tendency to build up industries here thereby providing a consuming population and home market for Canadian farm products, is the only proper and sane policy for this Dominion. Canada's second best customer is the United Kingdom. If increasing exports of our farm products to the United Kingdom is an indication of an increasing demand in that country for those commodities-and that may he fairly assumed-I maintain that the figures representing our exports to the United States and imports from the United States of products similar to what our farmers produce do not indicate that the United States is the natural market for the Canadian farmers, but just the reverse. During the fiscal year 1913, 165

Canada imported 37,433,745 lbs. of meat for home consumption, valued at $5,000,000. With the exception of 1,617,000 lbs. from Great Britain, and 2,500,000 lbs. from Australia and New Zealand, all of that

37,000,000 lbs. of meat came from the United States, which hon. gentlemen opposite are continually declaring is the natural market for Canadian farm products. At the very time we were importing over $5,000,000 worth of meat, our exports of meat amounted to $6,250,000 worth. I maintain to-day what I have always maintained when in opposition^ that a duty of 2c. a pound on meats is not now and has never been a fair, just and reasonable protection to the farmer who is producing meat in this country. There is a far greater difference than 2c. a pound in the advantages which the American farmer has over the Canadian farmer in the production of .meat, and I contend that in fairness to our Canadian farmer that duty should be materially increased. Yet, if hon. gentlemen opposite had had their way in 1911, they would have removed or materially reduced that duty, and exposed the Canadian farmer, not only to the *competition of the immense surplus of meat of the United States, but also to the immense surplus production of meat, amounting to over two billion pounds per year, which is indicated by the exports of various countries which would have had the right to send their meats to Canada. Five hundred million pounds of that represents the export from the United States; Australia and New Zealand alone export over 363,000,000 lbs. of meat a year; Denmark over 300,000,000 lbs., and the Argentine over 900,000,000 lbs. I contend that the proposed reciprocity agreement was the most unfair deal, so far .as the Canadian farmer is concerned, ever suggested in this Parliament since Confederation. Will any man attempt to .argue that it is a fair deal to the Canadian farmer, who has to provide against climatic *conditions such as we have here, who has to spend thousands of dollars in erecting barns and stables, who for months of the year has no income at all, who has to keep his stock under expense till the summer opens up-will any man argue that it i-s a fair deal to make the Canadian farmer, under .such conditions, compete on equal terms with the farmer, for instance, of the Argentine, who is not put to the expense of housing his stock-it runs out the year round-and where the rate of

wages paid by the farmers is about one-third or one-fourth what the Canadian farmers have to pay? There is only one fair way to look at this question of protection. The only way in which the Government of a country like Canada can deal fairly with the people of this country is to place a duty on certain products which come into competition with like products in this country, endeavouring by that duty to discount the disadvantages of the Canadian farmer in the matter of climatic conditions. If that is not done our tariff is unfair to the producers of farm products in this country.

In regard to butter, our exports have reached the vanishing point. Our imports last year amounted to about 8,000,000 lbs.,

6,000,000 lbs. of which came from New Zealand, over 1,000,000 lbs. from the United States, and 767,000 lbs. came from Great Britain. We also received butter from Austria, Holland, Russia, Turkey and India. I mention these latter imports not because of the large amount coming to Canada, but to indicate that if we had no protection for the butter-makers of Canada these countries would avail themselves of our market whenever the price was such as to induce them to do so. When we remember that England alone imports every year upwards of 500,000,000 lbs. of butter, that Denmark exports every year upwards of 200,000,000 lbs. of butter, and that butter can be brought from Denmark or Liverpool and laid down in the city of Montreal for less than one cent a pound for carrying it, I am justified in asking that the farmers of Canada be protected in regard to butter.

In regard to eggs, the same thing holds good. We export no eggs whatever, but we imported last year of eggs 13,240,111 dozen, mostly from the United States; of vegetables, 33,242,214 worth from the United States; of lard, $1,520,450 worth from the United States; of apples, 320,325 barrels mostly from the United States; and of animals, living, $2,519,249 worth. While our exports of animals, living, amounted to $2,949,677 worth.

Hon. gentlemen opposite have been contending that the United States was our natural market. I want to devote a little attention to that argument. I have here an official bulletin issued by the United States Department of Agriculture, and that

bulletin says that the domestic farm products of the United States exported in 1911 were equal to 51.2 per cent of the total exports of domestic merchandise of that country, as compared with 50.9 per cent for 1910.

Hon. gentlemen opposite are contending that the United States is our natural market for farm products, and yet we have an official document from the United States Government which declares that over 51 per cent of the domestic merchandise exported from that country in 1911 is merchandise of the farm. The exports of domestic farm produce from the United States in 1910 amounted to $871,158,425, and the imports to $687,509,115. There is a balance on farm produce in favour of the export trade of the United States of $198,118,937. In 1911 the exports of domestic farm produce from the United States amounted to over $1,030,794,402, while the imports of farm produce decreased from $687,509,115 to $680,204,932, showing a balance in favour of United States exports of farm produce of $365,254,018. While Canada's exports of farm products are a little over 52 per cent of her total exports; while we are sending to foreign markets about $200,000,000 worth of farm produce, the United States is sending over $1,000,000,000 worth. The United States has a surplus of farm produce of over $365,000,000 a year, or $160,000,000 more than the total export of farm produce by Canada, and a clear surplus of over double the net surplus Canada has in farm produce. While Canada sends to Great Britain $180,000,000 worth of farm produce, the United States sends to Great Britain $413,000,000 worth. While Canada's export trade with Germany amounts to a little over $3,000,000, of which only a part is farm produce, the United States export of farm produce to Germany in 1911 amounted to $207,000,000, -which was $29,000,000 more than that of the preceding year.

I am giving these figures 5 p.m. for the purpose of trying to demonstrate that the United States, in place of being a natural market for Canadian farm products, is Canada's chief competitor in the markets of the world for the farm produce which we have to sell. I want to go a little farther into detail in regard to some of these articles, and in this connection I would submit the following table of figures:

Exports of Domestic Merchandise of United States.

1911. 1912. 1913.

Butter 6,374,000 ibs. 5.105,000 ibs. 3,114,00u lbs.11,745,8S0 " 2.726,065 " 2,475,743 "13,276,000 doz. 18,962,000 doz 17,668,000 doz.Apples 1,436,335 brls 1,813,456 brls. 1,920,221 brls.Beef, fresh, canned and pickled 82,300,000 lbs. 47,100,000 lbs. 36,000,000 lbs.Hog products 1,121,000,000 " 1,057,000,000 " 1,083,000,000 "In which are included : Bacon 193,968,000 lbs. 188,048,000 lbs. 210,098,000 lbs.Hams and shoulders 183,728,000 " 168,687,000 " 167,160,000 "42,434,000 " 42,497,000 " 45,687,000 "Lard 529*689,000 " 470,752,000 " 509,786,000 "Principle meat and dairy products $136,630,376 $123,244,132 $138,924,092Principle breadstuffs $122,837,787 $149,814,877 $191,477,180Barley 3,555,000 bus. 8,194,000 bus. 12,782,000 bus.Oats 2,125,000 " 30,374,000 " 5,274,000 "Oatmeal $933,843 $525,575 $1,337,599Corn 59,807,877 bus. 30,185,713 bus. 44,709,954 bus.Cornmeal $1,506,025 $1,374,234 $1,240,904Wheat 31,662.550 bus. 60,426,494 bus. 99,360,278 bus.Wheat flour $52,653,960 $49,186,765 $56,568,699

United States Exports of Wheat and Wheat Flour sent to Canada.

771,342 bus. 81,295 brls 700,368 bus 2,577,337 bus.Wheat flour 85,802 brls 116,179 brls

United States exports of domestic foo-d animals dropped from $14,289,508 in 1911 to $895,603 in 1913, and exports of bran and middlings from $3,071,000 in 1911 to $123,316 in 1913.

I want now to direct attention to the United States exports of wheat. I do so for the reason that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) a few days ago took exception to the criticism made by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Wright) in regard to the quantity of domestic wheat exported by the United States.

The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), being a western member, should have a special knowledge in regard to all matters concerning the exportation of wheat; but the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Wright) had to correct him, and the hon. member for Muskoka was right, and the hon. member for Assiniboia was wrong. I have in my hand a document issued by the Department of Commerce of the United States dated December, 1913, which gives the exports.of domestic merchandise. Under those exports I find that, in 1911, the United States exported of their own wheat 31,662, 1651

550 bushels; in 1912, 60,426,494 bushels; in 1913, 99,360,278 bushels. They exported of wheat flour in those years $52,000,000 worth in 1911, $49,000,000 worth in 1912, and $56,568,000 worth in 1913. Those figures show that the United States is not starving for our wheat and farm products at the present time. On the contrary, their official publications indicate that their exportations, and therefore their surplus of these commodities', are on the increase rather than on the decrease, for the last three or four years. I am free to admit that there has been a decline in the United States of exports of beef -and of beef cattle, and of several other articles. I am also free to admit that the Wilson-Underwood tariff, which was designed to lower the cost-of food in the United States-although I think I can show it has not had that effect -would have a tendency to increase the importations into that country of the articles which have been made free. In regard to the importation of cattle into the United States, several hon. gentlemen opposite have called attention to the increase. It is a fact that, after the Wilson-Underwood tariff came into effect in October last, the

260S

exports of cattle from Canada to the United States for the months of October, November and December of 1913, very much exceeded the exports for the same months in 1912. It is also true that in the month of December, 1913, the exports of cattle from Canada to the United States were only about one-third of the exports for the preceding month, and in the month of January of this year the exports of cattle to the United States were practically the same as in the month of January, 1913. What are the reasons for this? Hon. gentlemen opposite contend that this is all due to the removal ' of the duty. I do not agree with that statement by any means, but I am willing to admit that the removal of the duty would accelerate the movement of cattle to the United States. There were conditions in the United States independent entirely of the tariff which amply justified the movement of cattle from this country to the other side during those months. The country from which the United iStates has for years obtained her greatest number of cattle is Mexico, and conditions in that country have been such lately that the exiporta-tion of cattle from Mexico has very much decreased. I think I can show conclusively why cattle have been exported from Canada to the United States and why the price of meat has gone so high in that country, and also in this. The United States census of 1910 contains the information that the number of beef cattle in the United States in 1910 was 9,840,239 less than in 1900. The United States Government also furnishes us with the fact that from 1910 to 1913 there was a further reduction in the number of beef cattle in the United States of 10,249,000, a total reduction in thirteen years of over 20,000,000 head. While I think I may fairly estimate the increase of population in that country for the same period at over 10,000,000 people. If there is anything at ail in the basic principle of supply and demand, these figures amply justify the movement of cattle from this country into the United States where their herds have been largely depleted. In the United States from 1910 to 1913 there was a loss of 7,734,000 sheep and from 1911 to 1913 a loss of 4,442,000 hogs. Surely these figures are significant; and I think, apart altogether from United States tariff reduction, we have in these figures ample justification for the increase in the price of beef and for the movement of cattle from this country to the other side of the line. The

Wilson-Underwood tariff lias made some things very clear to my mind, and one is that you cannot reduce prices through the tariff until there are sufficient importations to affect potentially the supply within the country. I think we may accept that as a truism and it has been clearly demonstrated in the United States since the Wil- * son-Underwood tariff came into operation. Prices in the United States have not as yet been appreciably affected because the imports have been practically negligible as compared with the home production of the articles imported. But the conditions in Canada -are vastly different from the conditions in the United States. If we were to remove the duty, as the United States has done by the Wilson-Underwood tariff, and these importations, or even a portion of them, were to come into Canada as they have gone into the United States, the importations into this country would not toe a negligible quantity

I have said that the prices of food in the United States have not been materially affected since the Wilson-Underwood tariff came into operation. I want to give proof for that statement. I refer hon. gentlemen opposite to Bulletin No. .138 of the United States Department of Labour. This bulletin takes into account the retail prices of some fifteen articles of common consumption, and the prices have been carefully obtained from forty principal cities on the otheT side of the line. These ^articles are: potatoes, eggs, round steak, ham, rib-roast, sirloin steak, bacon, poultry porkchops, milk, cornmeal, lard and butter, flour and sugar. The prices of these articles, obtained in the way I have indicated, are given for the months of October, November and December, 1913, and for the same months in 1912. According to this bulletin, in the month of October thirteen out of fifteen articles increased in price, while two diminished; in December twelve out of fifteen articles increased in price, and three diminished as compared with the same month in the preceding year. I give these facts as I get them, and I assume them to be correct. The United States Government took means, as we should naturally expect them to do, to ascertain whether the Underwood-Wilson Tariff was having the effect hoped for in

the reduction of prices. Perhaps I had better put these figures on record for the month of October, 1913, as compared with October, 1912. The increases were: potatoes increased 42-3 per cent; eggs, 14-2 per cent; Tound steak, 12-9 per cent; ham, 10-6 per cent; rib roast, 8-8 per cent; sirloin steak, 8.3 per cent; bacon, 8-2 per cent; poultry, 7.5 per cent; pork chops, 6.3 per cent; milk, 2.7 per cent; cornmeal, 1-7 per cent; lard, 1 per cent; butter, 3-7 per cent. The decreases were: sugar, 8-8 per cent; flour, 2-6 per cent.

Now, I wish to refer to another matter, to which a good deal of attention was paid by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) in an address delivered in this city of Ottawa. He called this address 'Parallels of history,' and he was moved to make that address because of the passing of the Underwood tariff in the United States, which he looked upon as an indication that the United States was going to follow the example of England and become a free-trade country. The hon. member for Red Deer is not at present in the House to-night. Since he came into this House he has on every possible occasion advanced his views in favour of free trade. In England in 1841, 49 per cent of the population was rural, and in 1861, 45 per cent of the population was rural. I think I am right in assuming that at the time when the Corn Laws were repealed more than half the population of England was urban. At the same time the conditions in continental Europe were very different. In France, 75 per cent of the population was rural; in Prussia, 72 per cent; in Belgium, 75 per cent; in Norway, 87 per cent, and in Sweden 87 per cent. I mention these facts to indicate that there were reasons why England adopted that free trade policy, and there were reasons also why that policy did not appeal to other countries in Europe. There is another point: About the middle of the last century, when England adopted free trade, there was no other country in the world which could be classed with England as a manufacturing country. It has been said that in certain parts of England, standing on the top of a high building, one could look in one direction and see the spot from which they brought the iron, and looking in another direction he could see the spot from which they brought the coal, while past the half-way point flowed the river which would take to market the manufactured product due to bringing together of the iron and the coal. In other words, the giant levers of national progress in England represented by coal and iron lay close together and gave the country an advantage which other countries did not possess. England relied upon her ability to more than compete in manufacturing, and she relied upon the freight rates on goods coming into the country to protect her farmers. Sir, I contend that there is no such condition as that existing in Canada, and never has been, neither is there a similar condition in the United States today. It is true that in the United States the urban population has grown very enormously as compared with the rural. In 1890 the urban population of the United States was 36 per cent of that total. Twenty years later, in 1910, the proportion of town dwellers had increased to 46-3. I think we may fairly assume that the population of the United States is now about evenly divided between urban and rural, specially when we allow for the fact that in these figures only those are counted as urban who live in towns with a population of not less than 2,500. In 1910, there were nine states in which between 40 and 45 per cent of the population was urban, and 15 states in which from 50 to 96 per cent of the people dwelt in cities and towns. The-e were 115 cities of 50,000 population and upwards; and of these 13 cities had a population of from 250,000 to 500,000; 5 cities had a population of from 500,000 to

1.000. 000, and 5 had a population of over

1.000. 000. If these facts in regard to the enormous increase in the urban population in the United States furnish any indication as to why the Underwood-Wilson Tariff was inaugurated in that country, I submit that there are no similar conditions in Canada and nothing to warrant the people of Canada in moving in the direction of free trade or taking off our protective duties.

The question is often asked why the boy leaves the farm. That has been the subject of a good deal of comment in the newspapers and in this House. Well, Sir, I believe the reason is simply this: The educational advantages, which twenty-five or forty years ago were more or less restricted to the cities and towns, have now become general, and the boy in the country, through education, has come to realize that there are opportunities for him in other walks of life as -well as in farming. In other words, the cities and towns have been making a bid against the country for the boy, and the city has outbid the country. The country must

Northwest. I ask hon. gentlemen to give that due consideration when they are considering this very important question.

When we compare conditions in the West with conditions in the East we find that, so far as the rural population is concerned, conditions in the West are better to-day than in the East. I will give some reasons for making that statement. The value of livestock and poultry in Manitoba for the year 1911 amounted to $62,707,000; in Saskatchewan to $155,767,000; and in Alberta $83,231,000. The value of field crops for the same year in the same provinces was $76,500,000 in Alberta, $115,426,000 in Saskatchewan and $48,475,000 in Manitoba, a total for the three provinces mentioned in live stock, poultry and field crops, of over $502,000,000. Let me remind hon. gentlemen that in Ontario the total value of live stock, poultry and field crops amounted to $421,610,000, SO' that this one province of Ontario cuts no small figure in the production of live stock and field crops. But allow me further to state that the people of Ontario, the farmers in this province, have invested in land at least $758,000,000; in buildings $335,000,000; in implements over $86,000,000 and in live stock $225,000,000, or a total of $1,405,000,000. If you take the rural population as given by the last census of the Prairie provinces, and of Ontario, these being the only ones I have taken for purposes of comparison, you will find that the average value of live stock, poultry and field crops per family in Manitoba, amounted to $2,727; in Saskatchewan, $3,203; and in Alberta, to $2,829; while in Ontario it amounted to $1,772. In all earnestness, I would ask our friends from the West to consider that, and also that- in the province of Ontario it has taken a great many years for our farmers to attain even at the present day what wealth they have. They have had ups and downs. There was a time in Ontario and Quebec, and many hon. gentlemen here will remember it perhaps more distinctly than I do, when our farmers were dependent on the production of barley as their staple crop. A prohibitive tariff was placed on barley by the United States. It excluded our barley, and the farmers of Ontario and Quebec were up against it very strongly indeed. They hardly knew what way to turn, and it was a severe blow to them. But the farmers of the eastern provinces met that disaster, because it amounted to a disaster to them at that time, by going into dairying and building up the dairying industry,

of which, in Ontario and Quebec to-day, the farmers have every reason to be proud. It may be that under present conditions in the Northwest the farmers are not realizing what they should realize and what they would like to realize from their grain, but I hope they will meet those conditions with the same fortitude that their forefathers did in the eastern provinces, and will fight their way to a better state of things.

The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) drew attention to the report of the Grain Markets Commission, issued by the province of Saskatchewan. He commended that report as one well worthy the attention of members. Through the courtesy of some person in Saskatchewan, a copy of that report was sent to me during the Easter vacation, and I have carefully read it over. There are some things in it to which I wish to direct the attention of the House. On page 103 of that report, I find it stated that the wheat requirements of the principal importing countries for the year ending 1912-13, which were estimated by deducting their exports from their imports, -were as follows:

Requirements of importing countries, year ending July 31, 1913, obtained by deducting Exports from Imports.

Bushels.

United Kingdom 213,054,943

Germany 77,936,246

Belgium 53,358,353

France 45,741,363

Italy 77,110,184

Netherlands 13,468,326

Total 480,669.415

We also learn that of the great wheat producing countries Russia is first with 799,814,000 bushels, the United States comes next with 728,748,000, and then India with 350,229,000; Canada, 199,821,000; Argentina, 198,000,000, and Australia with 91,777,000; so that the United States, which hon. gentlemen opposite say affords a market for our w'heat, ranks second amongst the wheat producing countries of the world. How do these countries rank as to exports:

Bushels.

1st. Roumania

173,000,0002nd. United States

100,000,0003rd. Canada

95,000,0004th. Russia

94,000,0005th. Argentina

93,000,0006th. Hungary

53,000,0007th. Australia

33,000,0008th. India

30,000,000

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

Frederick Laurence Schaffner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SCHAFFNER:

Those figures do not include flour?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

John Wesley Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. EDWARDS:

No; I will deal with flour in a few moments.

Where does Canada stand in regard to the imports into the United Kingdom for the year ending May, 1913?

Imports into United Kingdom for year ending

Bushels.

1st. United States . . .. . . . . 49,540,0002nd. Argentina . . . . 42,647,0003rd. India . . . . 41,855,0004 th. Canada

, . . .. 38,229,000

For the year ending August 31, 1913, Canada supplied only 19 per cent of the wheat sent to the United Kingdom. It is made manifest in this report that the United States gets a larger share of continental markets than Canada both in wheat and flour. It may also be noted that this same authority tells us that as regards imports of flour into the United Kingdom, the United States supplies nearly half of the total and over 1,000,000 cwts. more than Canada. In this connection let me say that France imposes a duty of $2.50 a barrel on flour and 37c. a bushel on wheat. Germany imposes a duty of $2.20 a barrel on flour and 36c. on wheat. Belgium 35c. a barrel on flour and nothing on wheat. Canada imposes a duty of 60c. a barrel on flour and 12c. on wheat. France, besides imposing duties on flour and wheat, gives agricultural credit to the farmers of that country, a subject which I hope will engage the attention of this House at an early date. At the present time our Canadian farmer pays more for his credit than any other class of the community. Agriculture is the basic industry of this country, and if it is possible for this House to arrange matters so that the farmers will be able to borrow at a lower rate of interest, anything along that line will receive my very hearty support. If we compare the duties imposed by Canada on wheat and flour coming into this country with the duties imposed by other countries, some of which are large importers of wheat and flour, it cannot be said that we have an exorbitant protection for those industries in this country.

I want to place on ' Hansard ' this sentence from the report of the Saskatchewan Grain Commission:

Canada's principal competitors among the wheat-exporting nations of the world are, Russia, Argentina, India, Australia, and the United States.

Last night the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) referred to all these countries except the United States, until I

jogged his memory. I also wish to draw particular attention to the following taken from the same report:

Whether the Canadian miller could continue to compete successfully with the United States miller were the United States duty taken off Canadian wheat is a question that only the event can prove. The commission sees no reason why, in view of the protected home flour market which he enjoys, he would not still be able to compete successfully.

These are not my own words but are taken from the teport of the Saskatchewan Grain Commission. The commissioners very distinctly indicate that they have doubt in their minds as to whether the Canadian miller could if the duty were taken off wheat,, compete successfully with the American liil-ler. They say that only the event can prove whether it would be successful or not, but if the duty on flour coming into this country is retained the commissioners think the Canadian miller might be able to compete successfully even if the duty were taken off wheat. But that is not what hon. gentlemen opposite would have us do, although that is precisely what Mr. Fielding proposed to do in the reciprocity pact of 1911 and which hon. gentlemen opposite then applauded and sa,d was the proper thing to do. Mr. Fielding said: 'Let the wheat

come in free, but we will not let flour come in free. We can compete in wheat but we wild not subject the millers to free competition in the matter of flour.' Every member on the Liberal side approved of that in 1911, and every member on the Liberal side if we may judge by their attitude to-day repudiates it at the present time.

There are many suggestions in this report of the Saskatchewan Grain Markets Commission which are worthy of earnest consideration. For instance:

1. Toe possibility of developing a waterway from Alberta to Port William.

2. Cheaper credit for the agriculturist.

3. More equitable ocean freight rates and insurance rates especially out of Montreal.

4. A larger measure of mixed farming in the West as an undoubted means of reducing the cost of wheat production.

The commissioners took evidence in regard to that latter suggestion from the farmers of the West and they report that the consensus of opinion is that mixed farming would materially reduce the cost of producing Wheat in the West.

5. The improvement of country roads to shipping points.

There is mighty little comfort in that suggestion for hon. gentlemen opposite, who by their course in this House have deprived the country of hundreds of thousands of

dollars for the improvement of country roads. I fancy they will, be up against it when they meet their constituents in regard to that matter. There is one other quotation to which I wish to direct attention particularly of the hon. the Minister of Public Works. After referring with marked approval to the deepening and improving of the Welland canal which When completed will admit to the waters of lake Ontario any vessel now on the Upper Lakes, the report says:

In readiness for this looked for business, the Dominion Government is constructing an entirely new port in the mouth of the Rideau river at Kingston. At the new ouays any lake vessel will be able to berth in safety. Kingston hopes, and the farmers of Saskatchewan should hope and urge that the Dominion Government will erect and operate as part of these new facilities a transfer elevator just as their predecessors did at Port Colborne, only with this exception, that they will take into account the success of the latter elevator and build the new one very much larger at the outset.

I do not represent Kingston, but as my constituency adjoins Kingston my interest in that city is secondary only to that of its member. Whatever benefits that city will undoubtedly benefit the surrounding country. I commend that quotation to the Minister of Public Works and hope the suggestion will receive his consideration.

Now, I come to another matter to which I wish to direct the attention of the House for a while, and that is the question of farm implements.

At six o'clock, the House took recess.

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

William Cameron Edwards

Liberal

Mr. EDWARDS (resuming):

Before

touching on the matter of agricultural im- * plements, I desire to make one or two brief references to the question of wheat. It has been stated that within the last year or two the ocean freight rates on Canadian wheat have been very materially increased, and that there is a decided discrimination in these rates against Canadian flour. If that assertion be correct, if there be a combine or merger amongst ocean freighters, exacting an unfair and unjust tax for carrying wheat and flour from Canada across the ocean, I for one would favour seeing this Government embark upon a policy of constructing ocean freighters to carry Canadian wheat and flour across the ocean, and thus relieve the producer of these articles from the unjust exactions of any such combination.

The other matter to which I wish to refer is this, that in my judgment free wheat,

and therefore free flour, if it has the effect which hon. gentlemen opposite claim it will have of sending our western wheat across the line south to Minneapolis, will have the result of increasing the price of bran and shorts to the farmers of this country by at least $3 a ton. That would be a serious matter for the Ontario farmer, for the Quebec farmer, and also for the farmers of the West. Every encouragement should be given to the western miller to mill the wheat of the West in that country, and to the western farmer to produce stock in the West. The hon. member for West Kent (Mr. McCoig) said that if the western farmer were driven into mixed farming, the result would be disastrous to the farmer of the East. I can imagine the hon. gentleman picturing trainloads of stock coming from the West to the East, and prophesying dire calamity to the eastern farmers if they had to face that competition. I do not think the hon. gentleman need have any fear or that the eastern farmer will have any fear on that ground. I believe the eastern farmer will wish the western farmer every success in the producing of stock, although that stock may compete in the eastern market, with stock raised in the East. The hon. member for West Kent seemed to be trembling with fear for the eastern farmer on account of that competition. I can imagine what cold shivers must have gone up and down his spinal column when his right hon. leader in the city o.f Hamilton spoke of free food. Free food meant, if it meant anything, the opening of our doors and the introduction into Canada of food from all parts o*f the world. Let it come in as freely as possible, was the Liberal proposition in 1911. That is what I understand to be meant by free food today, and it does not seem to terrify hon. gentlemen opposite. Yet the prospect of a few car loads of hogs coming from western Canada to Toronto or Montreal sends cold shivers through the hon. member for West Kent. He said that in his part of the country three or four farmers would combine and buy a mower which they would use amongst them. He also very vigorously declared that what the farmers wanted were free hay loaders, and free hay tedders. If three or four farmers can get along with one mower, I fancy their need for hay loaders and hay tedders would not be very great. The hon. member for West Kent wants ian increased duty on raw tobacco. I am not finding fault with him for looking after his own part of the coun-

try. It is all right for him in behalf of his constituency to advocate in this House, as he did a short time ago, a bounty of a cent and a half a gallon on crude petroleum, but I submit that the hon. gentleman, in advocating protection for |Certain things which belong to his particular locality and free everything else is getting down to the narrowest form of localism. That is not an unusual sight, however, to see on the other side of the House. The hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) travelled all up and down the scale, advocating free food, free implements, but plenty of protection on iron, on steel and on coal. He was echoed in times past by the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie). The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) will not advocate free coal, they dare not do so. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) advocates free trade in everything. 'Not at all,' says the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), that will not do.' 'Reciprocity,' said one hon. gentleman on the other side of the House. 'I will not stand for reciprocity,' says the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German). In January, 1911, the right hon. leader of the Opposition said, ' We are a united party on this side of the House in regard to reciprocity.' The hon. member for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) on November 28, 1912, put this question :

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

George William Fowler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOWLER:

Is the hon. member for

St. John in favour of reciprocity?

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

George William Fowler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOWLER:

. . . Perhaps the right hon.

the leader of the Opposition will he willing to answer now.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

With great

pleasure. We are a united party on this side. We never vary.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

George William Fowler

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FOWLER:

That is a still more clever

lawyer's evasion. I ask the right hon. the leader of the Opposition: 'Were you in favour of reciprocity as It was presented to the people of Canada during the elections of 1911?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

I know of some

Liberals who have varied their views upon that. I am not one of them. I stick to my ideas.

It is quite true that the right hon. gentleman knew of some Liberals, quite a number of them, who had changed their views very materially. The election figures of 1911 demonstrate that ? rettv clearly. The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) in his speech last night was at times advocating protection and again he was talking along free trade lines. The hon. gentleman seems to be troubled with a kind of political ague. At one time his political temperature ran

up along free trade lines above 104; the next moment his temperature dropped by crisis to subnormal.

But the hon. gentleman seemed desirous of bringing these two extremes together and reaching a happy average. To use his own words, ' a man can prove almost everything from the law of averages,' and the hon. gentleman endeavoured to strike an average between the high political temperature and the subnormal, and wound up by calling himself a ' moderate protectionist.'

Now, I desire to deal with the question of agricultural implements. But before coming directly to that point, let me say that I was struck very forcibly by the manner in which the hon. member for West Kent rather denounced the Massey-Harris Company, and in fact pretty nearly all agricultural implement companies in this country. He was very strong in his advocacy of free trade in agricultural implements. I understand the hon. gentleman is the agent in his part of the country for the McCormick Manufacturing Company, which has its head office, I believe, on the other side of the line. So, we may see the reason for the hon. gentleman taking the course he did. He naturally would like to see the McCormick implements come in here-it would bring more grist to his mill.

In 1894, the duty on agricultural implements was reduced by the Conservative party from 35 per cent to 20 per cent. The Liberal party denounced protection for eighteen years. The Liberal platform of 1893 declared explicitly against protection. And the present leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was very emphatic in his utterances on that subject. As he is a man of peaceful and mild appearance, one would naturally suppose that strong words from him would have all the more force throughout the country. There are some men who, if they made use of such blood-curdling expressions as those of the right hon. gentleman, would not impress people greatly. But when a peaceable-looking gentleman like the right hon. leader of the Opposition declared that if the Liberals were returned to power ' they would cut off the head of protection and . trample on its body,' people would naturally believe that the right hon. gentleman was opposed to protection. Sir Richard Cartwright was equally emphatic. He declared that the policy of the Liberal party was death to

261b

it. We will follow this up; trust us and see what we will do in the future. Then they turned to the manufacturers and said: fear not; we will not hurt you. We will simply increase the valuation for duty purposes and point out to the farmer that we have reduced the duty from 20 to 174 par cent, and he will think he is getting things cheaper. Of course you know that when we increase the valuation for duty purposes it will not hurt you a particle. That is what they did. In April, 1907, the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) moved in this House the following resolution:

That the committee reconsider item 445, and that it he amended by striking out the figures 17 J per cent in the general tariff and inserting in lieu thereof the figures 10 per cent.

This resolution, the vote on which stood twenty-two to fifty-six, was, of course, voted down by the Liberals. Amongst hon. gentlemen in the House at that time was the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) and the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles), who voted against the reduction in duty proposed by the hon. member for Souris. The hon. member for Assiniboia, who was very earnest the other night in advocating free agricultural implements,' spoke against that reduction. I quote from his remarks at page 5597 of ' Hansard ' of that year:

I shall give the Government hearty support, fcr I believe that the policy of the Government is in tile interests of the country.

Contrast that, if you pleas-e, with the motion supported by this hon. gentleman a few weeks ago. The Hon. Mr. Paterson also ispoke on that occasion. On page 5582 5rou will find these words:

I do not disguise the fact that we propose to give these people-

That is, the manufacturers.

-nearly the amount of reduction in duty, that has been made. For it must be remembered that 17i per cent is no more than a revenue tariff.

What are we to infer from that? Every hon. gentleman on the other side of the House agreed that 174 per cent was no more than a revenue tariff. What do they mean by that? That when a Liberal Government is in power, with their peculiar methods of administration and expenditure, you must have at least a 174 per cent tariff, but when a Conservative Government attains office, you must look for an entire abolition of the duties. Another very distinguished gentleman, the Hon. Mr. Fielding, then Minister of Finance, spoke on

that occasion. On page 5621 may be found the following remarks made by that hon. gen ti e man:

By a careful calculation we are advised that the drawbacks we allow are somewhat less than the disadvantage under which the manufacturer is placed by the reduction of the tariff. Fven suppose for a moment that he got everything free and had a duty of 17 J per cent on the implements, would that be an extravagant duty as things go in this country? I believe this proposal of the hon. member for Souris, if adopted, would do an injustice to an established industry.

My belief is that if this motion were passed we would strike a severe blow at one of the great industries of the country. I believe the International Harvester Company would find it to its interests to close up its business in Hamilton*, at least so much of it as is devoted to mowers and binders and have them made at the American branch and bring them from the United States. The factory in Hamilton is an American concern. With a moderate duty we have induced American capital to come into Canada and to establish that great industry and after we have brought it in and established it in Canada I believe that if we were to pass this resolution the company operating that industry would find it profitable to close the Hamilton factory and bring in the goods which they make in the United States.

That is an expression of opinion by no less a person than the Finance Minister of the Laurier Administration in 1907, and that expression of opinion was endorsed by every hon. gentleman on the other side of the House. I find it very difficult indeed to reconcile the position of these hon. gentlemen to-day with the position they took at that time. The hon. member for Assiniboia made use of these words, and they may be found at page 5624 of ' Hansard ':

The tariff commission got information all over the country and I do not think the farmers to the West, at all events, asked for a great reduction such as is proposed by this resolution on agricultural implements. They asked that the duties be left alone. I shall give the Government hearty support on this question.

So that according to the hon. member for Assiniboia, in 1907 the farmers of the West, for whom he spoke, were opposed to any reduction in the duty on agricultural implements; they wanted the duty left alone.

Let us follow the history of this matter a little bit further. In the reciprocity pact of 1911 the proposed reduction of duty on agricultural implements was from 17J to 15 per cent. On that occasion the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder), who is ever alert when the interests of his fellow farmers are at stake, and who was mindful of what took place after 1907, when there was a reduction of duty from 20 to 17| per

intend to pursue that policy? What do they suppose the Almighty placed iron in such large quantities in this country for? Was it simply for ballast, or was it to be made use of? I contend that the proper thing for this country to do is to make this country what it was intended to be, a great iron-producing country.

I want to direct attention for a moment to the election returns of 1911. Hon. gentlemen opposite on different occasions have said that they would welcome another election on reciprocity, but I notice that those declarations are getting beautifully less as more light enters the heads of hon. gentlemen opposite as the days go by. In 1911 the Conservative vote increased over 1908 by over 21 -2 per cent, and the Liberal vote by 5-2 per cent. Hon. gentlemen opposite are welcome to what comfort they can get out of that. I find that the Conservative increase in Ontario over 1908 was 13J per cent, whereas the Liberal vote was actually 4-6 per cent less than it was three years before. In the province of Quebec, which is erroneously supposed by many to be almost solidly Liberal, I am pleased to say that the Conservative increase over 1908 was 38 per cent, while the Liberal increase was only

I -2 per cent. In Nova Scotia the Conservative increase was 1-8 per cent, and the Liberal increase 1 -7 per cent. In New Brunswick the Conservative increase was

II -6 per cent, and the Liberal vote showed a slight decrease. In Manitoba the Conservative increase over 1908 was 14-3 per cent, and the Liberal vote showed 13 3 per cent. In British Columbia the Conservative increase was 47 per cent, and the Liberal increase 23 per cent. In Prince Edward Island there was a slight increase in the Conservative vote and a decrease in the Liberal vote of 7 per cent. In Saskatchewan the Conservative increase over 1908 was 54J per cent and the Liberal increase 57J per cent-not too bad a showing when you consider the total vote polled. In Alberta the Conservative increase was 45 per cent and the Liberal increase 60.8 per cent. The Yukon, with such a candidate as the Conservative party had in the field, very properly heads the poll, the Conservative increase being 279 per cent and the Liberal decrease 6 -7 per cent. In every province except Alberta the increase in the Conservative vote polled over that polled in 1908 was greater than the increase in the total vote polled in each province over 1908, whereas the Liberal narty notwith-

standing the increase in population polled fewer votes in 1911 than in 1908 in Ontario, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and the Yukon, and in Quebec and Nova Scotia the percentage of increase was less than the percentage of increase in the total vote polled. That shows a few things in regard to the election of 1911, but there are one or two other points which I might call to the attention of hon. gentlemen just to disabuse their minds of any notion that the people were not very pronounced in their verdict in regard to reciprocity in 1911. I do this in all kindness because I would like hon. gentlemen opposite to get up a new policy. So many policies have been advanced by the Liberal party that I think it would be an imposition on the people of Canada for them to go to the country again on the same policy. I would like to assure them that if they go to the country on their policy of 1911 there is not a particle of a chance of success for them, nor would there be any possible chance of a good square fight on that policy. Although I am a peaceable man I would prefer that they have a policy which would give us a good scrap. In the election of 1911 it is noteworthy-I do not 'think it ever occurred before in the history of Canada-that every one of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's Cabinet ministers was either defeated or had his majority reduced. In the case of the right hon. gentleman himself he was elected by acclamation in East Quebec under somewhat doubtful circumstances. We will leave it at that. He also ran in the constituency of Soulanges, which is the smallest constituency in the Dominion, and there he had the handsome majority of 142. In regard to two others of his ministers, the Postmaster General of that time (Mr. Beland) ran in two constituencies and was defeated in one and elected in the other. The hon. member for Eouville (Mr. Lemieux) also took a chance in two constituencies. He met ignominious defeat in one and was elected in the other. That is an interesting little event worthy of putting on ' Hansard.' The hon. member for Eouville was elected for Gaspe in 1896 by 42; in 1900 by 1,362; in 1904 by acclamation; in 1908 by 1,492. In 1911 he ran in the same constituency, but was defeated by 570 votes. He also ran in Eouville, where he was elected by 278. It is interesting to note that the combined vote of those two constituencies is not as large as the ordinary vote in an ordinary constituency. There are twelve constituencies in the province of Quebec which have a larger number of

voters than are on the lists of the two constituencies which the hon. member for Rouville contested in the election of 1911. So that I think I am quite fair in adding the name of the member for Rouville to the list of the Cabinet ministers who went down to defeat in 1911, because in the two constituencies he contested there was a net majority against him of 292.

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

John Wesley Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mar. EDWARDS:

Well if the hon. member for Rouyille was elected in Rouville on the 21st of September, 1911, why in the world did he run in a deferred election in Gaspe? .

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Edmond Proulx

Liberal

Mr. PROULX:

He was nominated on

the 14th of September, like other candidates.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

John Wesley Edwards

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. EDWARDS:

At 'all events the figures are there which indicate that in the two constituencies the vote was in favour of the hon. member for Rouville staying in the province of Quebec and not coming to this House. I have nothing further to add in regard to the last election except that I think the figures indicate very clearly and conclusively that the people expressed themselves most decidedly against the policy of free trade in natural products, which was proposed by the Liberal party at that time, and it is idle for hon. gentlemen opposite to declare that they were stampeded. The Hon. Mr. Fielding introduced that pact into this House in. the month of January, 1911, and the elections did not take place until September of the same year. The people of Canada had a splendid opportunity to settle this question, it was thoroughly discussed and I firmly believe that if the election had been twq weeks later in the province of Ontario the result would have been even more disastrous than it was to the Liberal party.

The hon. member for Rouville, in the course of his remarks, made some allusions to the naval question. I am not going into that any further than to say that I hope the day is not far distant when-and I am not wishing any of the senators harm when I say that-we will have control of the Senate. I do not know that I can put it any more kindly than to say that I will be delighted to see the Conservative party get control of the Senate and that I do not wish any of the senators harm. But it is a matter of doubt whether the translation of some of them would be a loss to 166

earth or a gain to heaven. This is a matter which only the future can solve and in the meantime I can only reiterate my own strong convictions upon this question. I think that the proposition, made by the Conservative party to grant $35,000,000 for the maintenance of the .supremacy of the British navy was one which appealed to the people from one end of Canada to the other. I am sorry that the grant was not made. I need not say any more, but if I am permitted I will close my remarks with a quota-9 p.m. tion from an utterance of one of the greatest Canadians that this country has ever produced. I refer to Sir George Etienne Cartier, who, in a speech delivered in 1869,'made use of these words:

Canadian people desire to remain faithful to the old monarchical flag of Great Britain, that flag which waves over all seas, that flag which tyranny has never been able to overcome, that flag which symbolizes true liberty.

Canadians know that if they wish to become really great they have only to continue their union with the mother country, so as to share in her power, her prestige and her glory.

These words express my sentiments and those of the great majority of the Canadian people far more eloquently and completely than anything I could myself say. 1 thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for the very patient hearing which you have given me.

Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright) Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I rise to take part in the Budget debate, but, representing a constituency in which the agricultural and labouring interests largely predominate, I deem it my duty to make a few remarks, which remarks, I hope, will reach the ear of the Government. To-night, Sir, I would very much like to see the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) in his seat, because I would like to have a heart to heart talk with him, but in his absence I .am going to ask the hon. gentlemen who represent the Cabinet to see if something cannot be done to meet the present commercial stagnation or depression in this country. I am not going to follow in the line of the previous speaker. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) finished his remarks by dealing with the election returns of 1911. He and his friends opposite take a certain amount of credit out of the fact that the Conservative party did win the election of 1911. I admit that. It is not in contention in this

House. Hon. gentlemen opposite did win the election of 1911 and promised during that election to do certain things which they have failed to do, and which I hope, before the end of my remarks, to call to their attention. They won the election through certain combinations in the province of Ontario and in the province of Quebec.

In Quebec they won the election through a friendly alliance between the Conservative party and the Nationalists. Will they have the same alliance at the next election?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Time will tell.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
LIB

Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin

Liberal

Mr. DEVLIN:

Time will tell-there is

no doubt of it; but the Nationalist members of the House who went before the electors of the province of Quebec with a certain programme and who will go back before them at the next election will find that time will tell how that aniance has worked out between the Conservative and the Liberal party.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Permalink
CON

April 16, 1914