ordinary mind, and the old adage that you can prove anything by figures, or attempt to prove anything, is illustrated by the speech which we have just heard from the hon. gentleman from Halifax (Hon. Mr. Power). I revert once more to the compliment I paid him, as to the remark he made and the compliments he paid the late Government in adopting a policy which enabled the manufacturers to manufacture goods and sell them in the foreign markets as cheaply as manufacturers in any other country; what is equally important, is the fact that the imposition of that policy enables men to employ hundreds of thousands of additional men who otherwise might have had to seek employment in a foreign country. Hon. Mr. BOSTOCK-I wish to congratulate my hon. friend from Halifax (Hon. Mr. Power), on the very interesting speech he has given us this afternoon, and the trouble he has taken to put his views before the House. I regret, rather, that he has not brought this matter up earlier in the session, because at this time of the session we are not altogether in a position to give it as full and complete discussion as a subject of this kind deserves. I have listened with a good deal of attention to what the hon. gentleman from Hastings has said in this matter, and I cannot see how to arrive at the same conclusions, about this. Of course everybody who is interested in the development of the country is anxious that the manufacturers of this country, as well as other industries in the country should be as prosperous as possible, and we are only glad to see that the manufacturers of the coun my experience has been that the National Policy has not benefited the whole country. It has benefited, to a very large extent, certain individual interests in the country. It has tended to build up certain industries to the detriment of others. In British Columbia we feel the extent of that, because at the present time we are not a manufacturing province. We have not had a sufficient time to develop industries, and therefore we have to pay, either by way of tariff, or we have to pay by way of freight rates for the goods which we bring from the eastern part of the Dominion to the province of British Columbia. In the case of the mining industry in Kootenay years ago, when that industry first came into prominence, there was a very great outcry on the part of the people that they should be allowed to bring their mining machinery into Kootenay free of duty. The people who were interested in developing that mining industry found that the amount of duty they had to pay on mining machinery coming into the country, was a very great hardship on them and entailed a very great deal more money being put into the opening up and development of mines. At that time the manufacturers of Canada had not had the experience in making mining machinery that they have at the present time, and therefore the mining industry in British Columbia suffered in one or two wayseither in having to pay a higher price for the machinery used in the mines or, because they had to pay the freight rate for bringing the machinery from the eastern part of Canada, the makers of which were not of machinery as they are at present. The as well versed in the making of this class question of wages is also very often brought forward in connection with the question of the tariff, and I was very much interested the other day in a newsin the United States had increased very paper article which claimed that wages considerably in the towns in the last decade. This article compared the wages in the United States with those of Great Britain over the same period, and pointed out in the United States the wages during this period had increased in the centres of population whilst in Great Britain the wages had, if anything, declined in the cenHon. Sir MACKENZIE BOWELL-And wages in the farming districts had very tres of population while at the same time does not regret it. try are carrying on a large export trade, and doing well in connection with it, but my hon. friend has not made the conclusion very clear to my mind, that this was due to the action or policy of the Government. The manufacturers of the country are dependent on the development of the country, and they naturally develop as the country itself develops. The greatest work that can be done in handling the affairs of the country is to see that the development of the country is carried on as fast as possible and to the greatest benefit of the whole country. My hon. friend of course has always been a supporter of what is called the National Policy Hon. Mr. BOSTOCK-And he will tell us that that policy was established for the purpose of benefiting the whole country, but much increased-the effect being to encourage people to stay and make their living in the country, and not crowd into the towns in such a way as almost every civilized a highly organized association. One effect of this will be that the farmers will come together very much more, in their own interests, and for the purpose of trying to bring about the desired results of getting the benefit of the market of the United States for their wheat, in a way they cannot do at present. The hon. gentleman took exception to the statement as to the grade of flour on which my hon. friend from Halifax quoted prices in different markets at the present time. That question has been discussed before, and if I recollect rightly the did not refer to the same grade of flour. same point was raised, that the prices given When the discussion was gone into it was shown that it was the same grade of flour that was being dealt with; and the point is that this flour is being sold on the English market at a lower rate than on this side of the water. My hon. friend referred to the mixing of flour. Of course, different kinds of flour are mixed in this way, the hard wheat and the soft, but when the flour is part of the world to-day is complaining. of. Legislatures are trying very hard to induce people to stay on the land and develop the natural resources of the country, and the farming industry, instead of crowding into towns as they are doing When I read that article I thought it was a proof that the free trade policy pursued by Great Britain was encouraging people to stay on the land and work, and not crowd into the towns. Another point well worth considering is the effect that has been brought about by the reduction in duty in the United States, under what is known as the Underwood tariff. The figures comparing the first three months of this year with those of last year, show that since the Underwood tariff went into effect the trade between Canada and the United States in certain articles on which the duty was reduced, has increased very largely, and the amount of trade going from Canada to the United States has increased in that period of time by nine-mixed it has a certain grade that is known teen million dollars. That is a very good example of what can be done, and what occurs when you reduce the duty on gooas coming into a country. The United States tariff has been of very great benefit to Canada, especially to the West, where the statement was made the other day that no less than 500,000 hogs had been carried out of the prairie provinces by the Canadian Pacific railway, most of those hogs having gone to points like Seattle and other points in the United States. The effect of this has been to put into the hands of the railway company a considerable business, and it all goes to help the prairie farmers very much in the West at a time when they very seriously want assistance, on account of the refusal by the Government to consider their request for taking off the duty on wheat. The farmers in the West have pointed out to the Government the benefit that would accrue to them if they would meet the proposals of the United States as stated in the Underwood tariff, of taking the duty off wheat; but the Gov-industry of making clothes and woollen ernment have not seen their way to meeting the request of the farmers, although thy have shown very great interest in helping the manufacturers in western Canada. The farmers of course are not in the same position; they cannot come down and presenting the people who would be making those their case to the Government, and insist on their views being adopted, in the same way that some of the manufacturers, who have to the trade, and the flour is sold under that name, so that there can be very little doubt but that the prices given refer to the same grade of flour. This motion calls for the removing or the substantial reducing of duties on the necessaries of life. One objection taken by my hon. friend, is that the only point raised was the reduction on woolen goods coming into this country, whereas necessaries of life cover a great many things. The object of reducing the duty is for the purpose of helping to bring about the reduction in the cost of living, and helping the people, as in the case of their woollen goods, which are very much required, especially in a cold country. People should be able to buy these goods as cheaply as possible. If there was a reduction on the price of manufactured woollens coming into this country, it would have the effect of supplying the trade engaged in the making of clothing with such goods at a very considerably less rate than they pay at the present time; thus they would employ a larger number of hands than are shown by the figures given by my hon. friend from Halifax. The goods of all sorts is one that would employ a great many hands, and the benefit to the whole country would be very great, if we could get our material, at a greatly reduced rate it would, at the same time be benefit clothes. I do not propose discussing this question any longer at the present time, but I think that it is very much to be regretted that the Government has not seen their way in their tariff proposals, to reduce the duty on those woollen goods, and propose a reduction in the British preference on goods coming into this country. Some hon. GENTLEMEN-Hear, hear. reasoner. which is the biggest one of the lot, allowed to go without any protection at all? We have heard this afternoon of the manufacturing industry, but the great agricultural industry exported in the year 1913 no less than $150,000,000 worth; while what was the export of our manufactured products ?-less than $45,000,000—a good deal less than half of the export of agricultural products. That alone will show that the agricultural interest in this country is really the most important interest that we have. And if any industry should be protected and helped and assisted it is the great agricultural industry of this Dominion. Hon. Mr. THOMPSON-The farmers are asking for a reduction of the tariff. Hon. Mr. DANIEL-Are they? Hon. Mr. DANIEL-That is the very I would like first time I have heard it. to ask the hon. gentleman from British Columbia if the fruit raisers in this country are asking for the tariff to be taken off fruit? Some hon. GENTLEMEN-Hear, hear. Hon. Mr. DANIEL-I quite agree with the speaker who has just taken his seat, that it is a rather late time in the session to start in and debate such an important subject, and especially on such short notice. In consequence, this Chamber will hardly be able to do itself justice, and perhaps not even credit, by having such an important matter brought to its attention at this late date. I must say that as a rule I listen to the hon. member from Halifax (Hon. Mr. Power) with a great deal of pleasure, and often receive a good deal of instruction. But Hon. Mr. THOMPSON-Yes, all over his address this afternoon was one which | Canada. hardly did credit to the greatness of the subject, or indeed to himself as a close He spoke of the desirability of the Government making a reduction on the necessaries of life, and to what articles did he alone refer, practically? Flour on the one hand, and to clothing on the other. Now, how much flour did we import into this country in the year 1913 ? Hon. Mr. DANIEL-I would like the We imported into this country in 1913 of grain products, which of course takes in hon. gentleman from New Brunswick to flour and other things besides, $990,812 go down to Montreal and ask the market worth; and we took in duty on that gaideners around Montreal if they want amount the sum of $159,409.09, or really the duty taken off the stuff they raise. less than two cents a head for the whole And I should like him to go to any year, for the whole population of Canada. | farmer in Ontario, Quebec, or the MariIs that not a great tax for us to groan time provinces, and ask him the same under ? That certainly must have raised the cost of living to a very high amount in Canada! But that is the argument that we have had given this afternoon with regard to the increased cost of living, by the necessaries of life having a duty placed upon them. I want to go a little further in that same connection. It must have appealed to every member in this House that when the hon. gentleman got into his subject, he must have felt that, if he was going to carry out and advocate a policy of that kind to the fullest extent, he would raise a great question, and a great opposition among the big army of farmers in this country, consequently he left the greater part of that subject severely alone? Why ? Why should every interest and every industry in this country be protected and the farming industry question; I doubt very much if he would come back here and say that he received an affirmative answer from any one of them. Hon. gentlemen should not confuse the farmers of this country with a certain grain growing faction in the West. some ways they are united, but in others they have their differences In Hon. Mr. THOMPSON-The hon. gentleman spoke of an exportation of agricultural products amounting to $150,000,000; was not that to a large extent wheat? Hon. Mr. DANIEL-Certainly; what has that got to do with it? It only shows that wheat growing is part of the agricultural industry in the Dominion, and needs looking after the same as every other industry. My hon. friend's resolution calls for a reduction of the cost of living. What is JUNE 1, 1914 the argument of the hon. gentleman from of this country and prevent the present Fredericton (Hon. Mr. Thompson) in re- large importation of food products. But gard to free wheat? It is that they think take all those articles together, the duty that, by having free wheat, they will be raised on imported food products of all own kinds is a little less than $8,000,000-about able to get better prices for their wheat, the effect of that would be to in- a dollar a head for the whole population crease the cost of living in this country of the Dominion. Of all these things that the is cost that is above what it is at present. That is the are brought into the country on which paid, result of the hon. gentleman's argument. duty dollar a year. The same thing applies to the remark incurred by the individual because of made by the hon. gentleman from British the duty is about one Columbia (Hon. Mr. Bostock) when he Now, supposing there was not a cent of spoke about the large number of hogs duty placed on those things, does any As a hon. gentleman think that the cost of being exported from this country. matter of fact the result is to increase the living in this country would be reduced Hon. gentlemen know in cost of living in this country. So that, as by one fifty-cent piece, or by one-quarter far as this resolution and the arguments of a dollar ? used by hon. gentlemen in support of it their own hearts that no such effect would are concerned, they are all the other way. be produced, even if the article in that With regard to the amount of food pro- list were allowed in this country free of ducts imported, I want to go a little fur- duty. But why should the agriculturalist no protection ? ther than the hon. gentleman, and mention be singled out, and why should it be said more of them than he specified. We im- that he should receive ported in the year ending March 31, 1913, You may say that his products are the the last year for which we have full pub- products of the soil, but would any man lished reports, of animals living, exclud- try to gather grapes from thorns, or figs the ing horses-we have not got to eating from thistles. People only reap what they The agricultural products is He horses yet in this country-$939,831, and sow. raised a duty on those of $234,794.66. We manufactured article of the farmer. imported bread-stuffs, $1,260,357, and got has to employ capital, and he has to pay duty on that of $261,403.33; grain, for his capital. He has to purchase his it of plant, and he has to plough, and harrow, $1,889,813, and raised a duty $238,499.68; grain products, which includes and sow, and reap, and thresh, and gather flour, $990,882, and got a duty on it of into his barns, which are his warehouses, This is done, not by the smile $159,409.09; coffee, $268,100, and got a duty and he has to transport his stuff to on it of $35,365.38; eggs, $2,783,665, and market. took a duty on them of $397,123.48; fish, of Providence sending showers and suncon- shine in their proper order, but it is done $1,608,663, duty paid, $361,115.52; densed milk, $21,171, duty paid, $8,292.56; by the use of capital, and by the paypayment of labour. meats, $5,338,673, duty paid, $1,040,547.78; ment for capital and by the use of labour a manufacturer, and his insugar, $17,392,146, duty paid, $4,162,672.93; and by the tea, $42,360, duty paid, $4,236; vegetables, farmer is $3,242,214, and duty, $896,262,20. Now, all terests, the greatest interest in this counthese things added together amounted in try, should be looked after as closely as it is possible for this Government and value to $35,777,805, and the duty that was paid on them amounted to $7,799,722.61. Parliament to do it. I should like to reIt will be quite clear that a very large mind hon. gentlemen that this resolution It causes fidence in this Government. amount of these things are such as ought is practically a resolution of want of conto be raised in Canada. As a matter of fact some of them we do export in large one to reflect on the action of the previous amounts, such as grain, grain products, Government with regard to what they have fish and other things. We export a great done for agriculture and what they have deal of our surplus, and at the same time not done. The year the Liberal party left we import a large quantity. For instance, office how much did they do for the agrito the extent agriculture the Canadian hen ought to be sufficiently cultural interests of this country? They active to give us all the eggs we need in aided this country, but she does not. It shows $1,489,973. The present Government when that the farmers of this country have the they came into power in the year 1912-13 saw that amount, and went about an equal greatest opportunity to satisfy the wants S-40 a on REVISED EDITION The of amount more, spending $2,436,103 in the for it, and how on the other hand the interest and in the aid of agriculture. In cost of living has increased, even a superthe years 1913, 1914 they raised the ficial examination of the question shows amount to $2,635,000, and the amount that this matter of the tariff on the neces which is being given for the aid of agri-saries of life has absolutely nothing to do culture this year will be nearly $4,000,000. That will show the ordinary citizen of this country the difference between the interest which the late Government has taken in agriculture and the interest which the present Government is taking in it. The idea which the hon. gentleman brings forward this afternoon, as I say, is a vote of want of confidence in the Government you with it. Take the clothing interest in this country; we manufacture good clothes in this country. They, perhaps are not as weil finished in some ways as those from the other side; I have no doubt they are not, but they are good enough. Any one who does not feel able to buy a suit from a tailor in the west end of London, can be suited with good clothes, well cut, well made, at a very smail for in this country ten or fifteen years ago, increase on the price he could buy them the principal increase being in the cost of making up the goods. That is the view I take of that. I may be wrong, but I think I am right. The hon. gentleman from Halifax pointed out that you could buy the same flour cheaper in Liverpool than you could buy it on the wharf at Halifax. Hon. Mr. POWER-A dollar cheaper, yes. Hon. Mr. DANIEL-I believe that is a correct statement of what the hon. gentleman says. I want to call attention to the fact he can do the same with Annapolis apples. These apples go to Liverpool, and you can buy them cheaper there than in Halifax. That is a well known fact, as is well known in the old country. Hon. Mr. WATSON-Should you not take the duty off apples. Hon. Mr. DANIEL-There is no duty on apples going to the old country. Hon. Mr. WATSON-But there is on apples coming to Canada. Hon. Mr. DANIEL-I am not speaking of that. I am speaking of export, and that is what the hon. gentleman from Halifax is speaking of. Hon. Mr. WATSON-He is speaking in the interests of the consumer of Canada, and not of Great Britain. your tailor; indeed, the cost in your clothing is also the result of the increase in labour, Every manufacturer-whether a tailor, or whether an iron-worker, or whether it is a railway corporation-all have to pay higher rates of wages, and when we come to talk, and consider the increased cost of living, a person does not take into consideration the great increase and the grow-regard to the fact that flour manufactured Hon. Mr. DANIEL-He was speaking with ing increase in the cost of labour which enters into everything. He takes no heed of the most important article of the whole series? There is no doubt that is the most important reason for the increased cost of living. We can try and draw red herrings Hon. Mr. DANIEL-Why did not the hon. across the trail by bringing in such gentleman's party take it off when his a resolution as we have this after-party had the opportunity. I also want to noon, but when you look into it, and point out that in England the English manusee how much the country really pays facturer has different prices for the home in Canada was sold at a higher rate in Halifax than the same flour was sold in England Hon. Mr. WATSON-Then take the duty off flour. |