April 23, 1914

LIB

Michael Clark

Liberal

Mr. CLARK:

I am not a millenium producer. When we have a per-9 p.m. feet balance, we will all be angels and we will not eat either eggs or beef. What as to the other alternative of which hon. gentlemen opposite spoke so much about two and a half years ago, (but of which we do not hear so much to-day? I have here some words which the present Minister of Trade and Commerce used in a speech he delivered on the subject of reciprocity in this House two or three years ago. He said:

What are the distinctive features of this treaty and how far do they conform to the conditions of reciprocity? Suppose I am a maker of jack-knives of a certain quality and my hon. friend opposite is a maker of jack-knives of the same quality. I could send over to him and buy a dozen jack-knives and he could send over to me and buy a dozen jack-knives, and this might be called trade, but there would be reciprocity about it.

Of course all the gentlemen opposite who were in the House at that time cheered him to the echo. No possibility of reciprocity between the United States and Canada because it would be only an exchange of jack-knives! And then the minister went on to proclaim his alternative :

Two countries that show ideal conditions of reciprocity in trade would be the West India islands and Canada.

That was a very cleverly stated alternative policy on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In the same speech, using those powers of ridicule which, after all, do not carry a man very far, he gave a wonderful description of how two old fellows went down to Washington-estimable gentlemen but in no way very able- and got closeted with the Government authorities there, and of how they cut the telephone off and drew up the reciprocity agreement; and the minister showed how futile it would all be. But since that time, following out his idea of an alternative, he has been visited in Ottawa by no less than fourteen old or young gentlemen from the West Indies, accompanied by their wives. I do not know whether the telephone was cut off in this case but a treaty was made with the West Indies, and we wasted considerable time last session in the discussion of that treaty and other matters-that is,

the Government and ttieir supporters wasted time by presenting it to us, and they had to introduce the closure to finish up the work of the session. Well now, what about that alternative, the treaty with the West Indies, that ideal place for trade? My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) put a question on the Order Paper the other day asking for the figures of our trade with the West Indies for the last six months of 1912-prior to this wonderful treaty-and for the last six months of 1913, during which the treaty was in operation. The figures showed that where conditions were ideal for trade, and where a treaty had been made by those people who knew so much better how trade should be done than we did, our trade decreased with the West Indies by $600,000. That is the way they have been increasing the trade of the country. During the /Same period the people of this country have increased their trade not by tens but by hundreds of thousands of dollars with the United States, where we could only exchange jack-knives. Of course, we were told there would be danger to the empire in that trade. The real danger to the empire is from people who base the permanence of [DOT]the imperial connection on a wrong foundation, and they are the worst friends of the empire. If trade with the United States means annexation, we are annexed now. The condition of our people does not brook any longer this foolish talk. The people know now that it was foolish talk. Our friends opposite are great admirers of Britain and everything British. How did Britain regard the Wilson-Underwood tariff? In London, within a few weeks of that tariff coming into operation, there vras a meeting of the shareholders of a sugar company with large interests in the West Indies. The shareholders were told by the chairman that the company was going to do ever so much better trade in future because they had now free entry to the markets of the United States for their sugar from the West Indies. And yet gentlemen opposite, who admire everything British, coine here and weave the most ingenious and elaborate arguments to show the folly of trading with the United States, and the danger to the empire that comes from such trade. How would a business firm act in regard to this matter? I venture to think our individual citizens in Canada are as sensible as the individual citizens of the old country, and that, taking every legitimate advantage of the Wilson-Underwood tariff, they are forcing their business in

the United States. But we have got a Government in power-and that is what is the matter with this Government-"who are not up to the average of the individual citizen of this country in commercial intelligence. '

Now faced with these conditions, faced with this condition of trade which barely shows an increase and faced with this commercial depression, what does the Government do in its Budget? It is notable that in the tariff changes which are made the minister refuses free wheat, (does his best by that to limit our export) puts a large line of duties on iron and steel (and does his best to limit our imports) therefore showing that he is a thorough believer in the home market argument although I must do him the credit of saying that he does not use it quite as much as others do.

I want to dwell upon the tariff changes and the arguments of the Minister of Finance for a few minutes, endorsed as they were by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. I was rather surprised to find that the somewhat extensive tariff changes were made. Free wheat, of course, my hon. friend was bound to deal with but the other tariff changes were rather a surprise to me for the reason that in the debate on the address my hon. friend had said that to alter the tariff in times like these could have no effect but to dislocate the industries of the country. He said that in the debate on the Address about three months ago, and I was therefore very much surprised when I saw that he had announced tariff changes. As to the dislocation of the industries of the country, with the unemployed that are flooding our towns, with factories closing down and the exodus from our western farms, I think there is considerable dislocation already. It is not causing dislocation of industries that the Government want to look to but the prevention of it; there is already too much dislocation.

Of course, I do not quite agree with him that this is not the time to change the tariff because if we are not to change the tariff when we are depressed the minister would offer a far stronger argument for not changing it when we are prospering. Therefore, as long as he is minister the tariff is eternal; he would never alter the tariff. I am very glad that he changed the frame of mind that he was in because it betokened a departure from financial sanity. Having got over this surprise, I was very much interested again when the minister proceeded to give us a brand new theory of

protection. He said that a protective tariff is a structure fearfully and wonderfully made-I am reading between the lines-and he further said that you have to look at the solidarity of the structure. That was news to my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen). It surely conflicts with the original theory of protection. What is the original theory of protection? We have heard it again in this debate. It is that you must bolster up infant industry, that you must help infant industry. But according to the new theory, the minister himself contemplates all industries reaching maturity at the same time my hon. friend says that the industrial family are all infants. They grow in beauty side by side and you must not interfere with one of them until they are all matured. That is why you could not interfere with the tariff. Then he goes on and interferes with some of them but interferes with them mostly to put them upwards. He was so insistent upon this new theory that he betook himself to the creation of epigrams. He said, in a previous debate, that free food means free trade. He was replying to some remarks of my own in a particular speech and if I had not already spoken in the debate I should have wanted to ask him why he was so angry with me, or why he chided me so strongly, because I had said that President Wilson had torn protection up by the roots in the United States. They have practically free food in the United States, and if that means free trade it looks as if the minister's new epigram means that we must have free trade at once. According to the minister, this policy in the United States means free trade, and if that be true my hon. friend's epigram means free trade. I offer my very sincere thanks to the minister for his conception. I think I understand what he means. I think he means that once you give free trade along certain lines it will follow in others. I congratulate him upon seeing so clearly.

I cannot congratulate him, however, upon the position he took in his economic work on behalf of Canada. As Great Britain is a free trade country and, according to the minister's epigram, the United States is rapidly becoming a free trade country, he will have to go to Russia and Japan for his economic companions. I do not like to see my hon. friend taking a position like that for the great body of Canadians. Does my hon. friend see what he commits himself to there? Free food, says my hon. friend, means free trade. Well, now, would it be

possible to turn back? Suppose we gave free implements, we could turn back instead of going on. Does not the minister know the position he implies when he says that free implements means free trade? He says that if you give the people of the East and the West a taste of this thing it will prove so nice to them that they will go on and put the whole policy into operation? I do not think he quite saw what he was committing himself to. The Solicitor General did not argue on this theory when he was arguing the question of agricultural implements. He argued the question of agricultural implements in his most able manner absolutely on the merits of agricultural implements, and he proved that there was good ground for a part of the policy embodied in the amendment of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition.

I wish to offer some more congratulations to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. I want to congratulate him on the fact that he did alter the tariff and he did it without the help of a tariff commission. Two years ago he indicated to Parliament and to the country that a tariff commission was absolutely necessary to the proper and scientific handling of the tariff. But I think he has, by his recent action,, taken a position in which we can ask him to acknowledge that he owes the Senate thanks for their action upon that particular measure. There would have been an enormous amount of money spent annually by the commission and I think my hon. friend owes the Senate his warmest thanks for their opposition in regard to it, not only because they opposed in a measure the commission, but because of the amendment which they introduced to the Commission Bill. What was their amendment? The-amendment was to the effect that in dealing with the tariff we should look to the-interests of the consumers as well as to-the interests of the producers. I want to-call the attention of the House to the fact that in his tariff changes the minister seems to have been absolutely innocent of the thought that there are either farmers or consumers in this country. The tariff changes, according to hi3 own showing in his Budget speech, have been carried out in the interests of producers of certain commodities. Take free wheat-to whose representations did he give weight and attention? To the millers? I give him credit for the painstaking work that he and his

helpers have dope but when he gave ns the particulars it was apparent that fifty per cent of the case that he presented to us was made up of information relating purely to the people engaged in the agricultural implement industry. Be has examined the hooks of these people; he has examined the condition of these people; he has found out that they are the bankers of the farmers. I wonder if it did not strike the minister that he ought to have examined into the financial condition of the farmers who are in such a condition that the implement makers have to be their bankers. What does that fact mean ? It means that the settlers are tied body and soul to pay not only for the implements but huge interest upon their cost from year to year, and that is one of the causes that has produced the condition of the West to-day. Surely further inquiry should have been made into the financial condition of these farmers.

In regard to the iron duties, the minister also examined into the iron industry. He does not seem to have seen the need of looking at the effect of this change in duty upon any one except those engaged in the industry of steel and iron. Yet my hon. friend pretends that the policy of which he is the exponent is a national policy. It is sectional, nothing but sectional and always sectional. My hon. friend admitted that in the very method by which he put his arguments on agricultural implements before the House. He enumerated every place in Canada where implements were made and, by the witty retort with which he met an interruption of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), he showed that in his own mind this protection is a local and a sectional thing. He hoped that he would be able to outlive the mistake of having overlooked Brantford in his enumeration.

There is no need, in my judgment, for a long argument upon the question of free wheat. That question was debated and voted upon in this House during the present session; but it is permissible and I think is my duty to look at the arguments by which the minister has satisfied himself that he ought to refuse free wheat. The arguments which have weighed most with him are very peculiar. In the first place he doubted, like my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, whether the price of wheat would be raised, because he says that the price is fixed at Liverpool. This is quite true in a degree, but not the price to the farmer. It is a truth that has been very well known for a great many years.

Mr. Gladstone put forward that argument in regard to America. He once said:

It has been very well said, and very truly said though it is a smart antithesis-the American agriculturist has got to buy everything that he wants at prices that are fixed in Washington by the legislature of America, but he has got to sell everything at prices which are fixed at Liverpool by the free competition of the world.

That argument is only partially true today, because it was used thirty years ago. The fact to-day is the fact brought out by my right hon. leader this afternoon, namely, that the price which the farmer gets and the price which the consumer pays are both to a large extent fixed by the combines. This consideration explains what, the minister tells us, puzzled the people of Ontario during the last election. What puzzled the people of Ontario in the last election was how you could possibly benefit the producer and the consumer at the same time. It is a fact, capable of absolute proof, that you can do so. In my native county of Northumberland in England, for several harvests past, as soon as the wheat was garnered, the farmers in the northern part of that country received into their hands an average price of 96 cents a bushel for their wheat. That is under freedom of trade. It was proved to-day, not to the satisfaction but to the dissatisfaction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that in the same county of England where the farmers are getting into their hands 96 cents a bushel for their wheat as opposed to the bare 65 cents a bushel which the farmers in' southern Alberta and Saskatchewan get, flour containing Manitoba wheat is being sold cheaper than it is sold in Winnipeg. That is the fact. What is the explanation? The explanation is that, when you shut out competition and create combines, these combines give what they like to the producer and take what they like from the consumer. Last night my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Lai or), who almost led one to believe that he is a lineal descendant of the good Samaritan and is spending his time giving away tomatoes these days, denied that there were any combines. Yet in reply to an interruption by my hon. friend from Strathcona (Mr. Douglas) he actually admitted that the farmer in Ontario is getting something like twenty -five and thirty cents a bushel from year to year for his tomatoes and that the consumer is paying some years something like thirty cents for two or three cans. 1 do not know how many cans of canned tomatoes you can get from one bushii oi tom a toes and a barrel of water, but there is a

tremendous spread of profit between the twenty-five or thirty cents that goes to the farmer and the enormous sum that is got out of that barrel of water. That is what is raising the cost of living to the poor people of this country. It is the combines that are doing these things. In a recent debate I advanced the argument to the minister that the high cost of living in this country was due to the tariff and the combines that arose under the tariff, and he replied to me in the course of the same debate that it was not a sound argument that the tariff .is the cause of the high cost of living, because the price has gone up more than the tariff in so many years. It was not quite a fair argument on the part of my hon. friend to deal with only fifty per cent of what I advanced. I never said that the tariff alone was responsible for the high cost of living; I said that the tariff together with the combines was, and I want to give a confirmatory opinion of my own. Mr. Woodrow Wilson said:

It is now no longer arguable that these combinations do not settle what prices shall be paid; settle how much the product shall be, and settle moreover, what shall be the market for labour.

The other argument which seems to have satisfied my hon. friend in refusing free wheat was a more peculiar one. He said, before you try the market to the South, you should wait until you get the Transcontinental railway completed East and West and until you get the Hudson Bay railway completed. Is my hon. friend serious when he asks us to wait until these railways are completed, which will be in the time of our prosperity to which my hon. friend is sending his borrowings? I endorse what my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) said in regard to the Hudson Bay railway. I never said a word in its behalf on any platform in this country, and I myself have very little belief in the clearness of the economic thought of any one who seriously turns aside to avoid a market of 90,000,000 people and goes and builds a railroad where you have to navigate amongst the seals and icebergs in the hope that you will be able to dispose of your wheat.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   '2364 COMMONS
Permalink
LIB
LIB

Alfred Henry Clarke

Liberal

Mr. CLARKE:

I would not like to

send my wheat there for any months in the year; I have very little belief in the project. I know that both parties have supported this project, but I wish to put in a

word for my own party, because when they were in power the case was altogether different. The Liberal party did foolish enough things when in power, but they never were foolish enough to prefer the Hudson Bay road to an assured market of a hundred million people. That market was not open to ns then, and the Hudson Bay road was an alternative to nothing south of the line. But to propose to the farmers of the West that they should wait for this railroad development is a very weak argument-certainly it is utterly unsatisfactory to my mind. I should say that the policy for people who want to do business and develop the country along wise lines is to try that which is at youir hand-try the market to the south and go on with that when you can. get it.

But this whole argument of the Minister of Finance was vitiated, as was that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce this afternoon, by the thought that all this fine dreaming, all this fine political weaving can be reduced to naught by the United States Government. The interruption was perfectly pertinent, I think, of some hon. member on this sido who asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce: What will you do when the duty is taken off wheat by the United States Government? We are absolutely at the mercy of the United States in that matter. They have proven that in the case of cattle. Everything that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce advanced about the impossibility of trade south of the line was advanced with regard to cattle as well as with regard to wheat two years ago. And everything advanced with regard to cattle has been absolutely falsified by what has happened and the prophecies of hon. gentlemen opposite are discounted to that extent. We on this side of the House have the right to say that our predictions and the position we took two years ago have been absolutely justified; and I believe that if free trade in wheat were given we should be justified in that particular also.

I should like my hon. friend opposite to compare the dignified position which Canada occupied under the reciprocity treaty with that to which the people of Canada have been reduced by the attitude of the present Government. When we arranged reciprocity we made a treaty which was equally honourable to ns and to the United States, a treaty under which we should have

dealt on equal terms. But with a Government supinely holding their hands and incapable of doing anything, the Canadian people are, if you like, dragged into commerce by the scruff of the neck by a foreign Government. I give the people that thought as showing that the policy of the present Government is weakness itself compared with that of theisr predecessor.

There is a great responsibility resting upon my hon. friend yet in this matter, and upon the Government of which he is a member. I wish to impress this upon him. And the responsibility is all the' greater because it has been proven past all doubt by the action of the Conservative Manitoba Legislature that even in Manitoba there is no difference on this subject. I presume that the members of the Manitoba Legislature are aware what is the opinion of the people of that province. Yet my friends opposite come forward as exponents of what they call a national policy and tell the West not to look at things sectionally. What harm can it do the East if we get free trade in wheat? Of all the peculiar arguments I have ever listened to, the argument directed to the idea that you can hurt, for example, the manufacturers of agricultural implements by promoting the prosperity of the farmers is the most peculiar. Did ever any one hear such nonsense talked-you make prosperous farmers and you thereby ruin the manufacturers of agricultural implements. That is the true National Policy-build your farmers, and they will build your railways and youT manufacturers as well.

Now, I do not need to dwell long upon the question of free implements; I will just say that I think the Government have made a great mistake in the way they 'have handled this subject. They are very inconsistent in touching it at all. We heard something from my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce this afternoon about a political policy. I do not think that the Government in taking off a paltry five per cent from the duties on two lines of implements can be said to have acted absolutely free from political considerations. I do not think they believe that this change will affect the prices of implements one jot or tittle. This reduction has been given to save the face of my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Meighen) and the other Conservative representatives from western Canada-that is the whole object of this paltry reduction. Sound economics following the line of argument of my hon. friend's speech would teach that the only way to be sure

of decreasing the revenue from these articles-and if we are going to economize, we must decrease revenue and take less from the pockets of the people-would be to make the implements free; and the only way you can be sure of reducing the price to the farmer is to make them free, as Mr. Wilson has done in the United States. We are told that this will destroy the industry.

I do not believe it. Did the placing of cream separators on the free list destroy the industry on cream separators? There are splendid and flourishing cream separator manufactories in this country. Why? Because the moment you made these machines free to that extent you helped the dairy industry, and the dairy industry reacts upon the cream separator industry. And there you have exactly the proper method of developing an industry and increasing the prosperity of this country. My hon. friends who are protectionists are continually trying to build the prosperity of the country by poising the cone upon its apex. You must put the cone upon its base, and the apex will stand all right-it requires a juggler to do it the other way, not an economist.

Now, I wish to say something in conclusion about the iron and steel duties. I am bound to admit that while the placing of these duties on iron and steel like the reduction of the implement duties will not have much effect in Western Canada one way or the other, it is a very astute political move. As such it is a strange comment on the term ' national ' as applied to the protectionist policy. It appeals to Nova Scotia and to Ontario, and it has made its appeal in these directions in a way that is interesting to me as a free trader looking on. The very fact that it is an astute political move is the strongest condemnation of it economically; it is an unwise move economically just because it is not a national policy. The hon. Minister of Finance indicated, as have certain other speakers, that the iron and steel industry is next in importance to agriculture in this country. I do not agree with that; transporation, railways, is the next in my opinion. And this is where the mistakes come in of putting these duties upon steel and iron. It is sometimes said that protection is a good policy for a young country. Here is an interesting sidelight upon the study of the problem: the name of John StuaTt Mill was mentioned by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Thompson) as giving his authority to that view. Well, I have somewhere a pamphlet containing

several letters from Mr. Mill, in which he expressed the utmost regret that in a moment of inadvertence he had given passing countenance to that opinion. But we do not need to depend upon authority for the settlement of that question; we are a young country; we have common sense, and we can settle it for ourselves. We can settle for ourselves whether the duties on steel and iron are good for a young country. Is there anyone who will get up in this House and deny that transportation to the farms and to the people of this country is next in importance to the basic industry of agriculture? I do not think any western member will. The Government and their supporters admit my views upon this matter; they say: we agree with you that railways are very important; let us promote the building of railways by making iron dear. Is that good logic? Is it common sense? You will promote the building of railroads by making iron cheap; if you put a tariff upon iron you make iron dear, and to that extent you put obstacles in the way of the development of a young country. England could afford tar better than Canada to have a tax upon steel and iron. England has now 20 miles of railway to every 100 square miles of the country; that means that no one in England is, on the average, more than two and a half miles from a railway. England, an old country, could much better afford, from this transportation point of view, to have taxes upon steel [DOT]and iron than we can. But, after all, what is the good of arguing with a Government that talks about building railroads by making iron and steel dear? What is the good of arguing with a Government that gives bounties or imposes duties in favour of the iron and steel industry, and then puts up its Solicitor General to talk for three hours and a half in favour of wooden trestles on railways? The way to promote the iron and steel industry is to use iron and steel, not wooden trestles. If I were the Solicitor General, I would not take a brief for wooden trestles; I would leave a wooden argument like that to wooden heads. The people do not want iron. I do not want any iron; what is the good of mere iron to me? I want nails; I want stoves and I want railways; I do not want iron. But you make all these things that I do want costly by putting duties upon steel rods; you make the things the people actually do want costly, and then you say that protection is a good thing for a young

country. I am a young inhabitant of a young country, and I am reminded by these good things that are said to me of the labourer in the south of England, who, in the anti-corn law days, made the most effective speech ever made against protection. He went on the platform and said: 'Ladies and gentlemen, I he's protected; I he's starvin' and I am agin protection.' The men who make nails are already complaining. This particular industry of iron and steel is a good illustration of all the evils of the protective system. Cheap iron and steel would help the railroads; it would help shipping; it would help the making of cutlery; it would help the making of stoves; it would help the making of agricultural implements and all the things that a young country really wants, but dear iron operates the other way. Who does it help, this iron industry? The millionaires; granted. I mentioned this point before: Mr. Carnegie retired from the steel trust of America recently with a reputed income of $1,000,000 a month. Yes, it makes- the millionaire; it makes them Schwabs and Carnegies-there is no doubt about that. I have tried to show in the sentence I have just uttered that it does not help the consumers, and who are left as a special class- the labourers. The time is coming, and coming rapidly on this continent, when the people are going to see that the workingman is not helped by protection. I think a puncture was put in that bubble this afternoon by my right hon. leader when he analyzed the figures the Minister of Finance gave in regard to that and showed the miserable wages that are being earned on the average by the people engaged in the food industry. This idea of protection helping the workingman, shared by the Minister of Finance, as quoted by my right hon. friend, is an example of the persistence of an unfounded belief. So far as I have been able to examine the question I am unacquainted with a single fact in support of the contention that protection helps the workingman. A11 the facts I have been able to find point the other way. It is an old belief. I think in the very first speech he delivered in the House of Commons in 1841, Mr. Cobden, replying to a statement that free trade in grain meant the reduction of wages, used the following language, the simplicity and completeness of which cannot be improved upon:

We should, by free trade in corn, very much increase our trade. How can this be done, unless by an Increased amount of labour? How can we call into requisition an increased de-

mand for labour without also increasing the rate of wages?

That was the argument put in simple language by one of the greatest men that ever lived, though he never got inside a cabinet -perhaps that was because of his size- and I defy any one to meet that statement. That was a prophecy; how did it work out? Who was right? The fact is that in Britain the actual prices of labour rose after the repeal of the corn laws and the introduction of free trade faster than they ever have done in any civilized country in the world and they have risen until the labourers of Britain are the aristrocrats of European labour; they get higher wages, whether for skilled or for unskilled labour than are paid anywhere else on the continent. At that very time-I come now to another fact in this argument; I hope I am not wearying the House-at that very time Mr. Cobden pointed to the United States, long before there was any protection there, as the El Dorado of the workingman: as the place where the workingman should go to earn larger wages. Now, what facts have we got? That the -wages were miserably poor in Britain under protection and that at the time they were poor in Britain under protection they were high in the United States under free trade. Mr. Carey, who wrote a book called Past, Present and Future, said that one of the reasons given for the introduction of protection in the United States was that it would reduce the wages which were too high. That is to be found on record in that book. Compare that with the condition of wages in the United States to-day. Wages in Britain have gone up; nobody who knows the facts will deny that for a moment. What has happened in the United States? If you read Collier's Weekly of March 9, 1912, referring to the Lawrence strike, you will find that Collier's Weekly tells of the textile workers in Lawrence, Mass., denying themselves the common necessaries of life and taking lodgers into houses already overcrowded by their own families to scrape up money to return to their native land. That is one of the most highly protected industries in the United States-the woollen industry. If I had time I would like to have gone into this question a little more fully. An interesting book has been published-a little book which 1 know and have read- by Professor Nearing, of Pennsylvania University, on wages in the United States. The book has this very great merit for 182

any one who wants to find the truth upon the question, that it is a purely sociological study, and the tariff is never mentioned in it from beginning to end. What are the main findings of that book bearing on the question under discussion? The author sets out by quoting Professor Chapin to the effect that a New York artisan with a wife and three children needs $900 for a living wage for himself and his family. And how far do the United States conditions to-day, after high protection for sixty years, go towards the standard laid down by Professor Chapin? Nearing finds that, taking a line through the Rockies and north of the Mason and Dixon line three-quarters of the adult male workers of the United States of America actually earn less than $600 a year. Nine hundred dollars needed for a man, his wife and three children, three-quarters of the people in the industrial portion of the United States, according to this professor, upon less than $600 a year, or, in other -words, only two-thirds of a decent living wage! And yet the minister indicates his opinion that in Canada protection helps to raise the wages, that it gives a proper standard of living to the workingman. What are the further findings of this book? The author finds that westward the wages rise. We who know anything of Canada know that is absolutely true in Canada. Westward the wages rise. Well, that means that the farther you get from the centers of concentration of highly protected industries, the higher are the wages. These are rather peculiar comments from a United States professor upon the theory that protection raises wages. He finds what we absolutely know in western Canada to-day, that the highest wages are paid in the building trades and that is also true of eastern Canada. Now, protection cannot raise the wages in the building trade because we do not up to now to any extent, import houses. Bricklayers, he finds again, are much more highly paid than brickmakers. You cannot protect bricklayers in their business. You can protect brickmakers by a tariff on bricks, because you can import bricks; but the bricklayers are paid more highly than the brickmakers. We find that the men's unions are weakest where the tariff is highest. That is, the tariff strengthens the employer and -not the employed. These are the main facts of the book as I have collated them.

What about iron and steel? because I want to bring it before this House and the country and Parliament that this ministry

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   '2364 COMMONS
Permalink

REVISED EDI1ION COMMONS


has started to build up an iron and steel industry in this country corporable to the iron and steel industries of the United States. The iron and steel industry is the most highly protected trade in the United States. When we are following the had example of the United States I am determined that, so far as I am able to prevent it, the people of this country shall not go into it with their eyes shut. At a conference held in Pittsburg by the skilled labourers of America a petition was drawn up to President Taft. I shall tresspass for a moment on the House while I read what was said by the leading men in American labour unions about the United States steel corporation in its relations to labour. This petition alleges that the United States Steel Corporation (a) Is an illegal combination existing in defiance of the laws of the land. Its power and scope as a trust have been so often made manifest in its own circulars to investors and in magazines and the press, that no detailed evidence on this point is here deemed essential. If government officials will, as they have done in the cases of the Standard Oil Company, and the Tobacco Trust, present to a competent court the facts which are public and notorious, the decision must logically follow that the United States Steel Corporation exists in violation of the Sherman anti-trust law. It is not to be doubted that the law and the courts can reach this monopoly even if its annual revenue is counted in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Its power of wealth must not be permitted to paralyze the arm of the law. (b) In this so-called 'great American industry,' founded upon the tariit enacted for the protection of American labour from the competition of ' the pauper labour of Europe,' it is speedily and effectually excluding American labour, skilled and unskilled, from its employment. It has almost wholly eliminated from numerous departments men who speak the English language. It has again and again advertised that ' Syrians, Poles and Roumanians are preferred ' as its employees. (c) It is accumulating hundreds of millions of dollars by exacting excessive prices for its product from the American public and enforcing an exhausting stint of toil from its labourers and by reducing the masses of its employees to a rate of wages insufficient to provide for the American standard of living. (d) It not only degrades laoour by low wages and a twelve-hour workday, but denies a day of rest by enforcing work seven days in the week, as was made clear in the revelations of the Survey. (e) Its products are made in reckless sacrifice of human life and human blood, the shocking details of which also appear in the Survey. (f) It tyrannically prevents the organization of its workers to elevate the standard of living. (g) It denies the right, recognized to workers by law, to form associations for the promotion and protection of the interests of the toilers. (h) It suppresses and prevents free speech and public meetings. (i) It boycotts American labour and insists upon submissive foreign labour. (j) It has enforced decrees of banishment from communities where it dominates. (k) It has in such communities exercised powers beyond the law and in defiance of law, denying to citizens rights fully guaranteed to them as American citizens. (l) It has both usurped and controlled the exercise of authority in local communities in its own name in violation of the plainest fundamental principles of law. (m) It is organized illegality, dominant and defiant, with no respect for legal right or human right, with brutal indifference as to human capacity for endurance and for deaths and injuries of its toilers. (n) Its continued existence and methods are a menace not only to labour but to the business men yet outside of its baneful power and influence, and particularly to the perpetuation of our Republic based upon the independence, character and sovereignty of the masses or our people. Now, that is a charge that is brought by the heads of American labour against the steel trust of America; and yet hon. gentlemen come to this House, the Minister of Finance tells us that the national policy which is the son of the republican protectionist policy of the United States raises the standard of the workingmen of this country. In case this evidence should not be believed, let me say that in the case of the Bethlehem strike, within the area of this great steel trust, the Federal Council of the Christian Churches of America appointed a committee of investigation into the conditions prevailing in that industry and they found briefly this: fifty-one per cent of all employees had a twelve-hour day. In free trade Great Britain anything beyond a nine-hour day is unknown. They found that twenty-eight per cent of the employees worked regularly seven days a week. This agrees with Nedring absolutely. The committee went on to state in regard to the wages then the wage scale leaves no option to the common labourers but the boarding boss method, with many men occupying the one room. A man with a family takes in lodgers or the woman works. Immigrant parents are reported to send their little children back to the old country to be reared while the mother goes to work. Mr. Speaker, I would have been lacking in my duty to the people of this country if I had not protested against these iron and steel duties as the first step in the direction of introducing into Canada what is the greatest industrial shambles upon the face of the earth. I support the amendment of my right hon. friend with the very greatest pleasure. I support it in spite of the very thin fun that was poked at it by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and which produced for a few minutes such hilarity upon the benches opposite. My hon. friend in poking that fun disregarded the terms of the amendment. He attacked the amendment as if it only dealt with free wheat and free agricultural implements. Why, it ended in favour of a reduction of the tariff all round-at least so I heard it read. Could you have a more complete division between the parties than the policy of the Government as I have examined it-at too great a length, I fear-and that amendment ? We are told that it is not a free trade amendment. Even I did not expect that; I had too much regard for history. The first really large step in the direction of free trade in Great Britain itself, was the repeal of the Corn laws. That was exactly equivalent to free wheat. President Wilson before the last election in America, so far as I have read his speeches, did not mention a single duty that he would interfere with. He attacked the evils of protection, and showed the road he was going. My right hon. friend is in excellent company on the tariff when he follows the example of Sir Robert Peel in 1846, and of President Wilson last year. I cannot see where the joke comes in in the fun of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I do not think they will find it much of a joke a little later on. On its merits I believe the amendment would receive the support of every patriotic and thoughtful Canadian. I do not think any thoughtful Canadian, if he considered the subject in a non-partisan, unprejudiced manner, would see anything objectionable if free food were in the amendment. And who says free food is not in the amendment ? When you start to reduce the tariff, who is going to say where it will stop ? According to the Minister of Finance free trade is in the amendment, for he says free implements mean free trade.


CON

Arthur Meighen (Solicitor General of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

about it ? What do you say

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   REVISED EDI1ION COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Michael Clark

Liberal

Mr. CLARK:

I am trying to saya good deal about it. I10 p.m. say that it is an amendment

which will commend itself to a very large portion of the people of this country, and I think that a large majority of the people of this country would be in favour of radical treatment of the tariffs of this country. And I not only think, I think I know, that the more the people of this country get to know about 1821

tariffs along the line of what I have been trying in my feeble way to bring before this House to-night, the more they will be in favour of reductions in the tariff. In any case, we shall vote as a united party in favour of the specific policy of free wheat and of the specific policy of free implements and for a reduction of the tariff. The party opposite on the other hand stand for the maintenance of tariffs, and for the so-called National Policy. They stand for the introduction of a steel trust in this country, and for all the enormities of protection for combines as they have been exposed and found out in the United States, and as they are being deserted in that country. I would have voted for free food if it had been specifically mentioned. I agree with what Lord Macaulay said in Edinburgh in 1845:

If there be anything in which all peoples, nations and languages, Jews, Greeks, Romans, Italians, Frenchmen, Englishmen, have agreed, it has been that the dearness of food is a great evil to the poor.

I agree with someone else who has said that taxes upon food are a crime against humanity. I have been called a theorist. There is nothing theoretical about protection, it is practical enough: millionaires and multimillionaires at one end of society and on the other hand the great masses of the people exposed to dear food, racking house rents, unapproachable clothing owing to price, thousands of unemployed,-and this is all true of Canada-falling immigration, falling revenue, farmers leaving their farms, falling trade and increasing debt-those are the accompaniments of the so-called National Policy in Canada at the present time, and every gentleman opposite knows it. I will tell the Government that building armouries will not cure these things. The amendment might have gone farther in specific terms without hurting me. If it had said free necessaries of life I believe the people would have stood for it, hut with sufficient reductions in the tariff we will get the free necessaries of life. The amendment as it stands would increase our commerce, it would help to smash combined and to reduce the cost of living. It would also be a step to raising the price of laborur. It is a policy of infinite good as compared with the supine, do-nothing or worse, policy of the Government and their supporters.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   REVISED EDI1ION COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver):

Mr. Speaker, the occasion of the Budget debate

is, I understand, a fit and proper time to offer criticism of the policy of the Government and the administration of the financial affairs of this country during the preceding year. It is also the occasion upon which we look into the future and discuss the question of ways and means in regard to our financial and commercial policy. It is not my intention to follow the arguments of my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Michael Clark) in so far as they referred to the expenditures of the Finance Minister during the past year. He characterized the administration of the Finance Minister as one of gross extravagance. On the contrary, I believe that the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance on the affairs of this country and the management of its finances has passed through the criticisms of hon. gentlemen opposite, and that it stands to-day in a very creditable position indeed. A very violent attack wa3 made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat upon the whole question of protection, and if we wanted a concise and brief argument in favour of railway protection in this country I would point to the last two paragraphs of the speech of my hon. friend.

He has drawn the most lurid picture in this House-I do not know his authority for it but I am taking his word-as to the condition regarding the iron and steel industry in the United States. A few moments ago he said it was a crime for this country not to allow its citizens to buy in the open market and that in so far as he was concerned it was his intention to buy stoves, rails, knives and this and that in the cheapest markets irrespective of the conditions under which they are produced. He knows perfectly well that if you are going to improve the conditions under which iron and steel are produced in the States one thing will follow in all probability and that is increased cost. I would like to know what the hon. member for South Gape Breton (Mr. Carroll) thinks of the iron and steel arguments which have been presented by the hon. member foT Bed Deer and whether or not he would like to hand the people of Sydney over to competition with the conditions which have been so luridly drawn by the hon. membeT for Red Deer.

I purpose taking up a little later other statements of the hon. gentleman and he will pardon me, if, for a moment, I digress and refer to some statements made by the

[Mr. Stevens. 1

right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). In his remarks he stated that agricultural production is not equal to the requirements. In another moment afterwards he said that the greatest need of Canada for her farmers was larger markets. These are two sample arguments taken from the speech of my right hon. friend. Then, throwing the responsibility upon the present Government, he added: This Government

has done absolutely nothing since it came into power in order to deal with this great problem which he characterized as the greatest problem of the age. I purpose drawing your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, to what has been done, not by a mere statement of the condition of affairs but by giving the actual facts. In 1899 the Government of the right hon. leader of the Opposition spent $376,000 in the interests of agriculture; in 1905 the Government spent $651,000; in 1911 and 1912, we spent $1,646,000; in 1912-13, we spent $2,703,000 and in the present year, ended March 31, 1914, we spent $4,027,000. This money was spent by the present Government in the interest of agriculture, yet the right hon. gentleman says that this Government has done nothing for agriculture. But I do not base my case merely upon figures and I might add that these figures are absolutely authentic and taken from the departmental reports. I hold in my hand a large number of testimonials from various parts of the country and I will read extracts from a few of them so that my right hon. friend may know that not only the Conservatives of Canada but the citizens of Canada irrespective of politics, including some of our political opponents, compliment this Government on the efforts it has made in the interest of agriculture. The Hon. Walter Scott, Premier of Saskatchewan, speaking in Ottawa at the Canadian Club and in the presence of the right hon. gentleman himself, said

Hon. Mr. Scott dwelt at some length on the progress of the province he represented in the last seven years. Seven years ago 63,000,000 bushels of grain were produced. This year

230.000. 000 bushels. Seven years ago there were 900,000 head of stock; to-day there are

2.000. 000.

This is evidence of the progress of the West under the present Administration. We have been told by hon. gentlemen opposite that everything was going to the bow-wows, but we know from the statements of a gentleman like the Hon. Walter Scott and others that this is not the case. Now, I shall read a letter from the province of Nova Scotia in

which the Agricultural Society of Halifax county-

-do express our appreciation of the grant made from the federal appropriation for agricultural education, which has been used to assist in erecting a building suitable for ' short course instruction ' on the Middle Musquodoboit exhibition grounds. And that we also express our thanks to the staff of the Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture for arranging and conducting in that building, the very satisfactory [DOT] short course ' on agriculture just completed, and that we as farmers express our approval of the co-operation of the federal and local departments for agriculture.

And so on. Then we have a speech delivered by the Hon. Duncan Marshall, Minister of Agriculture of the province of Alberta, also a Liberal Government, in which he compliments very highly my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) and says that he is working in cooperation with the Minister of Agriculture of the different provinces in a manner that means much not only for the success of agriculture but for its progress in future years.

Here is a resolution from the Yarmouth Agricultural Association along the same lines and I shall not detain the House oy reading it. There is another letter from Truro, N.S., which is along similar lines on behalf of a hundred and five teachers in attendance at the rural science school held m the Agricultural and Normal College, Truro, N.S. It says:

We, the undesigned, do hereby wish to express our appreciation of what has been done by the Dominion Government. We hope, in return, to instil some of the knowledge and enthusiasm which we have acquired at Truro into the pupils that attend our schools.

I have others along that line, but I do not wish to detain the House at the present moment. What I wish to say is that this Government has grappled with the question in a manner that the late Government never attempted to do, and while it takes some time to see results, yet I think what has been accomplished answers the criticism of the leader of the Opposition.

During the past three weeks we have been favoured with the criticisms and the observations of hon. gentlemen opposite and I have carefully listened to find out exactly where they stood in connection with the fiscal policy of the country. I was impressed by the fact that their policy was very much like Joseph's coat; it was a thing of many different colours. The main portion of the coat was blue, exceedingly blue, I think, for the hon. member who has addressed the House on this occasion used very doleful terms and pointed to a gloomy outlook. Then we had the scarlet of the

extremely radical, that element which looks upon every manufacturer, every captain d industry, every leader in transportation, as a veritable rogue, a man who is seeking to rob the country. These hon. gentlemen have not a kind word or a moment's consideration for that class. Then we have the white purity squad-the hon. member for Carle-ton (Mr. Carvell), the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) and the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) who were the chief critics of the Government with regard to allegations of corruption. We have also here or there an hon. member who is a wearer of the royal purple of the old National Policy. This is the only saving feature of the policy which has been brought before us by the leader of the Opposition to-day in the amendment. I would like to look for a moment at the amendment. It starts off with a reference to the prevailing economic conditions:

That it is advisable:

1. To place wheat and implements upon the free list.

This is a sop to the western farmers-Then it goes on with a very clever suggestion which is intended to allay any disturbance which may arise in the minds cf the manufacturers of the East:

And that without doing any injustice to any' class, steps should be taken to alleviate the high cost of living by considerate removal of taxation.

Reference has been made to vague definitions, but of all the vague definitions of expressions of opinion that I have seen, the vaguest is summed up in this amendment to the resolution. Let me give some of the opinions of my hon. friend opposite. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. 'Graham), speaking at Hamilton the other day before an audience of ladies, had this to say:

It has been said that the Liberals are free traders and the Tories protectionists. I myself say free trade is out of the question. We must have revenue and the people pay a tariff much more easily than direct taxation. Stability of tariff is another thing that Sir Wilfrid has fought for.

On the same occasion when he was speaking to the men in the same city, he had this to say:

When Sir Wilfrid Laurier appealed to the people in 1896, he declared that the tariff would be regulated so that indebtedness would be wiped out and the people would show their prosperity by the jingling of dollars in their pockets. The tariff would be treated by Sir Wilfrid in recognition of the fact that the Government would be responsible to the people.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   REVISED EDI1ION COMMONS
Permalink

'2882 COMMONS


There never was any desire on the part of the people to injure Canadian industries, but food that goes on the workman's table should go there untaxed. We have the word of the hon. the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition and of the hon. member for South Renfrew that food should go on the workman's table untaxed. As pointed out by the hon. Minister of Finance, it is perfectly clear that it is utterly impossible to disturb the tariff to any degree without interfering with the whole fabric of a reasonably protective tariff. If you have a tariff in a country, it must be one which protects the various interests in as just a manner as is possible. If you are going to put implements on the free list, then as the Minister of Finance pointed out, you must extend other concessions to the implement industry. By so interfering with one part of the tariff to any appreciable degree, you find yourself sooner or later interfering with the whole fabric of the tariff. I desire to deal with some of the statements made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) and I am sorry he is not in his seat, as I have under my hand some information that I think would be valuable to him. He has constantly posed as a particular student of political economy and he has entertained this House with many unsupported statements as to the effect of free trade in Great Britain, the United States and other parts of the world. I have already alluded to the picture which he drew a moment ago regarding conditions in the United States. I think, before I am through with my remarks, I shall be able to controvert successfully the statement he has made. Before doing so, I wish to correct the impression conveyed to this House by the hon. gentleman a few weeks ago, which has been placed upon ' Hansard ' and gone out to the country as an accurate illustration of the condition of affairs. He said with very great force indeed, which is characteristic of him in his speeches, that during the last three year^ Great Jlritain had increased her manufactured exports by £70,000,000 and that that was a record that had never been equalled in the world. He went on to say that that was an argument in favour of free trade. The facts are these: In 1907, the British exports amounted to £426,000,000; in 1908, they fell off by £50,000,000 in one year and amounted to £377,000,000; in 1909, they remained stagnant at £378,000,000. From 1910 to 1912 they rose to £478,000,000, £Mr. Stevens.] the increase being £61,000,000 in a period of six years instead of £70,000,000 in three years, as stated by the hon. member for Red Deer. Canada during five years has increased her total trade by $514,000,000 and her exports by $132,000,000; or in other words, the per capita increase in six years in British exports was $6.50, while the per capita increase in Canadian exports over the same period was $18.50. When my hon. friend picks out odd years and makes statements regarding the value of free trade, it is always well to examine his figures. He made another statement on that occasion, which I wish to controvert. Picking out two years again, he stated that in 1883 Canadian trade was about the same as it was in 1896. These are the actual facts: From 1869 to 1873 we had a Tory government in this country, and the total trade for 1869 taking exports and imports together, was $130,000,000. In 1873 the total trade rose to $217,000,000, an increase of nearly 100 per cent. Then came into office the Liberal Government and immediately the trade fell off from $217,000,000 in 1873 to $153,000,000, in 1878. Again, came into office the Government under Sir John Macdonald with the National Policy, and our trade increased from $153,000,000 in 1879 to $239,000,000 in 1896; and in 1911, it had increased to $769,000,000, but in the following year the increase was over $210,000,000 in one year, or in the two years from $769,000,000 to $1,085,000,000. When the Liberal Government was in power before the adoption of the National Policy, the trade dropped off nearly 100 per cent; when the National Policy was introduced there was a continual climb, but the climb has been more rapid under the present Government than it was even during the palmy days of the Liberal Government, in spite of the fact that they perpetuated ouir fiscal policy. We have heard a good deal regarding the home market, the Northwest, and so on. I would not presume for one minute to controvert the opinions of hon. gentlemen from the prairie provinces with regard to what should be done in that part of the country, but I want to make a few observations and I am sorry that the hon. gentleman for Red Deer has vacated his seat. He went out to the prairie provinces about eight or nine years ago. I take it from his own statements that he is a man of considerable business ability; at least he poses to be an authority on matters of finance and business. I take it for granted that when he went out o the prairie country to engage in farming, to raise steers, as he says, he knew what he was doing. I assume that he knew what the price of steers was and what his profit would be and that he would not have gone into the business unless he thought he could make a profit. At that time he could get from $42 to $45 a head for his steers, and this, it is to be supposed, was profitable business. But to-day he would get $80 to $91 for the same animal. And still he complains of conditions in the West. That is, he is making more than a hundred per cent more than when he went into the business; and still he says the business is in a languishing condition. Then he pleads for foreign markets. But what are the facts as given in this House the other day? Last year there was put on the market for consumption in Alberta $10,000,000 worth of beef. Of that $5,000,000 was sold to the British Columbia market and $4,500,000 to Calgary and Winnipeg, and the balance, $500,000, or five per cent, went to the United States. These are figures that cannot be controverted. Now, reference was made during the remarks of my hon. friend to the tariff conditions in the United States. He said that during the early part of the last century the United States had practically free trade and that wages were higher than they are to-day under protection. Mr. Speaker, that statement is absolutely aside from the fact. Briefly, the history of the tariff in the United States is this: The first tariff, a revenue tariff and very low, was put on in 1779. In 1816, material increases were made. In 1824, led by Henry Clay, there arose a demand for a national policy, and a higher tariff was put into operation. In 1842, a protective tariff was introduced There was a reduction to twenty per cent under the Democrats, but this remained on the statute book for only two months, and then the protective tariff was put on. In 1857, the tariff was reduced to twenty-four per cent, which was called free trade, and remained there for a few years until the Civil War, when again there was an increase. So it went on until 1897, when, under the Dingley tariff, the duties were raised, as we all know, to the highest point. I shall not review in detail the tariff of the United States, but I merely quote these figures to show that the statement of the hon. member for Red Deer was absolutely inaccurate when he said that in the early part of the last century they had practically free trade in the United States. They have never had free trade in the United States since they broke away from the mother country in 1776. Now, I wish to make, as briefly as I can, in view of the lateness of the hour, some comparisons of free trade versus protection. I stand firmly on a policy of protection. My hon. friend from Red Deer can hurl all the abuse he likes at us; he can tell us we are lacking in common sense, and can give us the remarkable stories he works himself into in his speeches in this House; but the facts are the things upon which we and the country will base our conclusions, and I challenge him to produce at any time in his future speeches facts that will controvert the statements I shall give in the remarks I shall now make. I draw attention to the fact that Great Britain did not dare adopt free trade , to any considerable degree until she had control, practically, of the commerce and industry of the world. The hon. member for Red Deer, the champion of free trade in this country, knows that fact perfectly well. He knows also that the people of Great Britain would never have adopted free trade if they had thought there was the slightest competition. Germany and the greater part of Europe had free trade, or practically free trade, and the British leaders said: If we can put on free trade now that will form a precedent, and the nations of the earth will follow and we will keep them from building up their industries. That was the statement of Canning, Huskisson and all the other political economists of that day; it was the statement of the whole school of free traders in England. And their policy had that effect for some time. The hon. member for Red Deer quotes Cobden in this House. Let me tell him that after fifteen . years of free trade, from 1846 to 1861, Cobden admitted that free trade was an utter disappointment to the British people and suggested-and succeeded in introducing-a system of treaty making. This began with the treaty with France, which treaty resulted in the tremendous reduction of the manufacturing industries of France during the short time it existed. France learned a lesson during that period of free trade or reciprocity, and they wiped it out and have never had it since. And France is in a better condition than any other country so far as working conditions and the cost of living are concerned. From 1852 to 1860, practical free trade was introduced into England. That is, they call it free trade,



but it is not free trade, and no country in the world has free trade. Why, in the year which ended on the 31st of last month, Great Britain took in $177,000,000 in customs duties, a large portion of which is on foodstuffs. Now, coming down to the period in which free trade was introduced, I desire to quote from Mr. Clive Day, an eminent writer on these subjects. He says: If jwe measure the value of goods exported from 1800 to 1849 on official standards, we should find that they had increased from $120,000,000 to $950,000,000, or 682 per cent. Now, I will give the exact figures as taken from the blue books. In 1800, the imports were $140,000,000 and the exports were $165,000,000, total, $305,000,000, an excess of exports of $25,000,000. In 1846, during the period of protection, this had increased to $369,000,000, and the imports to $723,000,000, a total of $1,092,000,000, or an increase of 500 per cent. That was a very creditable increase at that time. And I wish to observe that the exports during this period exceeded the imports1 by $354,000,000, which again is a very creditable story in connection with the trade of the country. In 1860 this rose to $1,825,000,000, caused by the large increase in imports as the result of the repeal of the Corn Laws and the importation of food into England. The imports in this period exceeded the exports by $223,000,000. Now, I have a statement here of the trade of different countries. I have already given the figures for the early part of the century. During the latter part of the century the increase was 225 per cent, as against 500 per cent during the first part of the century. The greater increase was while it was a protective country, and yet according to the statements of the hon. member for Bed Deer it should have been going rapidly to the bow-wows. Now, coming to the United States we find that in 1790 they had an export of $20,000,000 only; in 1912 they had an export of $2,171,000,000. Comparing the total trade of England for the last half-century with the period of free trade, we find that in 1840 the total trade of the United States was $221,000,000 and in 1912, $3,812,000,000, an increase of 600 per cent. That, Mr. Speaker, is a very creditable showing. What do you find in connection with Germany? I have been unable to get the figures with regard to all the German states prior to 1871; hon. gentlemen will remember that at that time under Bismarck the states of Germany were brought under one head and a national policy was introduced. In 1872 the total trade of Germany was $1,843,000,000; in 1910 it was $4,192,000,000, or an increase of 230 per cent, which is a very credible increase. Again, this was under protection. The same thing applies to France and to other protectionist countries in general; I shall not quote the figures at this time. In 1880 the exports of Gireat Britain exceeded those of the United States, France and Germany by £16,000,000. In 1908 the exports of these three countries were doubly as large as those of Great Britain; in other words, Great Britain, even a3 late as 1880, had the supremacy of the commerce of the world, but in 1908 the conditions had so changed that she had only half the export trade which those other three countries had. During the first half of the nineteenth century, under protection, the cotton trade of Great Britain increased 1,000 per cent, or more than tenfold. The hon. member for Red Deer, speaking in the House some time ago, -attributed any increase in the trade of Gireat Britain for the first half of the century to the development of the railways. If that applies to the first half of the century it doubly applies to the last half of the century, because if there has been development in railways it has been during the latter period. In 1800, 32,000,000 yards of cotton- were produced in Great Britain; in 1830 the output, under protection, had increased to 347,000,000 yards. In 1850 Great Britain produced more cotton than all other nations combined. She had two-thirds of the world's shipping and two-thirds of the world's coal production. Forty years ago Britain had over fifty per cent of the world's trade in firearms; this has decreased to less than ten -per cent at the present time. In 1911, after fifty years of free trade, .she lost her position of supremacy and controlled only sixteen per cent of the trade of the thirty-four leading nations of the world, Mark the change: when she adopted free trade she had two-thirds of the trade of the world; fifty years after free trade was introduced this had dropped to sixteen per cent. She entirely lost her place of supremacy. I wish to deal with one or two industries in a specific manner. We have heard a great deal about the iron and .steel industry from the hon. member for Red Deer. He has pointed out that we should not adopt protection because of certain alleged objectionable conditions which obtain in the United States. While that may be true, that is not what we are concerned with. What we are concerned in is what is the best fiscal policy for this country; it is our business to see that the conditions which surround the industries of our country are right. I shall not weary the House with very many comparisons, but, as briefly as possible, I wish to give a comparison of the conditions in certain nations. In 1840 the United States produced 290,000 tons of pig-iron. In 1900 this output had increased to 13,000,000, an increase of 1,840 per cent. In 1913 the output was, I think, 27,000,000 tons. In 1840 Great Britain produced 1,390,000 tons of pig-iron; in 1900, 8,000,000 and ten years later she produced only approximately the same amount. In 1840 Germany produced 170,000 tons of pig-iron; in 1900, 8.498.000 tons. This has increased by twenty-five per cent during the last few years. I could quote a large number of other figures, but the hour is late and I shall not weary the House with them at this time. I must draw the attention of the House to what I deem to be ene of the tragedies of free trade in the old country. In 1860, when the duties were removed from the silk industry, in London alone there were 24.000 looms and 60,000 operators. By 1884 these were reduced to 1,200 looms and 4,000 operators, a reduction of about one-twentieth. In Coventry in 1861 the ribbon trade employed 40,600 persons; in 1884 the number was reduced to 10,000 persons. In Derby the number of employees was reduced from 6,500 to 2,400 persons, and in Manchester the trade was absolutely wiped out. In the year 1823 the output of manufactured silk in the old country was £6,200,000. By 1857 this had increased to £21,500,000, and after forty years of free trade it had dropped to £6,000,000, exactly where it wias at the beginning of the century. In the year 1912 the consumption of silk in Great Britain was £19,000,000 and tlhe imports £13,000,000; in other words, the silk industry, which produced over £21,000,000 worth of silk in 1857, had dropped in 1912 to where it was at the beginning of the century. That, I say, is one of the commercial tragedies of Great Britain, absolutely attributable to the policy of free trade. In the United States they produced in 1850 $1,800,000 worth of manufactured silk. In 1910 they produced $197,000,000 worth, or an increase of eleven hundred per-cent. That was done under protection. In 1850 wages in the United States in that industry were $300,000; in 1910 they had increased to $38,- 570,000. Will any hon. gentleman say that a trade of that kind is not valuable to a country; that an industry of that kind is not desirable? Yet, under the free trade policy that my hon. friend from Red Deer talks so much about, this valuable business was practically wiped out in the old country. I desire to refer very briefly to the cotton trade. It is well to remember a few facts in connection with the cotton trade in Great Britain. In 1721 the cotton of the world was practically all produced in India and China. Great Britain undertook to produce and manufacture cotton at home; she prohibited the importation of cotton goods from these countries, although at that time or shortly afterwards she controlled the Indian Empire and its production. She prohibited the importation of cotton goods into Great Britain, and speaking of the free trade policy of buying in the cheapest market, she paid more for her cotton manufactured at home than she would have paid for it under other conditions. What did she do? She protected the industry until the middle of the last century, with the result that last year Great Britain shipped $172,000,000 worth of manufactured cotton into India, which at one time was the chief cotton producing country of the world. We find that early in the century, before protection was raised to a reasonable degree, the United States imported manufactured cotton, although they grew a large amount of raw cotton. We find that in 1850 the manufactured product was $61,000,000, and in 1910 this had been increased to $828,000,000, or an increase of 1,000 per cent in half a century. I wish to show very briefly how Great Britain, since the adoption of free trade, has lost her position of supremacy in the manufacture of cotton. We are inclined to believe still that she holds the premier position in the world in that regard. The figures of the consumption of raw cotton for last year are as follows: Great Britain consumed 19 per cent of the total production; the United States consumed 27 per cent of the total production; Germany 10 per cent, Russia 9 per cent, and Japan 7 per cent, and the rest was distributed in small quantities among other countries. I quote this to show that Great Britain has fallen from the place of absolute control of the cotton industry to the production of only 19 per cent of the manufactured cotton of the world. We have heard a great deal about the question of taxation. My hon. friend from



Red Deer a few moments ago referred to Great Britain as the El Dorado of the workingman in connection with taxation, cost of living and wages. I desire to place on 'Hansard' some very important facts in regard to this question. I have already stated that Great Britain collected $177,000,000 this year in customs taxes. In the year that Great Britain adopted free trade she collected $4.25 per capita in customs taxes. Last year she collected exactly the same amount, $4.25 per capita, in spite of the increase in population; so that although they have free trade in Great Britain to-day, the customs collections are exactly the same per capita for the country. But from 1904 to the present time she has collected on an average $80,000,000 per year from buildings occupied by manufacturing industries, or an amount equal to 15 per cent of the total manufactured imports of Great Britain. Consider that for a moment. Here is a taxation of $80,000,000 placed upon the industries of the country. Who pays it? It must be paid, it is paid by the people of Great Britain, it is paid by the consumers in other words. Great Britain could have collected the same amount of taxation by placing an import duty on manufactured goods, and thus have protected and helped her manufacturers. She put the tax on them by a taxation on the buildings they occupied. A more false basis on which to rest a fiscal policy I do not know. The taxes on farmers in Great Britain have increased during the last half of the century, or from 1860 to 1910, by 80 per cent; and to bear out that statement I wish to quote from a statement made by Lord Lucas, a Liberal peer: Lord Lucas speaking at Hitchin, on April 7 last, said: X am in a position to announce that it is the intention of the Government to make considerable grants out of imperial taxation to assist the rates in this country and it will be done in the coming Budget. The Government recognize that the method by which a farmer is assessed upon practically the whole of his stock-in-trade is a very unfair one, and they will try as far as possible to alleviate this injustice by making a very considerable grant towards the rates in the country districts. That is the statement of a Liberal peer made only a week or so ago. The statement has often been made that customs duties are a very expensive form of taxation to have because it costs a great deal to collect them. I examined very carefully for a number of years the cost of col- lection in Great Britain of customs and the cost of collection of the excise revenue, that is the income tax and some other taxes such as the succession dues, etc. In 1913, Great Britain's customs revenue was $169,- 500,000. The cost of collection was $4,200,000 or 2.4 per cent, which is recognized as a very low cost. The inland revenue contributed $410,000,000 at a cost of collection of $9,800,000 or exactly the same Tate, 2.4 per cent. But, in addition to merely collecting taxes, the customs officers do the clearing of vessels and many other duties which are indispensable and for which they would have to be employed in any case. I have heard many references to the income tax. My hon. friend from Red Deer is constantly stating that direct taxation is a system that should be adopted. He holds that taxation by a tariff is the most unjust system. I would like to refer him to a statement made by one whom he has set up as a veritable god. I refer to the late Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, who, speaking on a memorable occasion to which my hon. friend alluded a moment ago, in the Midlothian campaign in 1879, said: This, at any rate, is clear-there was a clear stage upon which, on our responsibility, we were ready to repeal the income-tax, and it would have been done with fairness to every class of the community. The Tories came in: the income-tax since then has been raised from 2d. to 5d. in the pound, and when we will get rid of it I do not know. I hope it; but it will be perhaps in the days of your children and grandchildren. That was Mr. Gladstone's opinion of direct taxation by the method of income tax which the hon. member for Red Deer recommends so highly to this country. I wish to call attention to the taxation of various countries. The taxation of the United Kingdom is $19.86 per capita. The United States under protection, supposed to be heavily taxed and bearing the awful burdens of which hon. friends tell us, collected $10.25 per capita; Germany $10.58 and Canada $16.63 per capita. That was for 1912. In other words, the taxation of free trade England was 100 per cent, greater than that of Germany or the United States, the high protectionist countries.


LIB

Michael Clark

Liberal

Mr. M. CLARK:

That, of course, is the federal taxation in the United States.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   '2882 COMMONS
Permalink
CON
LIB

Michael Clark

Liberal

Mr. M. CLARK:

My hon. friend understands that a great deal done under our taxation is done by our local governments.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   '2882 COMMONS
Permalink
CON
LIB
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

Yes, that is from the report of the British Board of Trade Inquiry. They further say:

It may be noted also that wages in the United States are higher relatively to the cost of living, with the result that in times of depression earnings may suffer a considerable diminution before the level of actual privation is reached.

I could also quote from the Gainsborough Commission's report. When the hon. member for North Waterloo was quoting from that report the other night the hon. member for Red Deer sent a note over to the hon. member for Humboldt who afterwards pointed out that the report of that commission was totally unreliable. The Gainsborough Commission consisted of workingmen who visited Germany to investigate working conditions there. I shall not quote them. They carry out the statements which I have already quoted from the Board of Trade.

I wish to turn now to another phase of the question and that is pauperism and unemployment. We have heard a great deal regarding pauperism and therefore I would like to give some figures upon this question. These again are taken from the Board of Trade and I would commend them to my hon. friend for his consideration. Germany has 27,399 paupers in the workhouse as compared with a population of 64,000,000. Great Britain has 400,000 -paupers in the workhouse as compared with a population of 45,000,000. Great Britain gives annual relief to 700 out of every 10,000 of the population and Germany to 300 out of every

10,000. The percentage of paupers in the two countries in 1903 was: in Germany, 2-7 and in Great Britain, 5 per cent; in 1909, in Germany 2-8 per cent and in Great Britain 7-7 per cent. The average for seven years was 2-1 per cent in Germany and 5-6 per cent in Great Britain, or over double. The hon. member for Red Deer told the House to-night that conditions in Great Britain were the best of any country in Europe.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   '2882 COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Michael Clark

Liberal

Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:

I never made that statement. The only reference I made to Great Britain as compared with Emope was as to the wages of skilled and unskilled labour and I said that they were the highest in Europe. That is veTy different from saying that the condition of the country is better. Of course, if it is correct, I would be prepared to say it, but I did not say it as a matter of fact.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   '2882 COMMONS
Permalink
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

In any case it does not alter what I am about to say in connection

with the conditions. My hon. friend has very frequently on the floor of the House pointed out that a most lamentable condition obtained in 1846. He has drawn most lurid pictures of the suffering and starvation of the poorer classes at that time. The Rev. J. A. Macdonald, of the Globe, whom my hon. friend knows very well, on August 28, 1909, gave a very interesting account of his impressions of a trip with the Press Conference to the old country at that time. He considered his statement very carefully before he made it, because he says :

The question has been asked so often that I have taken myself in hand to answer it. [DOT]

Then he goes on to give his impressions of the industrial conditions of Great Britain and I am going to read the article although it is somewhat lengthy because I recommend it to the study of the members of this House. He says:

It was not Lord Rosebery's speech, brilliant and striking though that speech was. It was not the face or message of any of the statesmen, or pro-consuls or scholars or heroes- Asquith, or Grey, or Haldane, or Morley, or Crewe, or Birrell, or Balfour, or Churchill, or Cromer, or Curzon, or Milner, or Roberts, or French, or Beresford, or Fisher-whose names gave distinction to the programme. It was not the mother of parliaments, or the glory of the church, or the shrined history of Oxford, or the liquid history of the Thames. It was not the splendor of Stafford House, with the charming Duchess at the head of the grand staircase, or the exclusive privileges of Aspley House, or the Lord Mayor's freedom of Mansion House, or the Archbishop's benediction at Lambeth. It was neither Aldershot, with the army, nor Spit-head with the navy . . . Frankly, the thing that impressed me most, the thing that stands out as the background of every reminiscence, was the bloodless, mirthless, hopeless face of the crowd. . . The pale and sunken faces of the nameless city crowd haunt one like a weird.

London, Sheffield, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh-each had its distinctive features, but everywhere the marks were deep of disease and degeneracy in body and mind and morals.

In some of the smaller places w7here industrial percentage is large, or the occupations unhealthy, the blood-poisoned workers present an appearance that to unaccustomed eyes is simply ghastly. Sheffield staggered all the delegates-it is a hive of industry.

The conditions of the poor may be "worse in other industrial centres of England, but certainly no delegate had ever seen the like in any white country overseas, or even imagined it possible within the limits of human nature.

What struck every observant delegate was the utter blankness of the faces which looked up at us-stooped shoulders, hollow chests, ash-coloured faces, ljghtless eyes, and, ghastliest of all, loose-set mouths with bloodless gums, and only here and there a useful tooth.

I consider that somewhat of a libel on the mother country but this is the statement

of the Rev. J. A. Macdonald over his own signature, and written, as he says, after taking himself carefully in hand. It is a statement of the conditions obtaining in the industrial centres of England under the free *trade policy which according to my hon. friend, should result in a very high condition of living indeed.

I observe that I must hasten along in my remarks as the hour is getting late and I shall cut out a great deal of what I intended to say. A great many hon. gentlemen opposite have denounced in most unmeasured terms the leading manufacturers and men of industry in this country. One would judge from the remarks which have fallen from their lips during the past week or two that these men were veritable robbers, that they had no interest in the country and that their only object was to. fleece the public out of their money. I am just going to draw attention to the importance of the manufacturing industries as a source of the country's wealth which merits our consideration. We find that the production of manufacturing industries in the year 1910 w is $1,965,000,000 of which about $200,000,000 was paid out in wages to workingmen. This is an ample indication of the value of the manufacturing industries of this country. I differ entirely with hon. gentlemen who denounce the manufacturer as a person whom we should avoid. I believe that the manufacturer, just as much as the farmer, has his place in this community and has -a business to carry on. I believe that the manufacturers, as I have met them, are just as estimable, just as moral, just as good citizens as you will find in any part of the country. Why should we be constantly debating the manufacturer on the floor of this Parliament? It has been said by the very highest authorities on political economy by such men as John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith and others, that a purely agricultural country could never progress to a very high place among the nations of the world. It is no reflection upon the agriculturist, the farmer, to say that from the very nature of his occupation, separated from his fellows by considerable distances, it is impossible to develop the social conditions necessary for the highest culture, education, or the development of art and science.

But an ideal country is a country which has manufacturers, which has transportation, which has commerce and which has agriculture as well. The possibility of developing these conditions obtains in Canada to-day in a very marked degree. No othor country in the world is richer in. natural resources than Canada. We have waterpowers and coal for the development-of industries and we also have the greatest area of fertile land probably of any country in the world, so that we have everything necessary to build up a very highly developed country. It is the duty of this Government and of all Govec-nmemts to .stand by a policy which will develop all these various branches of industry in this country.

I wish to speak very briefly in regard to this vexed question of flour and wheat.

I shall not touch upon the free wheat side of the question, because it has been so fully discussed already. According to the statements of some hon. gentlemen opposite, the millers are shipping flour to the old land for a figure less than what it can be bought at in this country, and the statement is made that flour which is sold in Montreal at $5.10 a barrel sells in the old country at $4.80 a barrel. The facts are briefly as follows: We produce in Canada four cfr five grades of flour. First, we have the Top Patent, which is Ogilvie's Household, the Lake of the Woods Five Roses and such grades of flour. This grade is sold almost exclusively on the Canadian market. The largest shipping mill in Canada ships practically none at all of this grade of flour to the old country; out of a shipment of five or ten thousand barrels there might be 100 barrels of Top Patent flour, a practically neglible quantity. Of the second grade, which is No. 2 patent or Strong Bakers' flour, they exported 36 per cent. Then they have a third grade, No. 1 and 2 clear, of which 90 per cent is exported to the old country market. I have here a statement for the month of January, 1914, giving the prices which are being secured:

Grade. Average bales return domestic business during January, 1914. f.o.b. Toronto Selling Price to Importers at Percent- age exported in J anuary, 1914jxT *3 J2 O '^'6 mA Delagoa Bay Glasgow ... London Copenhagen Top Patent 518 459 451 3'91 3-16 5'45 5-64 5 16 18 36 90 90 802nd Patent 4 41 4'28 4 03 3'53 4'37 4'24 3'99 3'49 4'59 4 49 4'22 3 74 Blended 1st Clear 2nd Clear

These are the actual figures of the output of the largest shipping firm in Canada. If we consider for a moment the statements of hon. gentlemen opposite, they answer themselves without any such statements as I have made. It was stated that this flour sold at $6.50 a barrel at Halifax. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce covered this point, but I will repeat it for the sake of making it perfectly clear, because he was interrupted at that moment and the trend of his argument was disturbed. The price in Montreal was $5.10 according to hon. gentlemen opposite. The freight to Halifax is 25 cents a barrel which means $5.35 in Halifax. The hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) stated that the price was $6.50 at Halifax and he held it up as a crime against the millers- that they were charging such high prices at Halifax as against Montreal. Let us look at the old country prices which I have just quoted and which are absolutely authoritative. $5.10, he says, is the price in Montreal, but he was quoting the lower grades. , The price of these in Montreal is $4.60 which, with 30 cents freight, makes the price $4.90 for export. If the statement made was true that we were charging $6.50 at Halifax, merchants could re-import that flour, pay the freight both ways and the duty, and still the consumer would get it cheaper. The arguments in regard to the export of flour are absurd on the face of them. We export the lower grades, while practically none of these top grades are exported. Our hon. friends opposite have been quoting the figures of the top grades in Canada and of the lower grades on the European market, thus confusing the whole question.

It may be well to draw attention to a condition which obtains in regard to the freight rates from here to the mother country. In 1911, the freight rate on flour was 8-9 cents per cwt.; in 1912, this was raised to sixteen cents. The Association of MilleTs at London, together with the transporta-

[Mr. Stevens. 1

tion companies entered into collusion, because they had a meeting no more than four mouths ago in London on this very question, to raise the freight rates on flour to such an extent as to constitute a very adequate protection for the millers of the old country as against the millers of this country. While they are supposed to have free trade and we are supposed to have free access to the old country market, they are just as well protected by this method as. our market is protected by our tariff.

The same principle applies to our beef. I think it was in 1884 that an embargo was put against our cattle in the old country. Sir Charles Tupper, who was shortly after our High Commissioner to the old country, investigated the whole situation with veterinary surgeons and others, and found that there was absolutely no reason why this embargo should be put on except to protect the farmers and raisers of beef in the old country. That is the return we get for putting on the British preference. We can hope for very little sympathy from the present Government in the old land in so far as so-called reciprocal relations iD trade are concerned. When they had the offer of reciprocity by giving some preference, they absolutely refused to do so, but placed an embargo against our flour and our beef which I consider to be totally uncalled for.

I intended to make a brief comparison of the tariff of President Wilson with our own tariff. I have gone carefully over the figures of the Underwood tariff and I find that about half the articles he has placed upon the free list have always been on the free list in so far as our tariff is concerned. I find also that our tariff is still quite as low as the American tariff, taking it all through on an average.

I wish to say, in conclusion, that it. seems to me the Government is wise-in fact I congratulate them upon it more than

upon any other point-in having declared themselves frankly and openly as sustaining the great policy of the Conservative party throughout the history of Canada. I believe this is no time to tamper with the tariff in a downward revision. We have a very moderate tariff. I find that even the hon. member for Red Deer in a speech in this House not very long ago referred to our tariff as being a tariff for revenue only and congratulated the late Finance Minister because he had maintained this as a revenue tariff. Now he says it is an iniquitous protective tariff and seeks to stir up the country against it. Yet for years he sat and supported the right hon. leader of the Opposition when, as head of the Government, he was primarily responsible for this tariff. I find on looking up the records, that the present leader of the Opposition himself was a protectionist in 1879 when the National Policy was introduced and that he declared himself in favour of protection. When he was in office he carried out that principle; and we know, and he knows perfectly well that should the country be so unfortunate as to return him to office, he would still carry on the policy of protection. That is plain in the very amendment he lays before us with its words ' without doing injustice to any class.' In other words: I will do the manufacturers no harm; return me to power and I will do no injustice to you, just as in 1896 I promised not to do you injustice and carried out that promise. They talk of the revision of 1897. Mr. Fielding himself said in his Budget speech on that occasion that he was not going to tamper with the tariff, but that all he was going to do was to remodel the forms of it. And that is all he did do; it was identically the same tariff except for the introduction of the British preference-a very questionable benefit. With this exception the tariff is identical with that passed at the instance of Sir John Macdonald in 1879. I am glad that this Government is determined to carry out this policy, for I believe that it is the only policy under which this country will prosper.

I wish to add a word before sitting down in connection with the statement made regarding the earnings of the Lake of the Woods Milling Company and the Ogilvies Milling Company, which I have before me in the Annual Financial Review. I take it also from the Banking Annual. I find that the Ogilvies Milling Company earned last year 84 per cent on its capital. The profit on every barrel of flour ground by the Ogilvies Milling Company was 134 cents. When you quote the figures

showing $500,000 of a profit, some hon. gentlemen seem to think that a crime. As a matter of fact, I Tepeat, they earned a profit of 134 cents per barrel and 84 per cent on the capital of the company. And the Lake of the Woods earned, as I figure it out, 12 per cent on its total capital. Now, these are reasonable earnings, and such as no one should complain of. But you would think, to hear our friends opposite talk, that it was a crime for the industries of this country to be prosperous. For my part I am glad to see them prosperous. And I am glad the condition of this country is improving. I believe we have before us in years to come an era of prosperity that has not been equalled in the history of Canada. I do not mean that we are to have an era of speculative prosperity, but of real prosperity for the industries of the country, for the farmer, for the artisan and for all classes of our people.

Mr. GEORGE H. BOIVIN (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, at this late hour, when the members from all over Canada are patiently waiting an opportunity to express by their votes the opinions of their constituents upon the amendment presented this afternoon by my right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), I do not propose to delay the proceedings by making a long speech. I must, however, express my regret that the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) is unable to agree upon the question of free trade or protection for his native country with such great men as Asquith, Gladstone, Codben and Peel. But if I were to place these four on one side of the balance and the hon. member for Vancouver on the other side, I fear that they would prove to have the most weight. I congratulate the hon. member upon the able manner in which he repaired in his own mind and perhaps in the minds of his colleagues on his side of the House the enormous mistake made this afternoon by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster). I wondered, when I heard him make the statement during his speech what the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce would do if he had not the hon. member for Vancouver to put him on his feet every time he made a mistake. Also, I congratulate him sincerely upon the able manner in which he has repeated all the arguments we have heard here again and again in favour of protection and high tariff. And now, Mr. Speaker, I will proceed to repeat a few of the arguments advanced by many able speakers on this side in favour

of a revised tariff, free wheat and free agricultural implements. It would be impossible at this late stage to say anything very new upon the subject before the House, but what our friends opposite would considerably enjoy would be a speech or two from some Conservative members from Manitoba, Alberta or Saskatchewan who would come out openly against free wheat and free agricultural implements. They dare not speak in favour of the Conservative tariff policy, and they dare not vote against it. Some Conservative members from Manitoba should at least demonstrate to the Minister of Finance and his colleagues that the Conservatives in the Manitoba Legislature are not free traders. The Minister of Finance says that every one who is in favour of free wheat is a free trader, that free wheat means free trade. Some Conservative member from Manitoba should have taken issue with him and demonstrated that the Conservatives of Manitoba are not free traders. That should not be a difficult task, because no one believes that statement that free wheat means free trade, except the Minister of Finance himself. And I would say that even he does not believe it, if you bad not ruled a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, that such a statement would be absolutely unparliamentary. For that reason and for that reason alone, I place the Minister of Finance in a class by himself. It is for that reason only that I admit that he is the only person in this country who believes that the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Aikins) who made a speech in favour of free wheat is a free trader. When that Conservative member for Manitoba has convinced the Finance Minister thait he has made a mistake, he will still have a more difficult task left, and that will be to convince the intelligent farmers of Manitoba and western Canada that they are not intelligent enough to know what they really want, and that it would be a terrible thing for them to have three markets in which they could dispose of their wheat instead of only two. The hon. member for Vancouver says he is a protectionist. I regret that in the arrangement of speakers it should be left to me to reply to his strong arguments not in favour of the people whom he represents, but in favour of the interests who placed our friends opposite in power. I am not able to reply to each and every argument as eloquently as many hon. gentlemen upon this side of theHouse have replied to them, but I will say that the most, eloquent

and the most convincing reply that he and the Minister of Finance could possibly receive was the applause of his fellow Conservatives, who made the walls of this old Chamber re-echo their cheers again and again when he told you, Mr. Speaker, that he had gone the Liberals one better on the road to free trade and reduced the customs duty on reapers, mowers and binders two and one-half per cent lower than the Liberal party had proposed to reduce it under the nefarious reciprocity agreement of 1911. I thought at the time that if a reduction of five per cent in the duty on reapers and mowers could create so much enthusiasm in the protectionist party behind him, that a reduction of ten per cent on all implements would have so gladdened the hearts of all his followers, with the possible exception of Sir Melvin Jones and the hon. member for Brantford, (Mr. Cockshutt) that they would be cheering yet.

I do not by any means contend that the Conservative party is a free trade party any more than I contend that the Liberal party is a protectionist party, but I do say that if it were not for the necessity of being unanimous; if it were not for the interests which placed them in power; if it were not for the interests which helped form the Cabinet; if it were not for the interests upon which they count to remain in power, their spontaneous and unbiased enthusiasm at the news of a tariff reduction; their absolute lack of applause at the news of a tariff increase, is absolute proof that they would be in harmony with us in our desire to help the Canadian farmer by giving him, at the lowest possible price, the plant which he requires, to' develop the great industry of agriculture upon which the whole superstructure of our other Canadian industries depend. They would, as we will before long, go one step farther and, give the western farmer an extra market and a higher price for his produce, thereby increasing his wealth and purchasing power, increasing the population upon our boundless western prairies, increasing the resultant demand for the products of our eastern industrial establishments, increasing the population of our eastern cities without driving our farmers' sons from the soil to the workshops; increasing the home market for the supplies of the eastern mixed farmer, increasing the demand for fish from the provinces by the sea and making instead of a divided Canada, a greater and more prosperous nation.

Since the beginning of this debate I have

listened attentively to every Conservative speaker; I have read those speeches which I did not have the pleasure of hearing and, with the exception of that of the ex-Minister of Finance, the hon Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) I have not yet found one which did not contain its quota of incense and flowers for the hon. Minister of Finance. He himself, of course, paved the way for all this praise by telling you, Mr. Speaker, that he knows something about a balance sheet when he sees one. Let me follow the good or bad example of hon. gentlemen opposite and compliment him upon not only knowing something about a balance sheet when he sees one, but of knowing how to make a good looking one when he needs one.

The hon. gentleman desired to show a surplus in this year of all years when a deficit might very properly synchronize with hard times and would be entirely justifiable. He began by keeping up the tariff as high as though everyone had money to burn, making the farmer and the labourer pay into the coffers of the Government his last cent in customs duties and then mortgage his farm in one case or beg for bread in the other and by this means collected from the people the sum of $163,000,000. He has spent, no one knows precisely how much, but he decides to charge to consolidated fund expenditure the sum of $126,500,000 and there remains a surplus of $36,500,000. His followers cheer unanimously; they shower compliments upon him to such an extent that a disinterested spectator would almost think that he had taken off his coat, gone out and earned the money and given it as an Easter offering to the people of Canada.

But what becomes of the rest of the expenditure, the public buildings built, the railway subsidies which include $15,000,000 for the Canadian Northern, now asking for more, the interest paid upon the public debt, the loans repaid, the advances made to the Montreal and Quebec harbour commissioners and the money spent in September last upon the ice-breakers in the Chat-eauguay river in the county of Chateau-guay? They would annihilate the surplus, eo he differentiates between these expenditures and the others and charges these to the capital account. In this way they do not count, but when Canada wants to know how much she owes, her bookkeeper and balance-sheet maker has to answer $502,000,000, nineteen million more than we owed at this time last year. We have had a prosperous year in spite of the hard times. We only owe $19,000,000 more than we did 183

last year. Allow me right here, Mr. Speaker, to say that if it had not been for the members of the Liberal party in the House of Commons and in the Senate during the past year; if it had not been for their untiring efforts to chase away the clouds that darkened and the lightning that brightened the horizon of the hon. Prime Minister and made him find an imaginary emergency where none existed, the head bookkeeper would have been obliged to charge $35,000,000 more to the capital account or practically wipe out his surplus, and our debt would have been $537,000,000, or $54,000,000 more than it was in March, 1913. The hon. Finance Minister would have been more worthy of praise if he had put the brakes upon some of the spending departments of the Government, notably the Department of Public Works, which spent $10,818,832.05 in 1911, and asks for $28,330,048.89 for the year which has just begun, and the Department of Militia, where furs and feathers, gold lace, automobile rides in Europe and other expenses Will cost this year $10,867,000, exactly $4,000,000 more than they did in 1911 when this great spending parity arrived in power and this without counting the $186,900 spent by the department under the head of Civil Government and $2,315,000 included in the public works estimates for armouries and drill sheds, a total of $13,368,900.

The words, ' dash away and spend the money,' were eliminated from ' Hansard,' but, what is worse for the people of Canada, they are put into constant practice by the Government. ' To spend or not to spend ' is never the question with hon. gentlemen opposite, and just so long as the people of Canada remain indifferent to their own interests and until they banish this Government from power, they will have to pay through customs and excise duties all the money that the hon. Ministers of Public Works and Militia may desire to spend.

With these few remarks upon the financial part of the Budget speech, allow me, before passing on to the method of collecting this vast amount of revenue, to congratulate once more the hon. Finance Minister and to shower upon him my share of flowers and incense, upon his ability to make a goodlooking balance sheet when he needs one.

Many of the Conservative speakers during this debate have ridiculed free trade. They have used several arguments against it, but the two most reasonable and most important arguments are that our infant industries require protection, and that our Finance Minister requires a tariff to pro-

vide revenue for t/he use of the spending departments of the Government.

Let us take the second argument first. Like my right iron, leader I believe we require a tariff for revenue purposes. The ministers of the present Government and many of the speakers opposite say that absolute free trade means direct taxation, and I am inclined to believe they are right. But is it any wonder they fear anything and everything that would lead to direct taxation? Just think of the Hon. Col. Sam. Hughes taxing every man, woman and child twenty-five cents to pay his expenses upon an automobile trip through Europe, one dollar to build a large drill-hall here or there, or two dollars to send the school children of Canada to camp. Just think of the Hon. Mr. Rogers taxing every man, woman and child one dollar or two dollars each to build a monument to the hon. Postmaster General, for instance. How long would they remain in power? Until the next general election but not a moment longer. The people pay these expenses by indirect taxation, they will continue to do so upon the ground that the Government needs the revenue. Let ru consider upon what articles this customs duty should be imposed. We agree that in collecting this revenue we should protect our infant industries. We have in Canada to-day many industries, some infants and some promising youths, some advanced in years but still in need of protection, but when those manufacturers prove to Canada and to the world that they can manufacture their products cheap enough to cotapete with the factories in the great republic to the south of us and compete with them in their own and foreign markets, we on this side of the House claim it is time to lift part of the weight from the shoulders of the Canadian farmer and allow him to go into the United States if he likes and buy a harrow, plough, rake or binder manufactured in Canada cheaper than he can get it at home without being obliged to place a sum representing seventeen or even twelve per cent of the purchase price in the hands of a customs official.

In 1911 our hon. friend the Solicitor General made a very good speech in favour of a reduction of the duty on agricultural implements. It was not to be a reduction of 5 per cent on binders and mowers; it was to be a substantial reduction. In moving for this substantial reduction, he said that the effect of the tariff on agricultural implements upon revenue was to benefit the

revenue of other countries rather than of our own country. He went on to say:

As at present constituted this is not so much a tariff for the revenue of Canada as a tariff for the revenue of Spain, as a tariff for the revenue of Austria. In Austria the manufacturers of binders and mowers are able to leap over a duty of some $33 on every binder, and yet they sell at a profit in Austria. It is, Sir, a tariff for the revenue of Roumania, a tariff for the revenue of Russia, a tariff for the revenue of Prance rather than a tariff for the revenue of Canada.

Further he said:

It means that this is an additional Chinese wall, if you may call it such, that this Government has seen fit, in violation of every principle of public honour and of its own, to hedge round the manufacturers of the articles I have mentioned, and which enables them to make a profit after leaping over these tariff walls of considerable height in all these countries.

To-day he is the Solicitor General. Today ho says that the Cabinet and the party behind the Cabinet must be unanimous, and for that reason he is willing to abandon the rights of his constituents in the constituency of Portage la Prairie and to say that a reduction of 5 per cent on reapers and mowers, in other words, that the knocking off of one or two bricks from the top of this Chinese wall is all that the western farmer requires. Does the knocking off of these two or three bricks from the top of this wall, does this reduction of 5 per cent mean that the farmers of western Canada are going to buy mowers and reapers cheaper than they are buying them now? There was a cheer of delight from the party sitting behind the Minister of Finance when he announced that the duty would be reduced by 5 per cent, but we have not yet heard the cheers or the echoes of the cheers of delight from the farmers of Canada who wanted free wheat, who wanted free agricultural implements of all kinds and who got nothing at all. I say that they have got nothing at all for two reasons. If they received the benefit of 5 per cent on reapers and mowers, as the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) said, it would only mean ninety cents a year to the most prosperous farmer. The Minister of Finance pointed out in his Budget speech that the only firms in Canada making reapers and mowers are the International Harvester Company, the Massey-Harris Company, the Frost and Wood Company, of Smith's Falls, and the Noxon Company, of Ingersoll. These concerns manufacture on both sides of the

line, and have practically a monopoly of the implement business so far as reapers and binders are concerned. They control prices on both sides of the line. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that the American International Harvester Company or the American Massey-Barris Company is going to ship its goods here to compete with its Canadian branches? What will happen is that they will raise their prices in the United States to a sufficient figure to leave the Canadian price the same as it is to-day, so that the Canadian farmer, in spite of this reduction of 5 per cent, will be obliged to pay the same price he has always paid for his ploughs, his harrows, his rakes, his cultivators, his manure spreaders, his threshers, his reapers and mowers. But the Conservative politicians and campaigners will be able to tour through the West and say the Conservative Government has done something for the farmer reducing the duty on reapers and binders by 5 per cent. The reduction in agricultural implement duties may mean free trade. That is what the Minister of Finance said in 1911 about the reciprocity pact. I am sure, however, that if he considers himself a free trader because he has given this reduction on implements, the farmers of western and eastern Canada will say: From such free traders as this, O Lord deliver us. He is not a free trader, and in his Budget speech he repeated his declaration of allegiance to the tariff policy of Sir John A. Macdonald. He is in favour of protection for all Canadian industries, and, above all, protection for the basic industry of agriculture. We are all protectionists in a way. Protection does not always mean a protective tariff. We on this side of the House stand for that protection which protects, and not for the protection which kills. If refusing free wheat and free agricultural implements is protection for the Canadian farmer, I am sure that it is a protection which he does not appreciate and does not want. Let us for a moment imagine the magnates of any Canadian industry coming in a delegation to the office of the Minister of Finance and saying to him: We are manufacturing goods

at such favourable prices that we can not only supply the entire Canadian market, but we want to send our goods outside of this country, and want your assistance to that end. What would these magnates think if the Minister of 183} .

Finance replied: All right, gentlemen, we will put an export duty on your goods, or at all events leave on your goods the export duty that is already there ? I claim that the refusal of the Finance Minister to give free wheat to the Canadian farmer is equivalent to a refusal to removing the export duty on Canadian wheat which now exists. It is worse than an export duty, because when an export duty is imposed on an article, the money is paid into the coffers of our own country. But in this particular instance our farmers cannot sell their wheat in the United States without losing the amount of the duty. I claim that they are paying an export duty into the coffers of the American Government, and it is that duty which we are-asking the Finance Minister to take off,, because the Canadian farmer has more-goods than the home market requires. That, request has been refused. Did the Minister of Finance go to the farmers and ask them how much money they were making ? Did he examine their books ? No, he went to the millers and the railway companies and asked them if the Canadian farmer needed free wheat. In spite of the fact that every Canadian farmer wants free wheat, the railway men and the Canadian millers say he does not require it, and the Minister of Finance bows to their will. For the purpose of pleasing three or four rich and influential friends he turns down the request of the farmers of the western prairies. Why does he do so ? Is it really going to hurt our railways to give the farmers free wheat ? Is it not the desire of everybody in this House to encourage the right class of immigration, to people the western prairies with immigrants who will draw from Canadian soil the wealth that will make Canada great and prosperous. Is it not the wish of the railway companies that that immigration should flow in in great streams, so that they can transport the immigrants and their effects to the West and keep on transporting goods to them in the West. Those immigrants would begin by wanting material to build their homes, and they would end by buying the luxuries which they can afford when they get a decent price for their wheat, and cheap agricultural implements. Is not that the wish of every eastern manufacturer who knows that there is more money in an increased output and moderate profits than there is in a

high tariff with closed factories. 12 p.m. When the American market is open to the western farmer it does not mean that he will ship all his grain there. He will not be obliged to sell everything that he has to sell to the United States, but it will mean that he will have three markets instead of two: the home market, always the best; the English market, and the American market. The wheat which he will ship to eastern Canada and to Great Britain will be carried over Canadian railways from the West to the East. A great portion of that going to the United States will be for the New England states, not for the western states where they grow their own wheat. The population in the eastern states is dense and they will need our wheat for flour; and if freight rates are the same in Canada as in the United States-and if they are not they should be made the same-there is no reason why that wheat should not travel from West to East over Canadian railways. The Minister of Finance in the Budget speech made & comparison with the Underwood tariff. He says that in the United States the average tariff is twenty-six per cent, that [DOT]the average is the same on one side of the line as it is on the other. That is an argument for the hustings and not an argument for the Canadian House of Commons. The weak point is that it does not take the free list into consideration at all. He compares the average duty on steam locomotives, typewriters, pianos and gramophones in the United States with the duty which the Canadian labourer has to pay upon his 8>read, butter, meat and flour and then arrives at the illogical conclusion that the tariffs of Canada and the United States are the same. In one breath he says that it is wrong to revise our tariff to meet the tariff *of the United States. In the next breath he prides himself upon copying it and keeping the same average. For one reason he keeps the tariff on wheat and for the other he refuses to reduce the tariff on wheat. He talks about protection to the farmer. Protection to the farmer when he refuses to give him free agricultural implements? Protection to the farmer when he refuses to give him an extra market for his wheat? Does he mean protection for the eastern farmer? Does he, like the hon. member for Ohateauguay (Mr. Morris), consider that the western farmer does not deserve to be honoured by that name? Does he even give protection to the .eastern farmer? The eastern farmer is a purchaser of flour and he is a seller of the products of mixed farm-fMr. Boivin.]

ing. He cannot export to the United States or to western Canada, and he must sell his produce in his own market where it can be delivered to the people in good condition and it is only by increasing the population of western Canada that the home market can be increased and that the eastern farmer can be benefited.

To make my point more clear, let me say that the market for the eastern farmer, with the exception perhaps of the dairy products and the cattle which he ships away, for the products of mixed farming is the village, the town and the city of eastern Canada. The village, the city and the town of eastern Canada are, as a general rule, manufacturing centres. This year in the city, the village and the town in eastern Canada, the factories are closed and the men are out of work because there is no demand for their products by the western farmer. If the men are out of work they are unable to buy the produce of the farmer in the east. I say without fear of contradiction that if the western farmer is benefited, if the population is increased upon the prairie, the eastern farmer will be benefited by having a home market for his mixed farm produce and that everybody in Canada will be happier and wealthier. Adam Smith, who has been frequently cited on the other side of the House, once said:

The annual produce of land and labour of any nation can be increased in its value by no other means than by increasing the number of its productive laborers or the productive power of these laborers.

We agree with that statement and it is to increase the number of productive labourers in Canada, and to increase their productive power as well, that we are in favour of free wheat and free agricultural implements. We believe that from our fertile western prairies more wealth can be extracted and that this wealth so extracted from the virgin soil of Canada will make Canada a wealthy and prosperous country. We want to increase production because it means wealth and prosperity and happiness to our people. To do so we propose to remove the export duty which keeps our f&Tiner from selling in the United States market and we propose to remove the duty from the agricultural implements required to till the soil. We are in favour of a tariff for revenue and we are in favour of protection for every Canadian industry which requires protection but not for those which do not require it. We are blamed by hen. gentlemen opposite for having pro-

tected these industries during the past fifteen years. We gave them protection, for fifteen years and we will continue to give them protection if they can prove to us that they require it, and we will give them that protection without hurting the other elasses in Canada.

The Minister of Finance asked us to throw down the gauntlet. This afternoon my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition threw it down. I say to hon. gentlemen opposite: Pick it up and hasten the

day when the people of Canada can decide between Borden and Laurier. The life of a man or party that never knew a failure would miss much. Such a life in mercy was not given to the party opposite. It has had its share of failures in the last seventeen years; it has had another failure in the present Budget speech which satisfies neither consumer nor manufacturer nor farmer. We met with one failure at the polls in 1911 when we attempted to stem the tide that later brought hunger and misery to many a home. Think of the spectacle the other day in the city of Montreal where thousands and thousands of unemployed assembled in response to a call of the mayor who had promised them employment. A photograph of these thousands of men seeking employment, ready to take a pick and Shovel at $2 or $2.25 per day, is an answer to the argument of' 'hon. gentlemen opposite who claim that onr country is prosperous and that we, the Liberals, are the only ones who are preaching that it is not prosperous. A more eloquent answer than that could not be given. We admit that in trying to stem this tide we met with a failure but as Edmund Vance Cooke puts it:

What is a failure? It's only a spur To a man who receives it right,

And it makes the spirit within him stir To go in once more and fight.

years is a task to which his ability is unequal, a task which he cannot accomplish.

The gauntlet has been thrown down. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) has pretended that he did not understand the issue as contained in the amendment proposed by my right hon. leader. He has already commenced, true Conservative that he is, to distort the meaning of our policy in an effort to combat it more easily. It is the same old story, the same old guerilla warfare, but the people of Canada will not again be taken in by arguments levied at a policy which does not exist. They will read the amendment which pledges the Canadian Liberal party to free wheat, free agricultural implements for the fafmer, cheaper food for the labourer, and a reasonable protection to those Canadian industries which require protection.

The manufacturer from eastern Canada, who prefers a large output and reasonable profits to a high tariff and a closed factory, the farmer who wants an extra market for his wheat and cheaper agricultural implements to produce that wheat, the railway magnates who are anxious to transport thousands and thousands of settlers to the farm lands of western Canada, the labourer who wants steady employment and something more than dried bananas and dessicated cocoanut in his dinner pail and on his table, will all wend their way to the polls to register their votes with one slogan, with one thought uppermost in their minds: ' We'll send Laurier back to power.'

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   '2882 COMMONS
Permalink

April 23, 1914