March 25, 1902 (9th Parliament, 2nd Session)


Thomas Osborne Davis



gentlemen opposite have time and again challenged the government to show what they have done to improve Canada's exports, what they have done to bring about this measure of prosperity that we enjoy to day. I say they have done a great deal to bring about this measure of prosperity for the very reason that they have adopted up-to-date methods in running the affairs of this country. They have done as any business man would do in his business, they have made our capabilities known, they have advertised our wares, they have advertised our produce in the English market and other markets, and in that way they have been able to find new markets and to enlarge the old ones for the producers of this country. That is one of the reasons why our export trade has swollen to its present enormous proportions. Let me show you how our exports have grown :
Exports-Canadian Produce to Great Britain.
1897 $69,533,852
1898 93,065,019
1899 85,114,555
1900 96,562,875
1901 92,857,525
In 1897 the exports of animals and then-produce and agricultural products the produce of Canada, were .$47,000,000. In 1901 they amounted to $66,000,000. Canadian butter to the amount of 10,413,131 pounds was sent to Great Britain in 1897, whereas in 1901 we sent 15.602.445 pounds. For the year 1900 we sent 24,317,436 pounds. Cheese in 1897, 163,942,649 pounds, in 1901, 195,125.317 pounds. Eggs in 1897, 6,939.496 dozen, in 1901, 11.273.452 dozen. Bacon in 1897, 59,552,464 pounds, in 1901, 102.709.560 pounds. Beef in 1897, 363,53$ pounds, in 1901, 8,819,213 pounds.
Now as regards foreign trade, I present a summary statement showing the progress and prosperity of the country under Liberal rule indicating the wisdom of the Liberal fiscal policy.
Statement showing the foreign trade of Canada by five-year periods that is to say, the five years from 1897 to 1901, inclusive, being the last five years of the Conservative administration :
Aggregate foreign trade, 1897-01. .$1,651,726,204 Aggregate foreign trade, 1892-96.. 1,193,453,797
Increase In 5 yrs., Liberal rule.$ 458,272,407
Imports for consumption, 1897-01_______$758,085,924
Imports for consumption, 1892-96_______ 567,617,947
Increase in 5 yrs.. Liberal rule...$190,467,977 Exports produce of Canada, 1897-01. .$756,090,015 Exports produce of Canada, 1892-96.. 522,299,289
Increase in 5 yrs., Liberal rule. .$233,790,726 Exports produce of Canada to Great
Britain, 1897-01 $437,133,826
Exports produce of Canada to Great
Britain, 1892-96 294,859,222
Exports produce of Canada to United
States, 1897-01 $252,103,818
Exports produce of Canada to United States, 1892-96 179,306,963
Increase in 5 yrs., Liberal rule..$ 72,796,855 Exports Canadian mine to all countries, 1897-01 $104,078,270
Exports Canadian mine to all countries, 1892-96 32,080,247
Increase under Liberal rule.. ..$ 71,998,023
Exports Canadian fisheries to all
countries, 1897-01 $ 52,955,091
Exports Canadian fisheries to all countries, 1892-96 51,291,152
Increase in 5 yrs., Liberal rule.'.$ 1,663,929 Exports Canadian forests to all
countries, 1897-01 $145,465,322
Exports Canadian forests to all
countries, 1892-96 126,063,954
Increase in 5 yrs., Liberal rule..$ 19,401,368 Exports Canadian animals and their produce, and agricultural products,
the produce of Canada, 1897-01______$368,230,911
Exports Canadian animals and their
produce, and agricultural products,
the produce of Canada, 1892-96.... 254,751,545
Increase in 5 yrs., Liberal rule. .$113,479,266 Exports Canadian manufactures, 1897.1901 $ 62,143,520
Exports Canadian manufactures, 1892 1896 39,561,961
Increase in 5 yrs., Liberal rule..$ 22,561,371 Statement showing the increase in foreign
trade from 1896 to 1901 under Liberal rule,
as compared with the increase from 1878 to
1896 under Conservative rule :-
Aggregate foreign trade, 1896 $239,025,360Aggregate foreign trade, 1901
Increase under Liberal rule, 5 yrs.$147,877,797
Average increase per annum.. ..$ 29,575,559
Aggregate foreign trade, 1896 $239,025,360Aggregate foreign trade, 1878
Increase under Conservative rule,
18 years $ 66,619,906Average increase per annum.. ..$ 3,701,106
Imports for consumption, 1896 .. ..$110,587,480 Imports for consumption, 1891 .. .. 181,237,988
Increase under Liberal rule,5 yrs.$ 70,650,503
Average increase per annum.. ..$ 14,130,101 Imports for consumption, 1896 .. ..$110,587,480 Imports for consumption, 1878 .. .. 91,199,577
Increase under Conservatives, 18 years $ 19,387,903Average increase per annum.. ..$ 1,077,106
Exports produce of Canada, 1896.. ..$109,915,337 Exports produce of Canada, 1901.. .. 177,431,386
Increase under Liberal rule, 5 yrs.$ 67,516,049
Increase in 5 yrs., Liberal rule $142,274,604 Mr. DAVIS.
Average increase per annum.. ..$ 13,503,209

Exports produce of Canada, 1896.. ..$109,915,337 Exports produce of Canada, 1878.. .. 67,989,800
Increase under Conservatives, 18 years $ 41,925,537
Average increase per annum.. ..$ 2,329,197
I think that all goes to show that this country has been progressing fairly under the rule of my hon. friends who now occupy the treasury benches, and I think, that, while it may be that hon. gentlemen opposite are not satisfied with the government of the day, it has been shown that whenever an opportunity has been given the electorate to pronounce upon the policy of the government, they have intimated that they are entirely satisfied with the manner in which the affairs of the country are being conducted at the present time. There is no doubt that there are hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who are not satisfied. They are in the cold shades of opposition and they cannot be expected to enthuse over the immense trade of this country as they might have done if their leaders in the past had adopted the astute methods of the present administration and had thereby brought about a similar condition of prosperity, because, by reason of advertising our goods in foreign markets and adopting a proper trade policy the government has, in large measure, brought about this state of prosperity. 1 do not say that the government of the day causes the rain to fall or the sun to shine. No government can do that, although hon. gentlemen opposite used to make the claim in the days of the old national policy that the Conservative party made the hens lay big eggs. This may be ancient history, but in the hays of poor old Alex. Mackenzie, when the times were hard and there was a great depression in the United States and all over the world, these hon. gentlemen did not make any allowance for this condition of affairs, but they told the people that through Mr. Mackenzie's bungling and stupidity this state of affairs had been brought about and they, said if you pat us in we have a panacea for all the ills that man is heir to in the national policy. We do not claim, as I have said before, that the government can make the rain to fall or the sun to shine, thus causing the crops to grow, but the government can do a great deal by assisting to open up the country, by improving the transportation facilities, by giving the people lower freight rates and in various other ways, and a great deal has been done in these directions by the present government.
A good deal has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite with reference to the expenditure of the country. I do not want to take up the time of the House in discussing this question which has been threshed out very thoroughly already, but, I may say that we are quite willing to compare the record of this government with
the record of its predecessor in the matter of expenditure. How do we make that comparison ? The only proper way to get at that is to find the difference between the expenditure and the revenue. The receipts of this country have increased from $38,000,000, in round numbers, in 1895, to over $52,000,000, which we expect to get during the present year. Hon. gentlemen opposite say : Yes, that is very true, but you are taxing the people more. The census has shown that the increase of population does not warrant that increase in expenditure.
I have already shown that we are taxing the people less than hon. gentlemen opposite did because we have taken $10,000,000 out of the people less than would have been taken if the old tariff had been in operation. But, neither this government nor any other government ever taxes the people. The government never goes to each man's door and collects the taxes from him. The very fact that the revenue was increased from $38,000,000 to $52,000,000 is the strongest possible proof of the value to the country of the policy of the present government. It goes to show that the government has brought prosperity to the country and for that reason money is flowing into the public treasury. But, if the government were to raise the rate of duty 5 per cent, instead of the money going into the treasury to be spent in the interests of the people in proper public improvements, it would divert it into the pockets of a few manufacturers for the benefit of a few individuals. The policy at present in operation has brought about the present satisfactory state of affairs. Why are we getting this $52,000,000 V We do not send tax collectors round to the people's doors to collect the taxes. We are getting this revenue because the people are taxing themselves, because the people are able to tax themselves, because, under the policy of this government, the people have been able to buy luxuries for their families that they were not able to buy under the national policy, because, they are able to dress their families as they never dressed them before, because they are able to buy articles that under the national policy they never were able to buy. If a man is now able to buy two binders, where before under the national policy, he had to cut his crop with a cradle or a scythe and these binders are imported he pays more taxes. If he buys two ploughs with which to cultivate his land, if these ploughs are imported he pays more taxes. If he buys two dresses for his wife, where he had hard work to buy one when the Conservatives were in power and if the goods out of which these di-esses are made are imported he is paying more taxes. If hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House were able to show that the money has not been properly expended, then, * it would be a fair proposition, but, the proper time, as has been pointed out here before, to do that is when the esti-

the Tay canal, the St. Charles Branch, the, Langevin block and the Curran bridge; but I need not go over all these cases, because the House knows all about them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have takeu up enough of the time of this House. I have spoken at greater length than I intended. In conclusion, I want to refer to what .1 consider the proper policy for this country to pursue. Instead of manufacturers coming down here and asking the government for more protection, we should turn our attention to the opening up and developing of the vast heritage which we possess beyond the great lakes, and I am glad to see the government doing this to a large extent. In that way we would be furnishing a market for our manufacturers at our own doors. At the present time people in the west are consumers of the greater part of the things which are made in eastern Canada. Your travellers and agents are going all over that country buzzing like flies around a honey pot. They find that $50,000,000 or $60,000,000 of cold cash which our people get for their produce is worth looking after. Therefore, I say that the judicious expenditure of more money on immigration and on improving the transportation facilities to open up that country, is the proper policy to adopt. If the gentlemen who are hunting for a little more protection would work as hard to make a success of their business as the farmers have to do, they would not be coming down here harassing the government for more protection. The farmers have to work day and night to make their farms pay. They do not come down to Ottawa harassing the government for more protection ; but these gentlemen, if their machinery gets a little antiquated, or if they get a little old themselves, do not buy new machinery, but come for more protection. I remember a little story, of a gentleman who came down here on a delegation that wanted more protection for woollen goods. A gentleman said to him:
4 You get 23 per cent protection against English goods, and you have besides the freight between Great Britain and Canada, which is equivalent to 3 or 4 per cent more; why are you not satisfied ? ' He said : 'We cannot compete with the manufacturers in the old country.' ' Why ? '
' Because our machinery is not as good.' He was asked : ' W'hy not put in new
machinery ? ' He said : ' I am too old.'
It was easier to come down here and ask for more protection than to put in new machinery. The true policy in the interest of this country is to open up and develop our North-west Territories, and in that way provide an enlarged market for our manufacturers. We are getting producers into that country at the rate of 50,000 a year.
I am quite satisfied that this year we" will get 75,000 if not 100,000 people in there, and these people are bringing in large

Full View