Tell us how.
Well, we have a trade policy in this country which enhances the cost of production; and it is enhanced to such an extent that the very advocates of protection here do not believe in that policy. Through protection to-day the cost of living is enhanced while the wealth of Canada is concentrated. And where are those earnings spent?
Is the cost of living
cheaper in the United States than it is in Canada?
I will come to that. Where are the earnings spent which are being
accumulated here? We find that they are invested in foreign countries, and this in face of the fact that we are importing raw material while our own mines and forests abound in what is required. Why, the protectionists in the House do not believe in their own policy; they have more confidence in investments abroad. I can give you instances if any are needed.
Give us some instances.
To-day, for example, the
British Empire Steel Company is importing iron ore; and not only that, it is importing coal from America into Montreal at the present time. We have suffered from foreign investments; such as Savanah Railways, and so on, while we should be developing our own natural resources. Instead of that our capital is going to foreign countries to increase the production with which we have to compete.
Is the hon. member aware that no Canadian iron ore has been discovered of a quality that compares with the iron ore of the United States or of Newfoundland, and that the only way we can use it is to aPPly the protectionist method of granting a bounty to encourage the production of it?
Then I would ask the hon. member why it is that this country has seen fit to spend millions upon millions in tariffs, bonuses and bounties to produce that material m our own country which we are now told we must import.
We have not spent any
money to produce iron ore in this country. No bounty has been given by the federal parliament, whatever the provincial governments may have done; and this is something I have been advocating.
I cannot answer the hon.
member offhand but I think he is wrong. To-day our manufacturers are scouring the' whole world for scrap iron instead of producing it here. Canada, the most highly protected country, is to-day an importer of scrap iron.
Does the hon. member know that the United States takes from Canada twice as much as Canada imports of scrap iron?
I am not sure of that. Now, we should be doing all we can to foster primary production in this country and particularly in the basic industry, which is agriculture. And if this country is to prosper this must be done.
Are we doing it by means of this treaty?
No, that is what I am
saying. One of the worst incongruities in this treaty is seen in the arrangement regarding fruit. After protecting the fruit grower of British Columbia and the Ontario peninsula by a high rate of duty, and hedging him about with dumping acts and classifications under the tariff which absolutely prevent any competition from the foreigner, we are putting some of these things on the free list. In regard to some of these things like the dumping clause and other incongruities in the Customs Act, such as the classification of the citizens of the country into five or six categories-as, for instance, consumers, retailers, wholesalers, dealers, jobbers and manufacturers, every one of them having some right under the tariff-if the government would abolish all measures that restrict trade it would tend to lower the cost of living and the cost of production, and the farmers would have a chance to compete with producers of other countries in the markets of the world. This whole thing is an absurdity. It might have benefited us if we had fostered trade with one of the countries that must of necessity import what we produce naturally.
Do we not produce pulp
and paper? And is not fish one of our natural productions?
Then what is the hon.
member talking about? Are these non-natural products?
That is only one, and it is
practically only a side line of the Dominion.
What is a side line?