WEDNESDAY, 23RD MARCH, 1870.
Hon. Mr. WOOD rose to resume the debate on Tariff, and said
:—Mr. Chairman, in speaking to the motions now before the House,
it will hardly be necessary for me to say that I think this question of
Tariff the most important of all that have been introduced during this debate.
My object is, as I have said, to reduce to the utmost, in the event of
Confederation with Canada, the chance of difference with the Dominion ; my
objection to Confederation being that, however much it may apparently and at
first tend to confer upon the Colony material benefits, yet there is every
fear of consequent reaction and disaffection. In dealing with the matter it will
be necessary to see whether the subject of Tariff now before us will have
the effect of raising a direct question and difference between this Colony
and Canada. Tariff is not simply a mode of collecting taxes; it is a system
with a double object. The object of obtaining revenue, and in the obtainingr
of that revenue the further object of promoting domestic and home industries
by a just discrimination between the subject-matter on which taxation is levied.
The question of Tariff directly tends to promote or depress domestic
productions and domestic trade; consequently, the chances of
difference and reaction depend on whether our interests are identical with
those of Canada, or whether there is a conflict. The intended future Dominion of
Canada is obviously divided, so far as this question is concerned, into two
parts, that which is to the east and that which is to the west of the Rocky
Mountains—the Atlantic  and Pacific portions of that Dominion; and to these
several divisions there appertain distinct and several industrial interests,
agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial. Let us run through in our own minds
our own, the Pacific, interests, so to say,—the interests, in fact, of this
present Colony. First. we have the agricultural interests. This is a
material interest, as 1' trust it always will be considered in
every Colony; it is an industry which a Government cannot well avoid materially to
assist. I don't say "protect," but "assist," and this whether agricultural
produce be a staple of the Colony or not. I may here remark that I use the
word "staple" in what I understand to be the received acceptation of the
word—produce, exportable produce, raised in a Colony with advantage and at a
remunerative rate to the producer, and capable of being exchanged with
advantage for the produce of other countries in the markets of the world. Our next
material interests are our own staples, properly so-called as above
defined—such, for instance, as the wool of Australia, gold anywhere, or
fisheries, as in Newfoundland. Our particular staples are our fisheries, our
forests, and our minerals, to say nothing of certain aptitudes for shipbuilding
and the repairing of ships. Next, we must take trade and commerce; our local
and geographical position being such as to give us some advantage in the
distribution of goods, and, as such, is to be regarded as an element of
wealth and one of our material interests. Let us now turn to Canada. Canada
has manufactures, but not by way of staples, because she cannot undersell
the Old World in manufactured goods; but with a population of, I suppose, over
three millions she can produce sufficient manufactures of certain
descriptions for her own use. Then her staples are agriculture, produce,
lumber, and a certain amount of minerals, and perhaps horns and tallow.
Agricultural produce is a staple in Canada; she exports it; therefore it requires
no protection; it would be no good to inpose a tariff upon it. In
manufactures there is such a tariff as will slightly protect manufactures,
as with us we give the same turn of the market to the farmer by a slight
tariff on agricultural produce. Following the common law of self- interest, British
Columbia is bound to protect her own interests, and Canada
the same. Let us see whether or not there is a manifest tendency to
protection in the Dominion Legislature. It has been stated in this debate
that Canada is adverse to protection, that she wants to follow England and
the Old World in the direction of free trade. I say that those who make the
assertion must prove it. [" Hear, hear," from
Mr. DeCosmos."]
Hon. Mr. WOOD I
say that my sources of information tend to show that it is untrue that
Canada favours free trade; she desires to protect her own manufactures.
Right or wrong as a political theory, new countries will be found, as soon
as manufactures are possible, desirous to protect their own native industries,
whereas it suits old countries to have free trade. In England manufactured
goods are in reality her staples. England can compete with the world in most
classes of manufacturing goods, from her manifest advantages in having coal
and iron in close proximity, moderately cheap labour, and established
industries, to say nothing of the commercial energy of her people. Some of the
writers say that America and many of the Colonies of Great Britain suffer
from protection. I say that, suffer
CONFEDERATION DEBATE.
133 or not suffer, they insist upon it. I say nothing now of
my convictions. I think, however, that the theory of free trade goes too
far. " Free trade " is quoted as if it were a golden rule. I believe that
free trade is an exceedingly elastic idea; there is no orthodoxy in it. It is not
a law of physics, like the law of gravitation, or some abstruse and
elaborate theory like Sturn's problem, or the stability of the eccentricity
of the planetary orbits, to which there is no exception. It is elastic, and
suits one country and not another ; it suits old countries and not new ; it suits
England for the reasons I have stated. Her manufactures are her staples. She
can undersell the world. People may say that free trade is applicable
equally to other places and to all classes of industries. As to this, I have
my own opinions. But so far as this discussion is concerned, I
deal with the world as I find it. New countries desire protection. Why? No matter
why—they do desire it. Dealing with protection in a moderate way, I think it
may be reasonably conceded that a moderate protection, in the way of customs
duties at least, may he applied to staple productions and agriculture. But
whether the opinion be sound or not, colonial experience shows us that this
is the line of argument pursued and acted on. Taking it for granted, as
admitted by some political writers of eminence, that we may reasonably
protect staples until they can support themselves, let us see what
legitimate protection may be afforded to existing interests in this Colony.
Agriculture may be protected, or rather fostered, in numbers of ways—by facilities
for the acquisition of land, by roads, by immigration of farm hands, by the
admission of implements free, and by a moderate tariff 'on produce.
Agriculture, it must be remembered, is not only the cultivation of the land
; it is bound up with local interests, and carries with it a local population
attached to the soil. If you want population localized you must encourage
agricultural interests. Besides this, it must not be lost sight of that it
is a practical remedy against poverty. If a man has certain faculties for
acquiring or being employed as a labourer on land, he need never go to the
poor—house ; it humanizes men. It is the duty of every politician to protect
agricultural interests in a new country, to the best of his power. Now, with
regard to staples: I say they may reasonably be protected and fostered in
their infancy, because they are the real wealth of the nation. It is said
that at first the wool interest of Australia was carried on at a loss; and
for a country like this, that can produce without limit, fish, lumber, and coals,
to say nothing of gold, we must give all the facilities in our power to
induce industry in these walks of life. Take the gold miner: We might give
him his gold license cheap, and make the acquisition of claims easy; provide
him with roads and trails; and in this way we might "protect" the miner and
encourage mining interests. Fisheries—how are they to be protected? By the
promotion of information as to markets for fish; by pushing those markets;
by local knowledge of the haunts of fish; by cheap implements, and by cheap
salt. To promote the lumber interest, we might give cheap machiney, so far
as we can, by admitting it free, and let persons acquire land easily.
Shipwrights might also be legitimately protected and encouraged by making
implements and materials cheap, and by giving encouragement to docks. Let us
do everything to promote the interests of ships. Where there are such
natural inlets as ours, with coal at hand, and facilities for the
importation of iron and steel for building ships, we could build cheaper than
anywhere on this coast; not, of course, so cheaply as on the Clyde, but
still we might attract some shipbuilders. Now as to trade—export
trade. This is surely an item, though possibly a small item, in our wealth;
yet still, if we export only to Puget Sound, we might encourage such commerce.
It is an industry and a source of wealth; it causes foreign ships to come,
and causes an expenditure of money in our ports; it adds to the
number of merchants, drays, and labourers, and increases general business; a
vitality is given by it which makes it an element of wealth; it seems to
have been beneficial here, and certain it is that it is estimated in this Colony
as a material interest. How is this export trade to be protected? Some say
by free port, that is to say, no Customs duties; others say: "Reduce
taxation to a minimum on goods in which there is a tangible export trade."
Within these limits of what we may call moderate protection, we may
reasonably suppose the Colonists of British Columbia to be desirous to legislate;
and suppose we desire to have implements of labour and machinery, and some
goods cheap and free, and put ten per cent. on imported agricultural
produce. This is the reverse of Canadian policy. As regards machinery, I
believe the Canadian tariff gives fifteen per cent. on manufactured machinery at least.
There is nothing to prevent the Canadian tariff
from being increased. Protection may run rampant in the Dominion. You have
no guarantee. I say that in these fiscal questions we are at issue as
affects some of our most important elements of
134
CONFEDERATION DEBATE. national wealth. There would be a
conflict, not only between the tariffs of British Columbia and Canada, but
between the protective policy of each Province. How is this cause of discontent and
conflict of interest to be removed? Why, by a British
Columbia tariff for British Columbia. This place has no commercial
connection with Canada. Canada attords us no market. There is no frontier to
cause a difficulty with Custom House Officers. Why not have different
tariffs? In the event of reciprocity with the United States we might be compelled
to sacrifice the farmer, but possibly he might be in a condition to support
himself by produce for which we have some special aptitude. Assuredly we
shall have discontent, or worse, if the tariff is made oppressive, if we
have for it to suffer the extinction, or the disadvantage, of our own
industries. I have said hastily, give us our own tariff and I am almost in favour
of Confederation. I think I must take that expression of opinion
back. There are so many other matters, so many points of differences between
us and Canada, that under any circumstances there would be a continual
struggle with the other Provinces. But, however this may be, if you wish not
to provoke and keep up a sore question, have a separate tariff. Give to Canada
and Canadian interests a tariff framed to meet their wants, and give to
British Columbia its own especial tariff. If the tariff of Canada is to
rule, I fear it will never be altered, for the feeble voice of our eight
members would never be listened to in the Parliament of Ottawa, and the
Canadian tariff, framed for the support and maintenance of Canadian interests,
would assuredly prevail.
The Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER said:—Sir. after the very able
abstract review of the whole question of tariff, customs, and taxation of
the honourable gentleman who has just sat down, I will not add anything by
way of dissertation. But I must recall the House to the practical
consideration of the subject. I acknowledge the ability of the honourable and
learned member, and quite agree with him that this is one of the most
important matters connected with Confederation. Then why, it might be asked,
was it not touched upon in the terms? Not because it has not been fully
considered, but because the Organic Act puts it virtually out of the power
of the Colony to prescribe what form of tariff we should have under Confederation.
The scheme, as has been already pointed out by the Hon.
Commissioner of Customs, is based on the transfer of the control of our
Customs to Canada; therefore, it is not within our province, under the
scheme submitted, to impose on the Dominion, or even to propose any special
tariff for this Colony; but this is a matter which is left open for the
consideration of this Colony on its merits, and is left open, as the Hon.
Member for Victoria has told you, for this Council to make suggestions as to
what tariff may be desirable under Confederation. I take this opportunity to
set right the impression which seems to prevail as to the liberty of
Government Members upon this question. It is not left open to us to complicate the
terms by inserting any condition as to make it in fact a
sine qua non; but it is left open for this
Council to suggest what tariff would be suitable for this Colony. The Hon.
Mr. Wood has discussed this matter on its abstract merits, as if it was in
our power to dictate to Canada what tariff we should have; he has laid
before this House very ably the pros and cons of tariff and free port. It is
for us to consider what tariff would best suit us in or out of Confederation; but
it is not allowed to us to prescribe to the Dominion what form of Customs
duties they shall adopt in this Colony, or in this Province, as it will be.
We have placed the control of the matter out of our hands. [No, no,—
Hons.
Helmcken and
Wood.]
The Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER Well, Sir,, I believe we have; I say that view is
imposed upon us by the terms, and I think it is better that it should be so; and
for this reason: We, as being acquainted with the wants of the place, are
best able to point out in what respect we need protection, and where our
interests are likely to suffer from the tariff of the Eastern Provinces. But
I believe, Sir, that there are those in the Dominion whose larger
experience, and mature views, will render them much better able than us to supply
such remedy as will be most beneficial. I am perfectly willing to explain my
views on the subject of tariff and free port in the abstract, and the
Government invite the freest discussion on the point, both as regards
protection to agriculture and manufactures, and free port. But I believe it
will be better for the Colony to leave the decision and the remedy for the evils
to those who will have the care of this Province, as well as the Eastern
Provinces. I think it will be to the interest of statesmen in the Dominion
to treat this Colony well. Instead of feeling any want of confidence in
those statesmen, I feel sure that every possible measure to promote the
interests of this Colony will be well considered. They are in a better position to
decide what will be most beneficial to this Colony, even in regard to
tariff. I would rather hear
CONFEDERATION DEBATE.
135 more opinions expressed before I offer a suggestion. It is
my intention to offer a resolution in general terms so as to suggest to the
Dominion Government that our agricultural interests must be protected, and
that certain things are required, and to ask the Dominion for such special
provisions in regard to tariff as we think we require. We are not in a position,
after having endorsed the scheme of the Government, and after having handed
over the sole control of the Customs to Canada, to prescribe what tariff we
shall have, or to impose conditions as to our local tariff.
Hon. Mr. ROBSON—Mr. Chairman, while I consider the question of
tariff one of very great importance, it does not appear to me that it
necessarily forms any part of the terms. It is, in my opinion, futile to
imagine that we shall obtain power, under Confederation, to frame and
regulate our own tariff. 'l'he Customs tariff is essentially a Federal measure,
and the Dominion Government cannot very well permit a Province to make its
own tariff. To do so would, in my opinion, be to admit a principle which
would ultimately break up the whole Confederation. If such a
concession were made to British Columbia every other Province in the Dominion
would forthwith clamour for it. The Dominion tariff is of necessity a Federal
matter, to be dealt with by the Federal Parliament, and it is unreasonable to
expect that such an exception will be made in our favour. The Customs tariff
is the main source of Federal revenue; and if any Province were permitted to
tinker with it, the Federal revenue would, indeed, be precarious. History
does not encourage us to hope for such a power. Taking the United States
which, in this respect, presents conditions not dissimilar to those of the
Dominion, we find that the Customs tariff has ever been a Federal question.
To no State or Territory has it been conceded to deal with its own tariff. If
the strongest reasons had not existed for this, we should certainly have
found exceptions made in favour of Pacific States and Territories. Hon.
Members will recollect the bitter complaints made in earlier times on this Coast
against Federal tariffs; yet the people, while complaining, were never
foolish enough to claim or expect the right to regulate their own tariff.
They knew perfectly well that such a power was wholly incompatible with
Union. It is as well that we should not cling to any such hope as that of
being permitted to make and regulate our own tariff under Confederation. I
quite concur with the Hon. the Chief Commissioner in the view that,
notwithstanding the difference in existing conditions on this side of the
continent, and on the Atlantic side of it there are many questions, even of
tariff, which would be more successfully dealt with at Ottawa, and that our
representatives would be listened to, and would have their due
weight upon such questions. Probably through their influence the tariff
would, in some respects, be made more conformable to our circumstances and
interests; but the Dominion tariff must be altered and maintained by the
Federal Parliament, and not by any Provincial authority. We occupy a very
exceptional position, and shall do so for years, in regard to such questions,
and this might justify us in asserting that the tariff of Canada, as a whole,
is not applicable to British Columbia at present. But, Sir, permit me to say
that this question, like most others, has two sides to it, and has not been
approached with that fairness and candour which its great importance demands. We
are very apt to estimate protection above its real value—to forget the price
we pay for it. Even our farmers sometimes pay more for protection than it is
in reality worth to them. Under free trade the products of this part of the
Colony commanded a much more ready market, and higher prices, than they do
now after three years of protection. I am willing to admit that a few farmers
have thriven, partly, perhaps, on protection, but partly, too, I am apt to think,
at the expense of other classes and other interests in the Colony. Let us
remember that protection is not an unmixed good, and that it
sometimes costs more than it is really worth. It should also be remembered
that the importance of protection is somewhat localized in its application.
Nature has given ample protection to the interior of the Colony; and it is,
in reality, only on this Island and the Lower Fraser that artificial
protection can be desirable. I venture to think that there is a great future
before Vancouver Island, but I do not believe that it will ever owe its
greatness to agricultural development. I believe that its commercial, maritime,
mineral, and manufacturing industries will far outweigh its farming
interests, and I do not think, therefore, that we would be justified in
refusing Confederation upon fair and equitable terms, simply because we could
not have power to regulate the Customs tariff. I regret that I am unable to
agree with any one of the recommendations now before the Committee. The
wisest course, in my opinion, will be to ask the Dominion Govermnent to
withhold the application of the Federal tariff of Customs to
British Columbia for a fixed period, say, until railway Â
136
CONFEDERATION DEBATE. communication shall have been
established through the Dominion to the Pacific. Until that takes place
British Columbia must continue to occupy a position so isolated, and so
exceptional, as to render the general tariff, however well adapted to the
Provinces to the eastward of the Rocky Mountains, scarcely suited to us. But
with the opening of continuous railway communication these
exceptional conditions will, for the most part, disappear. Look, for instance,
at California. What a complete revolution the railway has wrought in the
condition of that State. The moment the railway was opened, California was
no longer separated from the great commercial centres of the Eastern States
by thousands of miles of sage-bush and desert. It was practically set down
alongside of them; or, to use the words of another, time and space were
annihilated, and California became, for the first time, a fitting subject of a
common tariff framed at Washington, and enforced throughout the
widespreading Union. Similar results will be realized in our own case. Upon
the opening of the Canadian Pacific Railway British Columbia will
practically be set down alongside ot the Atlantic Provinces. We get over all
constitutional difficulties by approaching the subject in this way. I do not say
that the Dominion Government will assent to the proposition to postpone the
application of their tariff to this Colony until railway communication shall
have been established; but we will approach them with a much greater show of
reason and success in this way than in the other. I shall, therefore,
propose an amendment, or a recommendation, asking that the Customs tariff of the
Dominion be not extended over the Colony of British Columbia until railway
communication therewith shall have been established. Should this be agreed
to on the part of the Canadian Government, it would then become our duty,
upon entering the Dominion, to remodel our tariff with a view to protecting
local industries on the one hand, and building up our commercial and
maritime interests on the other. Canada might, possibly, sacrifice a little
revenue in the first instance, but it would come back to her a hundred fold
in the greatly enlarged prosperity certain to follow. In this way, also,
would be presented a living recognition of the necessity for railway
communication, it not an incentive for the speedy consummation of that great
desideratum. The course which I propose will more fully meet the local necessities
of the country, while it will be more acceptable to the people, and, I feel
assured, more likely to meet with the concurrence of the authorities at
Ottawa. It possesses the advantage of accomplishing more good than can
possibly be attained in the way proposed either by the Hon. Member for
Victoria District, or that proposed by another Hon. Member, and, at the same time,
of steering clear of constitutional difficulties.
Hon. Mr. DECOSMOS—Sir, we have heard some very good and
eloquent speeches. I intend to say a few words, and will begin with first
principles. When the Confederation Delegates first met, they proposed to
adopt a tariff similar to that of the United States; that the Federal
Government alone should have the right to impose customs duties; that there should
be no subsidies, and that each Province should raise its own
revenue by direct taxation; but it was found that Local Governments were not
favourable to direct taxation. At the Conference at Westminster it
was at first proposed to give local legislatures power to make laws and impose
direct taxation, but when the Organic Act was prepared that part was dropped
out. I have desired to harmonize with the Organic Act. Whatever we may do we
should harmonize with the Organic Act; by so doing we shall meet with less
objection at Ottawa. In looking at this question I may come to the
conclusion that there is a possibility for the Local Government to raise taxes,
but if it was referred to the Privy Council they might say it clashed. I
will illustrate my meaning: I think the Legislature of Ontario voted an
additional sum to one of the Judges; the Privy Council said it was
unconstitutional to do so. So it might be if the Local Government imposed a tax
upon foreign produce and manufactures. But we must not clash with the
Dominion Government. In case the Dominion enacted customs laws lower than
our own, we would have the privilege to put direct taxes on those articles
so as to give protection to them. Turning to the Year Book, I find that in
New Brunswick the export dues on lumber amounts to $70,000. This is an
export revenue for a source of revenue. If the Government of New Brunswick was
able to except this item from the operation of the Dominion tariff, why
should we not be able to get the same sort of difference? The Canadian
Revenue will not suffer; every article will have to pay the Canadian tariff,
and Canada will benefit by any prosperity that we enjoy.
Hon. Dr. CARRALL—For how long do you propose to suspend the
operation of the Dominion tariff?
CONFEDERATION DEBATE. 137
Hon. MR. DECOSMOS—I have said indefinitely—possibly for ten
or twelve years. We may have the Railway completed by that time. The Hon.
Mr. Wood put the question properly. The tariff is a thing that is
changeable—it rises and falls. Suppose that Canada has to raise six millions
for a guarantee for the Railway, they might have to raise the tariff. I think the
tariff will probably rise for a long time. But this is aside the issue. My
object in making this proposition is to prevent clashing between
our Local Government and the Dominion. I include produce in my
rccommendation,—which means stock, cereals, and vegetables. If a provision of that
sort were added we would be in a position to get a certain degree of
protection, and the largest interest, that is the agricultural interest,
would be satisfied. But I maintain that beyond this we ought to protect
certain rude manufactures; and in going into the Dominion we should go with
as little friction as possible; there must be some friction, but we must keep
things as smooth as possible. There will be, as I have said before, a
revolution in labour and value. Now, we do not want too much protection. Let
our agricultural interests be satisfied, and if those engaged in rude
manufactures are protected the people will be satisfied. There are also a class
engaged in trade who believe in protection; you will find them the
agricultural interest, the manufacturing interest, and believers in
protection, who will form a strong band of opponents to Confederation. Take
away this subject of friction and you have the whole thing easier. If they are not
considered there will be opposition before Confederation, and
more after. If Hon. Members desire to keep up a feeling of loyalty towards
Canada after Confederation, they will protect these interests. With respect
to the Hon. Member for New Westminster, his argument is no stronger than his
weakest point, which is—[
Hon. Dr. Helmcken — His resolution].
Hon. MR. DECOSMOS Well, perhaps this is
the weak point. He admits the whole point. I do not intend to follow the
Hon. Member. I ask the Hon. Members to consider this question so as to
consider industries and manufactures, so that the union may be lasting. I
hope both sides will unite heartily in shaping our institutions with this
end in view.
Hon. MR. RING —Mr. Chairman, I only desire to drop a few
hints. I say that the Organic Act is wholly inapplicable to this Colony.
Does the Hon. Member for New Westminster mean to hand us over under this
Organic Act to swell the coffers of the Dominion? I hail any approach to
free trade; I believe in it; free trade should have as free a course as the wind.
Now, Sir, with regard to what has been said about protection to commerce;
there are natural and artificial protections. I am for protecting the farmer
by natural protections. Any attempt to shut out the surplus produce of
another country must fail. The attempt to protect farmers by imposing a tax
on flour and such articles, is a mistake. Any protection beyond harbour and
pilot dues is a vicious system. Then, say others: free port is abolished, would
you go back to direct taxation? I say, how can we ascertain what the people
can pay by taxing income and property. The revenue would be smaller, but it
is not fictitious. We must curtail expenditure, and having done so, I would
abolish customs altogether as a source of revenue. I agree entirely with the
proposition of the Hon. Member for New Westminster, that the tariff of the
Dominion is a Federal matter.
Hon. MR. HUMPHREYS —Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the
recommendation of the Hon. Member for Victoria District. I have listened
carefully to the lofty arguments of the Government appointees on this
question. It appears to me that the mistakes which the English generally
make are attributable to their reading and studying great English writers too
much, instead of considering what is practically applicable to a new
country. Old countries are, in this respect, very different to new. Free
trade may suit England and other old countries, whilst it may act very
perniciously in a new one. Even in old countries a large proportion of the
people whom free trade is calculated to benefit are against it. But in new
countries protection is absolutely necessary. It is said by some Hon.
gentlemen that the farming interests in the upper country needed no greater
protection than nature had given them. I can mention an instance to the
contrary. Flour was imported last year from California and sold in Cariboo
at prices with which the upper country farmers could not compete. There ought to
be some way of protecting the upper country farmers without clashing with
the interests of the Dominion. I think it but just and right to protect the
farmers above all other interests. I look upon this question as next to
Responsible Government, and that I regard as the most important question in
the Resolutions which are before the Council; all others sink into
insignificance besides these two conditions.
138 CONFEDERATION DEBATE.
The Hon. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS —Notwithstanding that the
Local Legislature after Confederation may not have a right to frame its own
tariff, what we hope is, that the Canadian Parliament will deem it
desirable, for their own interests, that a special tariff should be framed
for this part of the Dominion. There is no law against this. It would not be a
differential duty; it cannot be objected to on this ground. Differential
duties are where the same articles from two different countries are charged
differently. If the Canadian tariff was applied here taxation would he
lessened. We must not lose sight of that fact. It would probably
be lessened to the extent of $100,000 a year. I have estimated the difference upon
one quarter's revenue, and I believe the difference to be at least $20,000
for the quarter. For all that, I think the tariff should be changed. A
special tariff is required. I mentioned yesterday horses and cattle. I think
the $15 on a horse and $10 on cattle would be a great hardship on this
Colony; it would amount to a prohibition. Last year 1,700 head of cattle were
imported into this city; are we prepared for the difference that the
Canadian tariff would make in this item? I think this large duty would be
most objectionable. With a tariff made especially to protect the farmers,
over 40,000 pounds of butter were last year imported. If the Canadian tariff
of four cents a pound were applied, 1 do not know that much more could come in. I
think that the farmers must have sold all they had. I think that advocates
of protection do not apply the principles of protection to farmers of the
upper country, but those of Vancouver Island. The farmers will feel the
weight of the protecting tariff without receiving any of its benefits. They
will not feel the difference in the duty upon butter. I think that there will be
a Treaty of Reciprocity between the United States and Canada, and I hope
this Colony will participate in it. It would be a great advantage. [Hear,
hear.] I think the opening of the United States' markets to our lumber would
more than counterbalance the loss of protection on produce. I don't care for
coal; they take as much as we can supply. I would suggest that this Council
should send forward to Government a recommendation that we believe a special
tariff desirable, nay, almost imperative. I do not believe that our eight members
in the House of Commons, and four in the Senate, of Ottawa, will have no
weight; if so, they had better come back. What in God's name good will they
do? I think the question may be safely left to the Canadian Government and
our representatives at Ottawa.
Hon. DR. HELMCKEN —With a view of bringing this to a vote, I
will propose this recommendation: " That, in the opinion of this
Council, it is highly desirable that the agricultural, horticultural, and
dairy interests of British Columbia be protected." And I do this in order to
divide the question into two parts. One Hon. Member wants the power of suiting the
tariff to our convenience; and more than one Hon. Member has said that
Confederation must come. I deny it. There is no necessity that it should
come now. If the people vote against Confederation when the terms
come before them, His Excellency will inform Her Majesty's Government. that
the people don't want it.
Hon. DR. HELMCKEN —I am glad it is so understood. The Hon.
gentlemen must be very careful to make the terms suit; for if the terms
don't suit the people we shall not have Confederation. I say that
the people have been seriously told that Confederation was to be the destiny
of this Colony. ["No, no,' from
Messrs. DeCosmos and
Barnard.]
Hon. DR. HELMCKEN Efforts have been
made to impress on the Colony that we must have Confederation on any terms.
I do not consider that it is necessary for us to go in under the
Organic Act. We did not expect to do it. To the Hon. Collector of Customs I
would say, that much stress is laid upon the fact that under the Canadian
tariff the people will save $100,000; that is, because the customs lose, the
people save. I say this does not follow. Canadian goods don't come here now
because they cannot compete. The only reason they will be used is, they will
come in free, whilst others pay tariff. Possibly then the difference in
price between Canadian goods and our goods may be very little; the
Government may lose, but the people won't gain. Do you understand that? ["No, no,"
from
Hamley and
others.]
Hon. DR. HELMCKEN People may have to pay as much for Canadian goods
as for American goods now.
Hon. MR. WOOD —The difference of transport would prevent
Canadian manufactures from coming here cheaper.
CONFEDERATION DEBATE. 139
Hon. DR. HELMCKEN —I say the tariff would be almost the same
on these American goods then as now. I grant there will be a loss on
agricultural produce Hon. gentlemen say they may send agricultural produce.
Butter, I believe, comes from cows; it costs money to buy a cow; there is
the difference between raising agricultural produce and cattle. If butter could
be grown from the ground I don't suppose that forty tons would have been
imported. Farmers are poor; they have not money to buy stock. Keep up
protection and they will have money bye and bye to purchase cattle.
Experience of the agriculturalists in this Colony has taught me that farmers
with capital come out at the wrong end of the stick, whilst those who have gone
in to work for themselves have made money. I know most of the farmers on
Vancouver Island, and I find that those who began with nothing are doing
well. The Hon. Collector of Customs said that farmers in the upper country
don't require a tariff. I went into that question yesterday. I think they
will want it.
Hon. DR. HELMCKEN —It is exceeding easy and pleasant for us
who want to eat to say prices are too high, but let any man go to work on a
farm and he will have experience of the difficulties. The Hon. Collector of
Customs says a treaty of reciprocity would be of great benefit, and that we
might give up the farming. interests of this Colony for it. Now, Sir, this Council
said last year, almost unanimously, that agricultural interests must be
protected. Why should Hon. Members think that we should require anything
different under Confederation? The Hon. Member for Victoria District almost
led me the way in saying that irritation would arise which would lead to a
desire for annexation if the agricultural interests were not protected.
Hon. DR. HELMCKEN —I say what we want now is what we want
under Confederation. Now, Sir, what have we been trying for? What has been
our policy? Why, to protect industry. I am told that the Dominion Government
will not admit any alteration in our tariff; and the example of the United
States is cited. It has been said that California wanted to alter her
tariff, and was not allowed to do so. I say, in reply, that California was one and
a part of the United States. British Columbia is not yet Confederated, so we
are still in a position to make terms. California would have made terms if
she could, but could not; and it was for a time a question whether she
should not secede. It was only large subsidies and steam communication that
kept California in the Union. There is this peculiarity in the Organic Act,
section 95 enables Canada to make different laws as to agriculture in each
different Province.
Hon. DR. HELMCKEN —Perhaps it does not, but I say that
anything advantageous to the Colony may be enacted by the Local Government.
We can ask for a separate tariff, and Canada has power to make different
laws as to agriculture in each Province.
Hon. Dr. HELMCKEN —I say it strengthens my argument. It does
not mean merely that people may clean thistles out of their land. The simple
issue is: Shall agricultural interests be protected or not? It is quite
possible that those who regulate the treaty, when brought into contact with
Canadian statesmen, may devise some means whereby this result may be effected.
I do not mean to give up to Canadian statesmen that they know more than
ourselves about our local affairs; but I do think we may utilize their
experience. I do not think that people, when they know that Confederation
will not be forced upon them, will accept Confederation. The question for
the farmers will be: Shall agriculture be protected or not? I ask again. is
agriculture protected by the resolution or not?
Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER —I think the idea to take a vote on
protection to agriculture a good one, and I would rather that the resolution
stopped there. Then I would propose a further resolution, pointing out the
difficulties and ills we labour under.
Hon. DR. HELMCKEN —I accept that alteration. We shall by it
procure an expression of the opinion of the Council upon this point.
Hon. MR. DECOSMOS —I go further than that resolution. I stand
here as a protectionist, and I want to see the manufacturing interests
protected as well as the agricultural interests.
140 CONFEDERATION DEBATE.
Protection will be a sine qua non with my constituents. If the Hon. senior Member for Victoria
will divide the question into agricultural interests, manufacturing interests, and
trade, I will
withdraw my recommendation. I say that we want this question settled before Confederation.
As for reciprocity it has, in my opinion, to be based on existing industry. The most
important
treaty of reciprocity was between England and Portugal, under which English goods
were
admitted into Portugal and wines into England. Reciprocity to be successful must be
based
on existing industries. If we enter into a treaty of reciprocity with the United States,
we must
build up our industries, such as coal. I take it that what our coal has to contend
with is foreign
and native coal in the San Francisco and Portland markets. Unless there is an extended
market
for coal it is impossible to increase the trade in it. Reciprocity would destroy the
most permanent interests; that, for instance, of agriculture, and we would gain nothing
by
it. I say if
Canada thinks proper to negotiate a treaty of reciprocity with the United States,
we should be
at liberty to negotiate a separate treaty, or to insert special clauses in the treaty.
Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER —Let us clear the ground by getting
the Chairman to put this resolution as an abstract proposition.
The Chairman then read the resolution as an abstract proposition for the vote of the
Council :—
" That in the opinion of this Council it is necessary that the agricultural, horticultural,
and
"dairy interests of British Columbia be protected."
Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER —Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to vote
for that proposition, but I do not go quite to the extent of beliving it
necessary, although I think it very desirable. I don't think it of such
importance as the Hon. Members for Victoria City and District, as to make it
a vital question or a
sine qua non of
Confederation. I think it is desirable to continue protection under
Confederation, and I do not see why we cannot. I think that the Dominion
Government may, perhaps, be better able to provide the ways and means to effect
that object than ourselves. We may not be able to provide a remedy, but we
may advise. The protection that we ask for only partially affects the
community. It is patent that it only affects Vancouver Island and the Lower
Fraser at this time. ["No, no," from
Mr. DeCosmos.]
Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER I say that the farmers
of the Interior have a geographical protection. The time is so distant when
agricultural produce can come into the upper parts of British Columbia, or
when the produce of the Upper Country can come into competition with the
produce of the Island and of the Lower Fraser in these markets, without
feeling the cost of transport as equivalent to a protective duty, that
before that time arrives the tariff may be amended again and again. With regard to
what has been said about the closer union with a foreign country. I said,
and I repeat it, that if the interests of the farmers would be prejudiced
under Confederation, they would be utterly annihilated under Annexation. I
believe that if we were brought under the Dominion tariff they would be
injured. I did not say that the Dominion would not give us separate tariff
regulations. I think they will do so, but I say we have put ourselves out of a
position to prescribe. We have put before them a scheme, and we have left
the tariff out of the scheme. We can now point out that we want, protection,
and leave it for the Dominion Government to point out the means. We have
virtually put it out of our hands to dictate the means approved by this
Council. I cannot agree in thinking that clause 91 leaves us free to impose our
own tariff. I say we have made the British North America Act apply under the
scheme which we have adopted under clause 16.
Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER —That is the whole strength of my
argument. We have virtually given up the power over the tariff to Canada,
but it is open to us, and the Council are invited to state what is wanted.
It must he remembered that those terms are only memoranda for
Confederation. Different terms may be sent back, and it will be left for the new
Council to decide upon them; and I, for one, am ready to suggest to the
Canadian Government that we should have protection, although there are
objections, for if you protect one interest another must suffer. We pay for
the protection of produce in the increased price of the articles we consume.
I go to the length of thinking it desirable to recommend the Canadian Government
to protect our agricultural interests.
Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL —I will ask the honourable mover of
this recommendation whether he insists on the word "necessary"?
Hon. DR. HELMCKEN —I say this is one of those things that
under Confederation will be necessary.
CONFEDERATION DEBATE. 141
Hon. MR. ALSTON —I believe all restrictions are false in
principle, and Governments have no right to travel out of their path to
dictate principles. It has rightly been said that protection to agriculture
is at the expense of other things, and it is simply ridiculous to say that
agricultural interests are the only interests in the Colony.
Vancouver Island cannot be looked upon as an agricultural country. I would
vote for protection temporarily, but as soon as good roads are made the
farmer needs no protection; and, although free trade may be injurious to one
interest, I believe it to be the correct principle. It strikes me that the Organic
Act is a treaty of partnership between four countries, and where the terms
are silent we can alter the Organic Act. If it be that we may make the laws,
Canada still takes the revenue; and unless the resolution is altered I
cannot vote for it.
Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER —I may clear the ground if I make a
suggestion. I think it would be better to take the subjects separately, and
then I would embody the whole matter in one Resolution to His Excellency.
Hon. MR. WOOD —It would be desirable to have as unanimous a
vote as possible. The Hon. Chief Commissioner and the Hon. Mr. Alston have
said that a tax on produce would he likely to prove injurious. I say that
protection is only to be extended until our agriculturalists can compete
with the farmers on the opposite shore. If reciprocity eventually arise, I do not
pledge myself to support protection. It may be necessary then to make some
compensation to farmers, but I cannot say I would support it.
The recommendation, as amended, was carried.
Hon. MR. DECOSMOS moved a Resolution, " That it is highly
desirable that manufactured articles should be protected."
Hon. MR. DECOSMOS —I would name boots and shoes. Now, in
event of any reciprocity treaty, I should like to see our interests
protected. A reciprocity treaty may exert a stimulating influence for a
time, or it may be detrimental. We have confectionery and many other things;
for instance, there is a proposition to erect a woollen manufactory. Furniture, at
present, all comes from the United States. Our cabinet-makers could
manufacture it here if they could import the raw material free. The same
could be said of wheelwrights. If we are to have large public works we must
have these interests protected. Harness may be brought in cheap under
reciprocity; leather and soap likewise. I start out on this principle: if we can
keep our manufactures at home we are doing our duty.
Hon. MR. BARNARD —The Canadian tariff applies to all the
articles mentioned by the Hon. gentleman. I am mystified in regard to this
protection. He says he wants protection for leather, and boots, and harness.
Twenty per cent. is our tariff on waggons, and yet no class of waggons, such
as is wanted, can be made here.
Hon. MR. DECOSMOS —We shall never have producing
manufacturers if we do not protect them. With regard to waggon building:
parties now engaged in the business were about to leave until the tariff was
introduced. Competition lowers the price of home-manufactured articles.
Hon. DR. HELMCKEN —I shall support this Resolution; the
Canadian tariff to some measure meets it.
Hon. DR. HELMCKEN —Presently we shall have to protect British
Columbian interests against Canadian interests. If the farmer and boot-maker
are protected, other local manufactures must be protected also.
Where you do not produce things admit them free. It is our duty to protect
our own interests.
142 CONFEDERATION DEBATE.
Hon. DR. HELMCKEN —You keep them in. You send out $100,000 a
quarter for goods, which ought to be spent here. That $100,000 ought to be
invested in mines and in building up the country. Now, you want this country
to be a garden and a manufactory. The people must do it, and it is the only
way in which they can do it. Put your productions into competition with the
whole world and you will ruin the producers throughout the whole Colony.
Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER —Another question is, up to what
point are you to protect? What is the use of protecting produce if you
protect colonists out of the country? I put this as an abstract proposition.
There is no more moot point than the difference between free trade and
protection. I see the Canadian tariff protects these things, and I don't feel
inclined to ask for more. Under the Canadian tariff agricultural products
are almost free, but manufactures are protected. I don't intend to assume
that the tariff will be taken off—that protection is to be taken away from
manufacturers, for, if so, it will be against the arguments of the members
from British Columbia.
Hon. MR. ROBSON —Some members are growing protection mad.
They want to build a wall around the Colony and keep out the entire world.
You must come down to first principles. When honourable members talk about
protection, I suppose we intend to protect that which we can produce. Are we
to protect so as to force people into branches of industry unthought of
before? Some honourable members have run to the extent of protecting population
out of the Colony; another favours protection in order to keep prices low,
and thus to secure our population. I maintain that protection has run too
far, and the agriculturists have not benefited by it. ["No, no "—
Mr.
DeCosmos.]
Hon. MR. ROBSON They tell me that the demand is so small that prices are less. I
am not in favour of withdrawing protection from farmers, but let us see that
it does not go too far.
Hon. MR. WOOD —Might I not turn the tables by judging some
honourable members are free trade mad. No one ever dreamt of such high
taxation. So far from sweeping oft population we secure it; and in
England free trade is intended to benefit the manufacturer, and it does so.
It struck a blow at agriculture, and if they had not gone into raising and
spending more money it would have been an utter failure. High price for corn
is now unknown, but free trade by way of dogma is absurd.
Hon. MR. DECOSMOS —There is a distinction between a tariff
for protection and a prohibitory tariff. The Hon. Collector of
Customs will set me right, if I am mistaken, but I believe the importation
of arms from foreign countries into a Colony is prohibited.
Hon. MR. DECOSMOS —Precisely so; that the defence of the
Colony may never depend on foreign aid. The Hon. Chief Commissioner asked
the extent of the protection. I say during the infancy of the Colony. When
we are able to run alone, protection will be necessary. With regard to
farmers wanting free trade, I deny it emphatically.
Hon. DR. HELMCKEN —No doubt the Canadian Government will like
this amendment of the tariff.
Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL —I shall vote against it because it
says it is expedient to arrange it in the terms. If the Hon. Member alters
the wording it would then become on the same footing as the last
recommendation.
The motion of Hon. Dr. Helmcken was put and carried.
This individual participated in:
