February 24, 1902

?

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).

If the hon. gentleman (Mr. LaRiviSre) will make a motion for a return the papers will be brought down immediately. The question cannot be properly answered.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   IMPROVEMENT OF ST. ANDREW'S RAPIDS.
Permalink

RECIPROCITY IN TRADE.


Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk) moved That this House is of the opinion that Canadian import duties should be arranged upon the principle of reciprocity in trade conditions so far as may be consistent with Canadian interests ; that a rebate of not less than 40 per cent of the amount of duties imposed, should be made upon dutiable imports from nations or countries admitting Canadian natural products into their markets free of duty ; and that the scale of Canadian duties should be sufficiently high to avc-id inflicting injury upon Canadian interests in cases where a rebate of 40 per cent or more shall be made under the conditions aforesaid. He said : Mr. Speaker, the motion that I am about to submit through you to the House for its consideration affirms what I believe to be a correct principle in regard to the management of our fiscal affairs in this country. The motion first affirms that reciprocity in trade conditions will be proper except in case where such conditions may not be favourable to Canada. The motion next proposes that countries admitting the natural products of Canada into their markets free of duty shall be accorded a rebate or differential duty of 40 per cent or more in the customs duties levied in Canada. The motion next proposes that the scale of duties shall be sufficiently high to avoid injury to Canadian interests in cases where the minimum duty is imposed, as has been done under the present arrangement of a differential duty in favour of Great Britain to the distress and detriment of our woollen interests. The export trade of Canada is largely with the mother country. About 63 per cent of the export trade of Canada is with Great Britain. The import trade of Canada is to a very small extent with the mother country ; less than one-(juarter of our imports coming from that source. It is, I affirm, a proper course to pursue to have regard to the interests of the mother country which affords us our chief market, in the adjustment and arrangement of our tariff duties. We have, in the past, been making unsatisfactory progress in this country. An increase of 10J per cent in the last decade, an increase of less than 12 per cent in the previous decade and an increase of less than 47 per cent during the last three decades is an unsatisfactory rate of increase in population. Canada has a limited increase of population not for the reason that we are incapable of supporting an enormous population, but for some reason Canada has been forging ahead at a rate in the highest degree unsatisfactory to those who desire to see this country become a great nation. We had, in 1871, a population of 3,649,782, allowing an estimate of 50,000 for the population of British Columbia and Manitoba. We had last year, by the last census, 5,338,883. We had an increase in 30 years of 1,689,111 souls, an increase, as I have said, of 104 per cent in the last decade, and of 47 per cent for the entire period covered by the space of time between 1871 and 1901. Now, the United States, when similarly situated with us, with a growing country, with a small population with great natural resources, with an infinite stretch of virgin land and with practically every inducement to offer to settlers, had, in 1790, a population of 3,929,214 and in 1820 a population of 9,600,781, or an increase of 5,671,569 in 30 years against an increase of 1,689,111 in our own case, or an increase of 141 per cent in 30 years as against an increase of 47 per cent in our own ease ; yet, during that period of 30 years the United States received but 250,000 immigrants from the old world. Now, there is something wrong. No doubt we have, living in the United States to-day, 3,000,000 people who are either Canadians by birth or descendants of Canadian ancesters in the first and second generation. We are losing the flower of our population, we have been losing it for the last 30 years, and if by any possible means we can arrest that drain of our population, if by any means we can adopt a policy that will lead to a more rapid expansion of our resources, a more rapid increase of our population, a more rapid increase in the direction of creating in Canada a nation, it is worth our while to study the question and ascertain if there are any possible means by which this result can be reached. We have enormous resources. Without question, in my opinion, Canada can sustain a population of 100,000,000 souls. Some disadvantages and drawbacks, as we deem them, appertaining to our country, are really calculated to make our population a people of virility, of great courage and self assertion. We have the resources of the maritime provinces, the resources of Quebec and of Ontario, the enormous region of the North-west Territories, with an arable area extending over 500,000 square miles, the resources of British Columbia ; we have fisheries, and timber and minerals and agricultural resources in great abundance, in unlimited supply ; we have all the resources that are necessary to create in Canada a great nation. Now, Sir, our trade with all the countries of the world, except Great Britain, is in an unsatisfactory condition, in my opinion. We had a total trade last year of $191,000,000 with the United States. Our total imports were, from the United States, $119,306,000, and our total exports to the United States were $72,382,000. The balance of trade against us was $46,924,000 and the import percentage of our total trade with the United States was 63 per cent. United States. Total imports from $119,306,000 Total exports to 72,382,000 Total trade $191,688,000 Balance against Canada 46,924,000' Import percentage of total trade, 63..per cent. But this statement presents an unduly favourable aspect of the case. While our Trade and Navigation Returns show an export trade to the United States last year of $72,382,000, it is well to take into account that $28,331,000 of that amount was gold and silver coin, nuggets, gold dust, silver concentrates, the product of our mine in the Klondike, and that this $28,331,000 was actually a payment upon our balance of trade with the United States. Revised. Total imports, less coin and bullion, $3,335,000 $115,971,000 Total exports, less $28,331,000, coin, bullion, gold nuggets, silver, &c. 44,051,000 Balance against Canada, $71,890,000. 160,022,000 Import percentage of total trade, 72 per cent. When you eliminate from our exports to the United States the gold and the silver that are included in the returns of exports, you bring the amount down to $44,000,000, which includes the re-exports of articles not the produce of Canada. That leaves the balance of trade against us actually $71,890,000 and it leaves the percentage of imports of our total trade 72 per cent, instead of 63 per cent. So that we imported from the United States $72 of the amount of our total trade, and we exported to that country $28 of the amount of our total trade out of every $100. This is the condition of our trade with the United States, a most unsatisfactory condition ; a condition which I shall enlarge upon later on. Then with regard to Germany : Our total trade with Germany last year was $9,162.000. The balance of trade against us in our trade with Germany last year was $4,879,000. The import percentage with our total trade with Germany last year was 76 per cent. Germany. Imports from $7,021,409 Exports to 2,141,532 Total trade $9,162,932 Balance against Canada 4,879,021 Import percentage of total trade, 76 per cent. Our total trade with France last year was $6,979,000. The balance of trade against Canada with that country was $3,806,000. The import percentage of our total trade with France was 77 per cent.



France. Imports from $5,398,021 Exports to 1,581,331 Total trade .., $6,979,352 Balance against Canada 3,806,690 Import percentage of total trade, 77 per cent. With Holland, our trade total was $984,000. In that comparatively small trade the balance of trade against us was $010,084 and the import percentage of our total trade with Holland was 81 per cent. Holland. Imports from 5797 493 Exports to 187',378 Total trade $984,840 Balance against Canada $610,084 Import percentage of total trade, 81 per cent. With Spain, our total trade was $S97,000. The balance of trade against us in this comparatively small transaction was $5oi,U00, and the import percentage of our total trade with Spain was 82 per cent. Spain. Imports from $742,537 Exports to 185,354 Total trade $897,993 Balance against Canada 557,183 Import percentage of total trade, 82 per cent. Now, this is the condition of our trade with all these countries ; with the United States, with Germany, with France, with Holland, with Spain ; and we have a satisfactory trade balance ; we have a satisfactory condition of trade relations with one nation only, and that is with Great Britain. Our imports from Great Britain last year were $43,164,000, and our exports to Great Britain were $105,018,000. The balance of trade in our favour in this case,was $61,853,000, and the import per cent of our total trade with Great Britain was but 29 per cent; the export percentage being 71. Great Britain. Imports from $ 43,164,297 Exports to 105,018,164 Total trade $148,182,461 Balance in our favour 61,853,867 Import percentage of total trade, 29 per cent. Now, we took this $62,000,000, which we got from Great Britain, and we paid tribute to the United States. We paid tribute to the United States, from whom we purchased $3 worth of goods for every $1 which we sold them. We paid tribute to them under the arrangements of their tariff which have existed for the last 35 years! and which they have arranged with the purpose of buying little and selling all that is possible. The time has come, in my opinion when this arrangement should be set aside' either by satisfactory and proper concessions from them, or by action upon our part | Mr. CHARLTON. that wall render these attempts nugatory. Great Britain, as I have said, is our chief market. Great Britain will no doubt continue to be our chief market, and as I said at the outset, it is proper that we should give due attention to the cultivating of that market in Great Britain ; that market which to-day takes 82 per cent of our total farm products ; that market which to-day takes 63 per cent of our exports. The United States, of course, is a nation contiguous to us. Our boundaries are common from ocean to ocean. Nature has decreed that unless its purposes are thwarted by unfriendly legislation, the relations between these two countries shall be of the most intimate character ; and that the trade between these two countries shall be enormous in its proportion. That trade already is enormous ; enormous, notwithstanding the obstacles that have been thrown in the way of free intercourse between these two countries. These two countries are one geographically, the very barriers that separate them invite intercommunication. Their railroad lines cross and re-cross and knit them together. The maritime provinces have their natural trade associations with the States on the Atlantic seaboard. Ontario and Quebec can reach the ocean, in winter, at least, more conveniently across American territory than by any other route. Our great North-west is geographically a portion of the Mississippi valley, and its trade will naturally tend to that section. On the Pacific slope, nothing is more natural than that trade relations should exist between British Columbia and the States of Washington, Oregon and California. This contiguity of territory, this intermingling of interests will lead and should lead to enormous trade transactions. But, Sir, these transactions should be and must be upon a different basis from that which exists today. Now, this natural tendency to intimate trade relations and rapid increase in the volume of trade between the two countries, if obstacles are not interposed, was strikingly illustrated by the experience of Canada and the United States under the Reciprocity Treaty which existed from 1854 to 1866. That treaty provided for free trade in natural products only. During the first year of that treaty, the exports of Canada to the United States were less than $10,000,000. Twelve years later, in the year 1866, the exports of Canada to the United States (including the usual allowance for inland short returns) was $44,000,000, an increase of 440 per cent in the' export trade between Canada and the United States in twelve years under the fostering influence of freedom in the interchanging of natural products. During that same period the Canadas largely increased their import trade with the people of the United States. In 1866, with an export trade of $44,000,000 from the United States, the imports from the United States were $28,000,000, and im- ports from Great Britain in the same year were $40,000,000, while the exports to England during the same year were, in round numbers, $17,000,000. Exports. 1866-Great Britain $ 16,826,000 1890-Great Britain 48,353,000 1901-Great Britain 105,328,000 1866-United States 44,143,000 1890- United States 40,452,0001891- United States 72,382,000On deducting coin, bullion, precious metals and goods not produce of Canada 41,626,000 . Imports for consumption. 1866-Great Britain $40,062,000 1890-Great Britain 43,390,000 Great Britain 43,018,000 United States-Imports. 1886 $ 28,572,000 1901 119,306,000 Increase, $90,734,000, or 318 per cent. Summary Movements, 1866 to 1901. Great Britain-Imports. 1866 $40,062,000 1901 43,164,000 Increase, $3,102,000, or 7 7-10 per cent. This gives evidence of the tendency that would be exerted on the trade between these two countries by the removal of restrictions. The year 1866 came and with it came the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty. It was a treaty that was working to the mutual advantage of both countries, and it was abrogated largely no doubt because of the influence of other motives than those appertaining to the loss or gain that might accrue from the operation of it. Unfortunately, we were unwise enough to allow expression to be given in the Canadian Assembly to a feeling of felicitation at the federal defeat at Chancellorville, and although there were as large a proportion perhaps of the population of the North who were copperheads and rebel sympathizers as of the population of Canada, and although the only difference was that in Canada they had a right to express their opinions while in the North they had not, the United States government took umbrage at this display of sympathy with the South ; and although we had given evidence of our devotion to the North by sending forty thousand men to fight in the Union armies, and although as large a proportion of our population sympathized with the cause of the Union as of the population of the Northern States, and although we had maintained neutrality and discharged our duties as neutrals wisely and well, yet the single circumstance to which I have alluded probably had a great influence in causing the repeal of the reciprocity treaty of 1854. We were aware that that treaty was an advantageous one. We were aware that the circumstances under which we exported to the United States so much more extensively than we imported were exceptional circumstances, due to the existence of .a war in that country. The importation of American fabrics was rapidly decreasing, and but a few years would have elapsed before the imports and exports between the two countries would have become equalized. Efforts were made on the part of Canada to bring about a modification of the treaty, to do anything within the bounds of reason to make the treaty acceptable to both countries ; but all these efforts were spurred. The United States government, in point of fact, refused to consider any applications or arguments with reference to the renewal of that treaty, and entered upon a period of repression, which has been continued for thirty-five years. The United States was then the chief market for our products. The belief in the United States and the belief in Canada was that that market was essential to us. Possibly American statesmen may have thought that putting on the screws and shutting us out from their market would force us into annexation. If this was not the case, pains ought to be taken to disabuse the Canadian mind of that impression. For thirty-five years we have had a war of tariffs, fought chiefly on one side, and the result has been rather disappointing to both the United States and ourselves -agreeably disappointing to ourselves, perhaps not as agreeably disappointing to them. Our exports to Great Britain have increased from 1866 to 1901 as follows : Great Britain Exports'. 1866 ; $ 16,826,000 1901 105,328,000 Increase, $88,502,000, or 527 per cent. Our exports to the United States in the same years were as follows : United States Exports. 1866 $44,143,000 1C01 72,382,000 Increase, $28,239,000, or 64 per cent. But, as I said a moment ago, deducting corn and bullion and the products of the mines of the Yukon and the export of goods not the produce of Canada, our net exports to the United States last year were $41,626,000, or $2,517,000 less than they were in 1866. That condition of trade was brought about by the repressive tariff legislation of the United States. A summary of these trade movements shows that our imports from Great Britain increased from 1866 to 1901 7'7 per cent, and our imports from the United States increased in the same interval 318 per cent; and this result was brought about, not by the application on the part of Canada of the American principle, which we ought to have applied, but by a liberal low-tariff arrangement which offered no impediment to the importation of their wares into this country, while we were almost absolutely excluded from their markets.



In the same period our exports to Great Britain increased 527 per cent, while our exports to the United States, eliminating the precious metals and the exportation of goods not the produce of Canada, have fallen $2,500,000. Now, I will proceed to consider some of the reasons that have led to this anomalous and unsatisfactory condition of trade I will look first at our tariff rates. Last year our rate of duty upon the total imports from the United States was 12-5 per cent, and our rate of duty upon dutiable imports from the United States was 24-83 per cent. In the same year our duty upon the total imports from Great Britain was 18 2 per cent, and our duty upon dutiable imports from Great Britain was 24-87 per cent, or 4-100tlis higher than our duty on dutiable imports from the United States.


?

Mr. OLARICB@

Notwithstanding the preference.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RECIPROCITY IN TRADE.
Permalink
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

Notwithstanding the preference. Our duty upon the total imports from all countries, the United States included, was 10-6 per cent, and our duty upon dutiable imports from all countries was 27-45 per cent. Here you have the fact that the duties upon United States imports were lower, both upon dutiable imports and upon total imports, than the duties upon imports from Great Britain or upon imports from the whole world ; and you can contrast those duties as I now propose to do, with the duties imposed by the United States. While we admitted their total imports at a duty a fraction above 12 per cent, their duty upon our total imports last year amounted to 28 per cent. And while we imposed a duty of less than 25 per cent upon dutiable imports, their duties were 50 per cent last year, or almost exactly as high again as in our own.

And when we come to the percentage of imports, 63 per cent of our total imports came from the United States, 22} per cent from Great Britain, and 14} per cent from the rest of the world. It is scarcely necessary for me to say that these duties are unequal, that they are not in our interest, and that the duties we impose should bear some proportion to the duties which the United States imposes upon us. This goes without saying. The American policy has been applied not only to us, but to all the world. The object of the United States has been to sell all that it possibly could of the products of its soil, its mills, and its workshops, and to buy just as little as it could from other countries, and thus have as large a balance of trade in its own favour as possible. The result has been that the balance of trade in favour of the United States last year amounts to $600,000,000 against the whole world, and $71,000,000 against Canada. That is a good thing for the United States. Let them cling to their policy as long as the rest of the world

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RECIPROCITY IN TRADE.
Permalink
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

will permit them to do so, but it is not a good thing for us.

I need hardly claim that I am not open to the charge of being biased by racial animosity, or national animosity, or prejudice of any character against the United States. The time has been when I have been sometimes misunderstood, and oftener I imagine misrepresented in relation to the attitude that I have taken on our relations with that country. I have always been in favour of the most friendly relations between all Anglo-Saxon communities. I have realized for many years that any policy which is calculated to draw these commonwealths closer together in the bonds of amity and union is a good policy, and have acted upon that principle, and the Liberal party has acted upon that principle in the past.

It is beyond question that the United States, is a great nation, a mighty nation- perhaps the greatest to-day in the world. I have no intention to belittle their might, and prowess, or to say anything even against their tariff policy, which is no doubt a good thing for them, and one which they should adhere to so long as the rest of the world allows them to do so, but I do not think it is a good thing for us to submit without effort to secure change of existing conditions. But while I recognize that the United States is destined to play a great part in the direction of the world events in the future, while I recognize that it has an immense population, intelligent, energetic and aggressive, while we must admit that the construction of the Isthmian Canal will give it the command of the Pacific and that it is bound to become a great naval and military power, while it is evident that by the possession of the Philippine Islands, it will gain control of the Asiatic trade, and while I acknowledge freely that it is a mighty nation, I still say that as Canadians, we must uphold the interest of our own country and enact such a policy for the development of Canada as the circumstances of the case require. I did believe once that if our friends opposite had shown a proper disposition, and had gone to Washington in a proper spirit, they might have got something advantageous to Canada. I still think it is a pity that they did not make any attempt in this direction under the administration of Grover Cleveland instead of waiting until Mr. Harrison was president. However, I must confess that my expectations are hardly as bright to-day as they were at one time, and while I did believe that we had only to approach them in a proper spirit, when we were governed by an administration known to be friendly to them, in order to get something in return, I must confess that my experience upon the [DOT]loint High Commission was not such as to fully justify the entertaining of that belief.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RECIPROCITY IN TRADE.
Permalink
CON

Alphonse Alfred Clément LaRivière

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LARIVIERE.

Open confession is good for the soul.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RECIPROCITY IN TRADE.
Permalink
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

Tliis is not a confession, it is simply a statement of the facts.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RECIPROCITY IN TRADE.
Permalink
LIB

William Forsythe McCreary

Liberal

Mr. McCREARY.

That is what confession should be.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RECIPROCITY IN TRADE.
Permalink
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

It is a very easy matter to prove to an American audience that the importance of the trade of Canada to the United States is so great that this country is entitled to better treatment. Canada is the third largest customer in the world of the United States. She is only outranked in that respect by Great Britain and Germany. She is the best customer of the United States for manufactured goods-for the products of the mills, the looms and the factories. The importance of the Canadian trade is illustrated by a comparison of that trade with the trade of the other portions of the American continent. Take Latin America, comprising Mexico, Central America, South America, the West Indies, all but Cuba and Porto Rico, and the total imports of all this vast region, with a population of nearly sixty millions, from the United States in 1900, was $96,140,000, while the imports of Canada in the same year amounted to $116,972,000. Or the five and a half million population of Canada bought $20,-

832,000 worth, of United States goods more than the sixty million inhabitants of Latin America, the Philippine Islands, although they cost the United States an initial outlay of $20,000,000-being the cost of their purchase from Spain-and a further sum of $300,000,000 in the maintaining of forty ships of war and 100,000 soldiers-the Philippine Islands with a population of nearly 10,000,000, imported from the United States last year only $4,027,000 worth of goods or twenty-seven times less than Canada.

These are facts it is well for the people of Canada to understand and for the people of the United States to understand. They are facts of which the people of the United States were in ignorance, and I have urged for years past that we were making a mistake in not attempting to make the public men of the United States understand the conditions that exist and which should have weight with them in arranging with us their trade relations. I have been doing a little work in that line. I was invited a little less than a year ago to address the Free Trade League of New England in Boston. I took for my subject free trade with Canada, and my speech at Boston was well received. Fifty thousand copies were published by the Boston Chamber of Commerce. A copy was placed in the hands of every member of Congress and of the State Legislatures, and of every board of trade and chamber of commerce in the United States. I next spoke to the Detroit Bankers' Association at Detroit, and the Chamber of Commerce in New York. Then to the Manufacturers National Reciprocity Convention at Wash-9

ington. Then to the Merchants' Exchange at Buffalo, and at other places.

I have seen the statement made that this was a very injudicious thing to do. I noticed an editorial in the newspaper of my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) advising my right hon. friend the leader of the government to bring me home, not to allow me to be running up and down among these Yankees giving away the Canadian case. And I have been assured by some highly esteemed friends in this House that they hardly approved of the kind of propaganda that I engaged in in the United States. So far as getting my leader to bring me home is concerned, I hardly think that he Would have acceded to such a request had it been made to him. While I did not go at his expressed command, I did consult him as to the best course to take in many matter^, and received an expression of his opinion; and I have reason to believe that he thinks the work I did in the United States not an entirely useless work. I happen to know- and I learned this, of course, through having access to means of information that put me in possession of the facts-and I state it not as a matter of egotism, but as a plain matter of fact, that the speeches I made in the United States, the articles of mine that appeared in the ' Forum,' the ' North American Review,' and other periodicals and the other means I have adopted to influence American sentiment, have produced an impression. And 1 believe that it is within the range of possibilities, and not only that, but that it is highly probable that, by pursuing this course, by bringing the American people to understand the actual condition of affairs between the two countries, a trade arrangement may be secured which will be satisfactory to Canada-and no arrangement will be satisfactory to Canada that does not give us reciprocity of natural products without granting any return or any concession beyond what has already been granted.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RECIPROCITY IN TRADE.
Permalink
CON

Edward Frederick Clarke

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARKE.

Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) mean reciprocity in natural products only ?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RECIPROCITY IN TRADE.
Permalink
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

Certainly. I mean that we are buying $65,000,000 worth of manufactured goods. I mean that we are buying of the United States three times as much as we sell to them. I mean that we are buying of the United States two and a half times as much farm products as we sell to them; and that we are entitled to-day to reciprocity in natural products, absolutely and unrestricted, without granting one solitary iota of a concession, further than that we have granted, without putting an article on the free list that is not already there, and without diminishing our duties by a single fraction. That is what I have been preaching in the United States; that is what I have

been assuring the American people was our just due. I have been telling them that they could not give us less than this, and that, if they did not give it, probably we would do something for ourselves.

There have been changes in the condition of affairs since 1866, Mr. Speaker, that it would be well to bear in mind, changes that the ordinary American, who regards this question through impressions he had received from day to day does not understand. For instance, in 1866, the United States was our chief market in agricultural products, while we imported almost all our manufactured goods from Great Britain. Now this condition of things is reversed-actually and absolutely reversed. To-day, England is our chief market for agricultural products, while the United States is our chief supply for manufactures. More than that, in 1866 we bought no agricultural products or food products from the Uuited States, but now, as I say, we now buy of them two and a half times as much as we sell to them. These facts constitute a reversal of the conditions of 1866 that is well to understand and take into account when we deliberate as to the proper course to pursue in the attempts we shall make and the limit to which we shall go in making arrangements.

Now, I wish to say a few words about, perhaps, the most important matter in connection with this question, I refer to the magnitude of the trade in manufactured goods imported from the United States into Canada. I must confess, that when I first commenced to investigate this case, I was amazed at. the revelations that were made to me. I suppose, that, as a matter of course, we bought more manufactures from Great Britain than we bought . from the United States-never dreamed that the contrary was the fact. But I found that in 1898 our purchase of manufactures, free and dutiable, from the United States, were much greater than our purchases from Great Britain. These are the figures

Import of Manufactures into Canada.

From Great Britain-

1898, free $ 5,181,1261898, dutiable

21,551,460Total $26,732,586

From the United States-

1898, free $12,271,4481898, dutiable

31,563,321Total $43,834,769

In 1899 our imports of manufactures free and dutiable from Great Britain and the United States respectively were as follows:-

From Great Britain-

1899, free $ 5,144,8041899, dutiable

26,501,435

. $31,848,239

From the United States-

1899, free

1899, dutiable 37,247,807

Total $51,546,637

The figures for the following year afford a still more striking comparison between our imports of manufactured goods from Great Britain and our imports in the same line from the United States. These are the figures :-

From Great Britain-

1900, free

1900, dutiable

Total

From the United States-

1900, free

1900, dutiable

Total * [DOT] [DOT]* $62,858,945

The figures for 1901, I have had in my hands for only a few days. They are as follows :-

From Great Britain-

1901, free $ 6,906,1851901, dutiable

30,864,488

Total

From the United States-

1901, free

1901, dutiable

Total $65,559,245

These figures show that our imports of manufactured goods from Great Britain last year were $714,000 less than those of the previous year, while our purchases from the United States were $2,700,000 more than those of the previous year. What does that mean ? There was a preference of 334 per cent in favour of Great Britain, yet we find a considerable falling off in the imports of manufactured goods from that country ; while the United States which enters our market against that preference, made a great increase in the quality of manufactured goods sold to us. The figures show that we purchase from the United States manufactured goods to the extent of $28,-

289,000 in excess of what we purchase from Great Britain, and to the extent of at least $15,000,000 in excess of what we purchase from all the rest of the world, Great Britain included. There were 381 articles on the list of importations, and, of that number, we purchased from the United States in excess of Great Britain- and very largely in excess in most cases-in the case of 269 articles ; and we purchased from Great Britain in excess of our purchases from the United States in the case of 112 articles. Why, Sir, the United States has command of the market of Canada for manufactures. Now, if we cannot sell to these people of whom we buy manufactured goods to the amount of over $65,000,000 to these people of whom our farmers

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RECIPROCITY IN TRADE.
Permalink
?

Total .. ..

Mr. CHARLTON.

buy fully $35,000,000 of that $65,000,000 worth ; to these people who allow our farmers on the other hand to squeeze in a paltry $8,000,000 worth of farm produce through their tariff fence, while over $20,000,000 of farm products exclusive of raw cotton comes into our markets from that country. I say that if we cannot secure some arrangement by which we can exchange the products of our own labour for the immense quantity of goods we buy from them, we had better make arrangements to manufacture the goods ourselves. It will cost us something at the start; but, for my part I am perfectly willing to pay my share of that additional cost.

One more presentation to show how favourable is the position of the United States in this market. 1 have some figures here that will show the free imports into Canada last year

Free Imports, 1901.

p.c.

From the United States, ex.

coin and bullion $53,549,000 74'66

From Great Britain, ex. coin

and bullion 11,118,000 15'50

From all other countries 7,063,000 9'84

These figures show that almost seventy-five per cent of our total importation of free goods come from the United States. And what do they give us in return ? Why, they allowed us to send to them the products of our Klondike mines, our gold dust, our nuggets and our rich gold-bearing quartz. They allowed us also to send them free of duty saw-logs, pulp wood and hop poles, and if there is anything else, I have not had time to look it up. We have practically no free list in return for this free list of 53,000,000 odd dollars. And what did we give them on that free list ? Of this $65,000,000 of manufactures I spoke of a moment ago, $21,941,000 are on the free list. Of these free goods there were $3,464,000 of forest products. While they are putting $2 a thousand on our lumber, we are letting theirs come in here free. Of anthracite coal, $7,871,000 worth was free. Of farm products free of duty, consisting of corn, flax seed, wool, hides, hemp, broom corn, tobacco leaf, etc., $14,775,000 were free, or a total of $48,051,000, besides raw cotton, and if you add that to the list, you make it $52,782,000. This is our free list : $22,000,000 of manufactures, and $14,750,000 of farm products from a country that allows us to sell them-I will show how much shortly.

Here are two specimen - facts that I want to place before you in connection with this large subject. Last year our importation of corn from the United States free of duty was $6,484,000. Last year our total export of agricultural products of all kinds from Canada to the United States was $2,907,000. It lacks $700,000 of being one-half of what we permitted them to send to us in the shape of free corn.

9J

Now here are some figures in relation to our trade in farm products. Our imports from the United States last year were, of animals and their products, dutiable and free, $7,549,758 ; of agricultural products, dutiable and free, $17,919,000, or a total of $25,469,000 of agricultural products imported from the United States last year ; or if you eliminate raw cotton from the list, which is as much an agricultural product as wool, it still leaves $20,737,000. And in return what did they allow us to send them ? Of agricultural products we sent to the United States last year, the produce of Canada, $2,907,924 ; of animals and their products, $5,331,651, a total of $8,239,581 of the products of the farm which we were permitted to sell to the United States last year. We bought from them almost exactly $25,000,000 of the products of the farm, about $15,000,000 of which was up on the free list.

Now in 1866 our exports of farm products to the United States were $25,000,000, and the trade has fallen to one-third of what it was in 1866. In 1866 our exports of farm products to Great Britain were $3,544,000 ; in 1901 they were $78,527,000. That trade increased 2,115 per cent between 1866 and 1901, an increase of 21 fold in the exportation of farm products from Canada to Great Britain, against a decrease of two-thirds in the trade of the United States in the same article. Last year we sent to Great Britain 82 per cent of our total export of farm products, while we sent to the United States 9 per cent. We sent to Great Britain 82 per cent, and to all the rest of the world, the United States included, 18 per cent. Last year we bought articles of the United States raised on the farm in excess of our sales to that country-I do not want to weary you, but I think it would be profitable to read a list of the articles which we purchased in excess of our sales to the United States.

Corn, oats, rye, wheat, cornmeal, oatmeal, rye and wheat flour, malt, seeds, apples, small fruits, potatoes, vegetables, tobacco leaf, broom' corn, hemp, flax seed, horses, bogs, poultry, eggs, butter, lard, bacon, hams, beef salted In barrels, pork in barrels, other meats, grease, hides and skins, wool, and many other articles.

In all these articles, comprising the great bulk of our exportation to the United States, we bought of that country in excess of our sales to them.

Now if the conditions of our trade relations between Canada and the United States are not grotesquely and unfairly unequal, then I confess I am no judge. If these conditions are such as we are called upon to submit to, if we are to go on maintaining trade relations with the United States of the character that have existed for the last thirty-five years, we will certainly show a lack of spirit, and we will also show a lack of comprehension in my opinion of that which our interests require.

I now come, Sir, to the consideration of the question of reciprocity in natural products. I say right here that the very easiest, simplest and most favourable arrangement that we are called upon to make with the United States is to have reciprocal free trade in natural products, without references to any other conditions of tariff or trade. We are not called upon to increase our free list, we are not called upon to reduce our duties ; but we have a right to ask, and should be content with nothing less than reciprocal free trade in natural products. I have spoken of the balance of trade, the actual balance of trade of nearly $72,000,000 in favour of the United States, after eliminating from our exports the precious metals that were an actual payment on the balance of trade. I have pointed out that there is a heavy balance of trade between our exports of farm products and our imports of farm products. We buy of the United States, including cotton, three times as much as we sold to them. We buy of them, eliminating cotton from the list, two and a half times as much as we sell to them. Now, if we were to enter upon an arrangement by which there was free passage to and fro for all these natural products, the first thing we would have to overcome would be this balance of trade in favour of the United States In farm products ; and if the duty were removed, while there would be a great impetus given to importations into the United States from Canada, there would also be an increased amount of purchases in Canada from the United States. In almost all these articles except Indian corn, we impose duties which are calculated to interfere with the trade and to lessen importation. Now, if these duties were removed, we would export more largely to the United States, and of course we would import more largely from the United States ; and I do not believe that the balance of trade, in adjusting balances with reference to the products of the farm, would be a very large sum when we came to let the policy have full scope. For instance here is British Columbia and the Klondike region. Their natural sources of supply for food are Oregon and Washington. Take off the duties and the great bulk of the food that goes into that province and into the Klondike region will come from these two American states. Take off the duties and the maritime provinces will send their coal and lumber to the seaports on the Atlantic coast and will take from these ports nearly the entire amount of food that is consumed by the 900,000 inhabitants, of those provinces. Take off the duties and the mining and lumbering operations of Ontario and Quebec will use largely increased amounts of American corn and meats-and other products.

While we would largely increase our exportations to the United States we would also increase our imports not only of farm products, but also of manufactures. The in-Mr. CHARLTON.

creased trade thus created would be mutually advantageous, and even under this proposed arrangement of free trade in natural products we would round up every year with a balance of $20,000,000 or $30,000,000 against us in our trade with the United States.

There is another question that it is proper to discuss in connection with this matter, a very important question so far as it concerns influence upon American sentiment in relation to this question, and that question is : Would free trade in natural products lower prices in the United States ? Well, with regard to the articles for which both countries have a common market, wheat, cheese and all articles of which both countries produce a surplus and sell that surplus in Great Britain, or elsewhere, it could have no influence whatever upon prices in the United States. If all those articles were taken into the United States the merchants of that country would simply act as our factors in the business of exportation and if they went into the consumption of the United States they would merely displace that amount of the products' of United States that would go abroad. It would, however, have a good influence in Canada, it would increase competition in our markets and introduce new classes of buyers. But as far as prices in the United States are concerned the placing of natural products on the free list would have no appreciable influence upon the prices of such articles as that country, has a surplus of to export.

Then, let us take into consideration the question as to whether free trade would have any influence in the direction of depressing the prices of articles the United States imported from Canada for consumption into that country. I hold in this relation also that it would not. I hold that the volume of importation in any line would be so insignificant compared with the great volume of production in the United States that the comparatively insignificant quantity that went into that country from Canada would have no influence upon prices. I will illustrate this by a few quotations from the United States census of 1890. I have not the returns for 1900 which would be much more favourable to the view that I am endeavouring to present. In 1890 the production of eggs in the United States amounted to 819,722,000 dozen in volume of a value of about $120,000,000. The largest exportation of eggs from this country, when they were free, was about two and a quarter million dollars worth and last year we sent to the United States $7,185 as against a domestic production of $120,000,000. That little dribblet of eggs could have no influence upon the price of the vast production in the United States. In regard to horses, in 1890, there were in round numbers 15,000,000 horses in the United States. We sent them last year 3.289, or one horse for every 4,550

that they had in the country- Suppose we sent them three times as many horses, the exportation of horses would still be one horse for about every 1,500 in the country. Would that one horse in 1,500 influence the price of horses in the United States ? Of cattle last year we exported 46,320 head, while in 1S90 there were 51,363,575 head of cattle in the United States. We sent them one steer for every 1,100 they had in the country. In regard to sheep and lambs, there were about 41,000,000 in the United States in 1890. In 1900 we sent them 309,-0S7, or 1 lamb, or sheep, for every 130 in the country. Of potatoes, in 1890, they had

217.546.000 bushels. We sent last year

255.000 bushels, or one bushel of potatoes for every 920 raised in the United States. Of hay they had in the United States in 1890, 66,831,000 tons, and we exported last year 155,000 ton, or we sent them 1 ton to every 430 raised in the United States. In 1S90, the United .States raised about 79,000,000 bushels of barley, and we sent them last year 85,927, or 1 bushel to every 910. Suppose we increased our export to 7,000,000 bushels, the highest figures of our former importations, the importation of 7,000,000 bushels would have no influence upon the price. Of oats the United States in 1890 raised 809,250,000 bushels and we sent them in 1900 1 bushel for every 42,500 they raised.

Mr. Speaker, when this thing is considered in the light of common sense, when we take the figures of production in the United States and the figures of exportation from Canada, it becomes clearly apparent that the fear that free importation of Canadian products, and particularly of farm products, will have an influence upon American prices is sheer absurdity. Uast year we sent to the United States $7,266,000 worth of sawn lumber. This included what came from St. John, the product of the state of Maine logs, and it included what went through in bond for export. It included vast amounts of lumber bought by the Standard Oil Company for boxes on which they received a rebate of 90 per cent. The product of the United States in sawn lumber in 1890 was $446,000,000 worth-last year it was $100,000,000 more-but take 1890 as the basis of calculation, $446,000,000 worth of lumber was produced, while our export to the United States was $7,266,000, or the entire importation of lumber into the United States was

1.000 feet to every 63,000 feet produced in that country.

Let me present this information in tabulated form.

Sale of Farm Products for Consumption. Eggs in the United States, Census,

1890, 819,722,000 doz.

Value $120,000,000

Largest import from Canada 2,100,000

Last year import from Canada .. .. 7,185

Head.

Horses in the United States, 1890 .. .. 14,969,467

Exported last year 3,289

1 to 4,fa-30.

Head.

Cattle in United States, 1890

51,363,575Exported last year

46,320

1 to 1,100.

Head.

Sheep and lambs in the United States,

1890 40,876,312

Exported last year 309,087

1 to 130.

Bush.

Potatoes in the United States, 1890... 217,546,000

Exported last year 255,000

1 to 920.

Tons.

Hay in the United States, 1890 66,831,480

Exported last year 155,000

1 to 430.

Bush.

Barley in the United States, 1890.. .. 78,322,000

Exported last year 85,927

1 to 910.

Bush.

Oats in the United States, 1890 809,250,000

Exported last year 18,858

1 to 42,500.

Lumber sawn, value produced in 1890. $446,000,000 Lumber sawn, imported in 1901 .. .. 7,266,000

1,000 ft. to 63,000 ft.

We had this matter under discussion before tbe Joint High Commission in Quebec. I presented substantially this argument in relation to lumber, and Mr. Dingley next morning came to me and said : ' Well, Mr. Cbarlton, I admit the soundness of your argument that importations and exportations amounting to only one and a half per cent of the production of our country can have no material influence upon prices. You have convinced me, but perhaps you would have a little more difficulty in convincing the United States Senate '.

I have no hesitation in saying, and I assert with perfect confidence that the fears of the American lumbermen and agriculturists in regard to the supposed effect of reducing prices in the United States on articles from Canada imported free of duty is a mere bugbear.

I noticed the other day an editorial from one of the Canadian papers copied approvingly by the Philadelphia ' Ledger ', an editorial criticising the speech I made in Chicago recently, in which the editor proceeded to set forth that if we had reciprocity of tariffs with the United States it would put us in a bad box, because we would bave to impose a duty on cotton and hides and would be obliged to impose a duty on a great many of tbe things we want for tbe interest of tbe people and which we import free. Well, the policy I am advocating does not contemplate any such nonsense. It does not contemplate hampering the operations of the cotton mills by putting a duty on cotton, it does not contemplate

hampering the operations of the woollen mills by a duty on wool, it does not contemplate hampering the interests of our tanners by a duty on hides. What I ash for is, that we shall have duties upon such things as it is desirable to produce in Canada. We want to foster our manufactures. They can have all the cotton they want. We want to foster our woollen mills. But I want to see some arrangement made by which this $65,000,000 worth of these American goods for which we pay hard cash which we receive from England on account of the handsome balance of trade we have with that country ; I want to see some arrangement by which the Americans will allow us to pay for these goods in the products of our own labourer, I want to see that they are manufactured here.

I spoke upon this question before the Merchants Exchange in Buffalo, and one of the leading Republican papers of that city, admitted next morning the force of my arguments ; admitted that the treatment which Canada received from the United States was hardly what the United States would want to receive from Canada. But, the editor said : There is a consideration

here that we do not want to loose sight of; we want to avoid adopting a policy that would promote the prosperity of Canada, because we must bear in mind that the day may come when Canada will be hostile to the United States, and then we will regret that we did anything to promote her prosperity. The editor of that paper reminded me of the story of the elder of the Presbyterian congregation, who in the course of his charge to the new minister who was being inducted said : Now my dear brother, may the Lord in his great mercy keep you humble, and we will keep you poor. That seems to be the policy the United States propose to adopt towards Canada. They want the Lord to keep us humble, and they will do what they can to aid the Lord in that purpose and they will take every means that lies in their power to keep us poor. That is the policy that they have pursued for thirty-five years. That is the policy that some Canadians resent. That is the policy which in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, nine-tenths of the citizens of Canada will resent when they come to understand this case thoroughly.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the tariff of the Amercan nation is essentially unjust to us, but I have not the remotest anticipation that the presentation of proof to the American people that their tariff is unfair would have the slightest influence on their policy towards us. These circumstances do not weigh in the United States; they do not have weight here. The policy is that after you have secured the advantage, you should hold it, and that. I think, will be the policy of the United States. I remember discussing this question with John Sherman when he was Secretary of the Treasury for the Mr. CHARLTON.

United States, and I laid before Mr. Sherman the condition of trade between the two countries, and the reason that Canada had to complain of the tariff policy of the United States. I think I made it perfectly apparent to Mr. Sherman that we were not getting, as the saying is, a fair, show; but when I got through, Mr. Sherman said: ' Well, Mr. Charlton, I

think that our tariff suits us pretty well.' 'Yes,' I said, ' I rather think Mr. Sherman that it does, and I think moreover that the time will come when the Canadian people will discover that your tariff does not suit them, and then you will have either to do something to remove its bad features or we will do something ourselves to counteract them.'

The question is; whether we should not do that now. My proposition, Mr. Speaker, is simply this. I want to give the Americans an inducement to be just; an inducement to the extent of 40 per cent or more, of the duties levied upon their imports into this country. I would make it 50 per cent; 1 would make it 60 per cent; I would make it 75 per cent; I would make it almost anything to be effectual if we enter upon this business. I know very well the feelings of the American people. If they see a prospect of this being adopted, then they will be prepared to consider the nature of their own policy on its merits, and we will probably be able to do something. If the inducement is not sufficient; if the inducement when it is offered does not bring the concessions we hope and desire, why all right. We have simply threatened to do what we will do, we have simply threatened to do what it will be in our interest to do, and so far as I feel about this thing, I do not know that I care a very great deal which thing is done, but I am very clearly of the opinion that one thing or the other had better be done. I know that my hon. friend to my right (Mr. Edwards) and my hon. friend to my left (Mr. Ross, Victoria) may tell me that I have gone stark mad on the question of protection. Well, this is a matter out of the ordinary line of protection. This, Mr. Speaker, is a question of self-protection. Here, we are alongside of a mighty nation of 80,000,000 people. Our sons and our daughters are drifting to that country; the choice of our population goes there. We have no arrangement in our trade with them that gives us the advantages which we have a right to demand, and if we cannot get fair trade relations with that great nation, trade relations mutually advantageous and just, then I say that it is not a question of protection per se, but that it is a question of self-protection. It is a question whether we will turn the left cheek when we have been smitten on the right cheek, or whether we will assert our own independence, and proceed upon the principle that the best thing possible for us to do is to care for our own interests.

X am not insensible of tbe benefits of free trade. I am well aware that tbe greatest blessing tbe United States enjoys to-day is that uninterrupted free trade that exists between tbe forty-four states and tbe seven territories of tbe American union. I know that this policy bas been fraught with nothing but blessings since it was adopted when their constitution was first ratified. I know that very well, and I know that tbe nearest approach we can make, in our relations with tbe United States to that same trade condition that exists between tbe various states of tbe American union- tbe better for ourselves. And so far as our condition will permit, X am in favour of tbe adoption of that American interstate free trade policy. We must have of course a tariff for revenue. We cannot adopt tbe zollverein, but we can adopt free trade in natural products, and we can allow a trade to grow up between these two countries in all tbe articles which are mentioned in our imports and exports, which trade will attain enormous proportions and be to our mutual advantage. But we have got to have that matter arranged on a fair basis. We cannot go on as we have been going on. Tbe Americans profess now-many of them-to be prepared to give this country commercial union. Well, tbe time was I am perfectly frank in saying it-tbe time was when I was under tbe impression that a zollverein between Canada and the United States would promote our interests. In many respects I am prepared to say it would do so now. But, a zollverein is not now practical. A zollverein now would simply involve the sacrificing of Imperial interests that we cannot honourably sacrifice. We have built up a trade with Great Britain; she is our chief customer for our exports; we are a portion of tbe empire of which she is tbe bead. To adopt commercial union would be to discriminate against England-to discriminate very seriously against England. We would put tbe United States upon the same footing with regard to our exports. We would adopt tbe American tariff, or have a common tariff, which would give to tbe United States tbe advantage in our markets which would be represented by the amount of duty imposed, whatever that might be; and while it would give us uninterrupted access to the American market, there would be no investment of money in manufacturing operations in this country. We would buy our goods manufactured in the United States, because no man would invest money in manufacturing here under such an arrangement as a commercial union, that would be liable to be terminated and leave his investment worthless. So that as a question which may be ruled out of court a question to which, after full reflection, we can hardly give a favourable consideration.

There may arise in connection with this matter a complication of an unexpected character. It is possible that Great Britain may conclude to give a preference to the colonies-possible that we may have some arrangement by which duties shall be levied by England and all the colonies on all imports from the outside world; possible that we may get a duty of 10 per cent on wheat. If this policy were adopted, it would turn reciprocity down. I imagine that if the Americans want to improve then-trade relations with Canada, and retain a position which is advantageous to themselves, they had better make haste to give this country reciprocity in natural products ; for the time may come, and come soon, when this country would not accept or would not listen to such a proposition.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the House for having detained it so long.

I wish to recapitulate just a few of the points I have made. One point is that our tariff is one-half lower than the tariff of the United States-that it permits the admission of American goods into this market almost without impediment, while their tariff excludes our products from their market. The next point is that we give to the United States, notwithstanding the lack of liberality and generosity which they show towards us. lower tariff rates than we give to the rest of the world-lower tariff rates than we give to the mother country. The next point is that we buy from the United States three times as much as we sell to them. Last year we bought from them $119,000,000 worth, while we sold to them, after taking out the precious metals, less thau $42,000,000. Another point is that we buy from the United States three times as much agricultural products as we sell to them, if we include cotton ; two and a half times as much as we sell to them, if we exclude cotton. The next point is that we buy manufactures chiefly from the United States-$15,000,000 worth more than from the rest of the world, $28,000,000 more than from England ; and in view of the fact that we are the best customer they possess on the globe for the finished products of their factories, we have abundant reason for complaint. Another point is that while the United States is doing this enormous business with us, while we are their third best customer for total imports and their best customer for manufactured goods, we are not allowed to exchange the products of our labour for the goods we buy, the very first princiifle of commercial transactions. We are a four-fold better customer of the United States than we were in 1806, while they are not as good a customer of ours as they were at that time. Our business with them has increased with four times the rapidity that their business has increased with us. The United States has nearly obliterated our farmer's market in their country, which is smaller to-day than it was in 1866, when

our population was only three-fifths of what it is to-day.

Now, the country tires of these conditions; they are intolerable. Something must be done to change the trade conditions that exist between the United States and Canada. Free trade in natural products would afford a reasonable adjustment ; nothing short of this would do it ; and this concession of free trade in natural products must, be granted by the United States without a solitary concession from Canada further than those we have already made ; we cannot afford any more. If we are denied these reasonable concessions, I repeat again, we can resort to self-protection, and that is the policy we must pursue.

Sir, we have illimitable resources. Year by year our conception of the natural wealth this country possesses rises. There is not an intelligent Canadian who does not believe twice as much to-day as he believed five years ago with regard to the potential wealth of Canada. We have in Nova Scotia, as American iron masters were well aware when I was chairman of the Mining Commission of Ontario in 1889-we have in the iron region of Cape Breton conditions which will enable us to produce iron at a lower cost per ton than is possible at any other place in the world, even at Birmingham, Alabama. That business will develop until we shall supply our own wants and export iron and steel in vast quantities, and compete witli the United States in the neutral markets of the world. We talk about New Ontario; but we have a New Quebec stretching up to James bay, a great region where there are thirty thousand square miles of virgin country, with admirable soil, with a good climate, and capable of supporting hundreds of thousands of inhabitants. We have New Ontario developing with rapid strides, in agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and lumbering-a region possessing vast wealth. We have Hudson bay, our closed sea, one-third larger than the German ocean, towards which we are stretching out railway lines from Quebec, from Montreal, from Toronto ; a great expanse of water, with great piscatorial wealth. We have on the Ungava river, in Labrador and on the eastern shores of Hudson bay, millions and trillions of tons of iron. We have the isothermal line stretching from the American boundary to the shores of the Great Slave lake and inclosing a vast region in every part of which spring opens almost simultaneously, where four hundred million acres of wheat land are awaiting the plough of the husbandman. We have a vast auriferous region extending along the American boundary for three hundred miles to the west of the Rocky mountains, and to the north fourteen hundred miles. We can support a hundred million people from the products of our soil. We have fisheries, minerals, timber resources, and agricultural resources

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RECIPROCITY IN TRADE.
Permalink
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

beyond the fondest and wildest dreams we entertained but a few years ago, and, Sir, we putter along, making an advance in population of 11 or 104 per cent each decade. Shall we go along at the ambling pace we have been pursuing, increasing our population in thirty years from 3,600,000 to five and a quarter millions ? Why, it will take us two hundred years at this rate to people the country, which we have awaiting settlement. Something needs to be done ; some change of policy is desirable. It is for us to consider what it is. One thing is certain : we do not want to continue the trade conditions that exist between us and the United States. We do not want to pay them tribute annually to the extent of from $50,000,000 to $70,000,000. We want from them some concessions uiat will enable us to trade with them upon a fair basis. The policy I have to propose is one that will give to any country which admits our natural products free of duty a preference over all countries that do not do so. That will settle the question of the maximum rate with Germany in a summary manner. It will give the United States an inducement to deal with us fairly, and if that inducement does not produce the result desired, we will simply go on and map out a course of our own and strike out our own pathway to empire in the best way we can.

I beg, therefore, to move :

That this House is of the opinion that Canadian import duties should be arranged upon the principle of reciprocity in trade conditions bo far as may be consistent with Canadian interests ; that a rebate of not less than 40 per cent of the amount of duties imposed, should be made upon dutiable imports from nations or countries admitting Canadian natural products into their markets free of duty ; and that the scale of Canadian duties should be sufficiently high to avoid inflicting injury upon Canadian interests in cases where a rebate of 40 per cent or more shall be made under the conditions aforesaid.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RECIPROCITY IN TRADE.
Permalink
LIB

William Cameron Edwards

Liberal

Mr. W. C. EDWARDS (Russell).

I cannot hope, Mr. Speaker, to command the attention of the House to anything like the extent to which the hon. gentleman, who has just taken his seat, has succeeded in doing, for not only do I lack the well known parliamentary skill of the hon. gentleman in debate, but I labour under the further disadvantage that the line of argument which I propose to take, is not one likely to commend itself to hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, or to appeal to their sympathies as do the sentiments just expressed by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). At the outset of his remarks, my hon. friend said that the policy he proposed to commend to the House was one which he considered best in principle. In taking this stand, he nailed his colours to the mast absolutely as a protectionist pure and simple. Had he said that the course he proposed, was one he considered best, under the existing conditions, as a

policy, but not as a question of principle, then the position he took would be an entirely different one. He asserts, however, policy, but not as a question of principle, Well, Mr. Speaker, I entirely dissent from the hon. gentleman's proposition. I submit that the course he advocates is neither best as a policy for the Canadian people nor is it best in principle. It is not the policy we ought to adopt, no matter what the Americans may do.

The hon. gentleman pointed out that while our imports from the United States have largely increased, our exports to that country showed a decrease, despite the fact that we are giving a preference of 33 i per cent to English goods over American imports. He then went on to show that our tariff in general is higher on the dutiable goods coming from Great Britain than on the same class of goods from the United States. To those who do not consider or understand the situation, that statement may have some force, but to me it has no force at all. In order that it should be properly understood, my hon. friend should have taken the articles imported from the United States and shown what tariff they paid, and then compared the rates of duty with those on goods imported from England. If he will do this lie will find that many of the articles which we buy from the United States are those which England does not manufacture at all. But if it be true that Canadians, notwithstanding the more favourable tariff on English goods, wilfully buy their wants from the United States, then the people of Canada are not only disloyal but a pack of fools. Why do Canadians buy more largely from the United States than from England ? Because it is in their interest to do so.

The hon. gentleman then went on to show the very rapid growth of the United States as compared with Canada. No one will deny that the growth and development of the United States has been most wonderful in every respect. And we must also admit that the growth of Canada has not been relatively as great. But there are other causes for this disparity besides the trade question. I am of the opinion that a great many immigrants from European countries, where the governmental system is very autocratic and severe, and no doubt also many people coming from our own British Isles, imagine that in the United States they will find a freer country than Canada. Of course, no Canadian, no one who knows anything of the institutions of this country, will doubt for a moment that we are the freer of the two, but none the less is it undeniable that that is not the opinion of the mass of the people who live in European countries, especially on the continent.

There is another fact which must not be lost sight of, and that is the geographical position of the United States. The United States is a country of great breadth and depth. It has many natural resources which

Canada does not possess. Its geographical conditions are certainly more favourable. In Canada we occupy a long strip of country-our transit being from east to west. And until there are more means of outlet for the products of our great North-west, until there is competition for the carriage of these products, that country cannot make its greatest development.

But what are the conditions to-day ? My hon. friend says that Canadians are going to the United States. No, Sir, things have changed in that respect. It is not Canadians who are going to the United States, but Americans who are coming to this country to settle here. There are reasons for that. Canada is, to-day, making the very greatest development it ever made. And I just want to show the hon. gentleman that he has proved the very reverse of the position he takes. Any one who watched his speech closely, cannot come to any other conclusion than that it was one of the most illogical speeches ever made in this House.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RECIPROCITY IN TRADE.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Oh, oh.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RECIPROCITY IN TRADE.
Permalink
CON

Henry Alfred Ward

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ED WARDS.

That is the style of argument we hear from hon. gentlemen opposite, and that is the extent of their understanding of this question. Now, I will make a statement and will challenge satisfactory contradiction. Has our tariff in Canada been raised ? No. The consequence of giving the preference of 33J per cent to Great Britain is to lower the prices of goods in the country. But that is a very small matter indeed. The effect of that reduction of tariff is to lower the prices of all similar goods coming into this country. And my statement is that it is in consequence of the lowering of our duties Canada is now making the greatest development she has ever made.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RECIPROCITY IN TRADE.
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS

Oh, oh.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   RECIPROCITY IN TRADE.
Permalink

February 24, 1902