Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T07:35:01.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Tariff1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

S. D. Clark
S. D. Clark*
Affiliation:
The University of Toronto
Get access

Extract

Protection as an economic creed has been largely an expression of industrial capitalism in Canada. It is true that Ministers of Finance have endorsed the tariff as a means of providing revenue independently of the interests of manufacturers, that such groups as farmers at various times have favoured the imposition of duties on particular commodities, and that certain newspapers, political parties, and organizations of a reform or patriotic character have advanced the general philosophy of protection. But in none of these cases has the support of tariff increases grown out of any broad economic movement. The tariff system developed with the growth of manufacturing industries, and it was pressed upon the Government as a necessary policy by organizations formed to advance the interests of manufacturers.

The first organized attempt of Canadian manufacturers to secure protection of which we have knowledge was made at a meeting in Toronto, April 14, 1858, called “for the purpose of recommending such a readjustment of the tariff as would place the manufacturers of Canada on a footing of greater equality with those of the United States.” Previous to the meeting, consultations had taken place between a committee in Toronto, the Tariff Reform Association of Montreal, and manufacturers scattered throughout the country, and, as a result of these deliberations, a detailed draft of the necessary tariff changes was drawn up.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne de economiques et science politique , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 1939 , pp. 19 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 1939

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

The general role of the Association, and the methods it employs in exerting influence upon the Government, are dealt with in my articles, “The Canadian Manufacturers' Association: Its Economic and Social Implications” (Essays in Political Economy in Honour of E. J. Urwick, Toronto, 1938), and “The Canadian Manufacturers' Association: A Political Pressure Group” (Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, vol. IV, Nov., 1938). I have discussed the part played by the Association in Canadian national development in Canada and Her Great Neighbor, edited by H. F. Angus (Toronto and New Haven, 1938), ch. IX.

References

2 The Globe, Toronto, 04 15, 1858.Google Scholar It is true that business men had joined with others during the depression in trade of the late 'forties to demand changes in fiscal policy, but they were for the most part traders rather than manufacturers. Such large importers as William Workman and J. G. Mackenzie dominated the protectionist meeting held in Bonsecours Market Hall, Montreal, January, 1849. Similarly the Montreal and Quebec commercial groups were responsible for the resolution favouring differential duties against the United States passed by the meeting of Boards of Trade in Quebec City, 1852. Cf. Weir, William, Sixty Years in Canada (Montreal, 1903), pp. 98–104 Google Scholar; and The Weekly Globe, Toronto, Sept. 17, 1852.Google Scholar See also Creighton, D. G., The Commercial Empire of the St. Lawrence (Toronto, 1937).Google Scholar

3 Greeley, Horace, Labour's Political Economy; or The Tariff Question Considered (Toronto, 1858)Google Scholar; Buchanan, Isaac, The Relations of the Industry of Canada with the Mother Country and the United States (Montreal, 1864), pp. 130 and 490–5Google Scholar; and Weir, , Sixty Years in Canada, pp. 105–18.Google Scholar

4 Association for the Promotion of Canadian Industry, Its Formation, By-Laws, &c. (Toronto, 1866).Google Scholar

5 Proceedings at the Annual Meeting of the Dominion Board of Trade, Ottawa, January, 1871, p. 36.

6 Ibid., p. 27.

7 Cf. Innis, H. A. and Lower, A. R. M. (eds.), Select Documents in Canadian Economic History, 1783-1885 (Toronto, 1933), pp. 816–19.Google Scholar

8 William Chaplin, manufacturer of agricultural implements, St. Catharines, is given credit for first suggesting that Canadian manufacturers get together.

9 Industrial Canada, official publication of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association (henceforth abbreviated I.C.), Nov., 1901, p. 81.Google Scholar

10 I.C., July, 1915, p. 386.

11 Meeting of the Manufacturers' Association of Ontario Held in St. Lawrence Hall, Toronto, November 25, 26, 1875.

12 History of the Toronto Board of Trade, Annual Report, 1904, p. 53.

13 Proceedings at the Annual Meeting of the Dominion Board of Trade, Ottawa, 1877, p. 130.

14 Ibid., 1878, pp. 73-104.

15 I.C., Nov., 1901, p. 82.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 I.C., Oct., 1900, p. 85. Cf. Donald, W. J. A., A History of the Iron and Steel Industry (Boston, 1915), pp. 245–9Google Scholar, for a description of the iron and steel associations, and I.C., Sept., 1900, pp. 78-9 and Jan., 1901, p. 165, regarding the Furniture Manufacturers' Association.

19 Donald, W. J. A., A History of the Iron and Steel Industry, p. 167.Google Scholar

20 I.C., Sept., 1902, p. 83.

21 I.C., Nov., 1901, p. 150.

22 I.C., March, 1901, p. 216.

23 I.C., Nov., 1901, p. 130.

24 I.C., Sept, 1902, p. 81.

25 I.C., Oct., 1903, pp. 140-1; April, 1903, p. 398.

26 I.C., Sept, 1902, pp. 82-3. The Honourable W. S. Fielding, according to the editor of Industrial Canada, had been responsible for the idea of a tariff campaign. Replying to the deputation of manufacturers, he was reported as having said that “if the manufacturers would educate the people to believe in higher protection they might get what they wanted from the Government” (I.C., Nov, 1903, p. 201).

27 I.C., Nov, 1902, p. 199; Oct, 1906, p. 237.

28 I.C., Oct, 1910, p. 292.

29 Canadian Annual Review of Public Affairs for 1903, p. 78; I.C., Oct, 1909, p. 300.

30 Ibid.

31 I.C., Aug, 190S, p. 13.

32 I.C., Oct, 1905, pp. 180-1.

33 I.C., Jan, 1906, p. 371.

34 Cf, Canadian Annual Review for 1906 and 1907.

35 I.C., Jan., 1907, p. 550.

36 Ibid.

37 I.C., Oct, 1907, p. 249. The work of the tariff committee was defended by W. K. George and J. F. Ellis.

“A gentleman, an officer of the Government,” said Mr. George, “told us that we might congratulate ourselves on the work we had done; that, unsatisfactory, perhaps as the result was, as shown in the new tariff, had it not been for the energetic work of the Association, the hard work of the Committee and the strong presentation of the cases, the results would have been infinitely worse” (I.C., Oct., 1907, p. 250).

“The members [of the tariff committee],” said Mr. Ellis, “have done all that they possibly could by interviewing the members of the Government and pointing out to them the wishes of the Association and the wishes of the membership of this Association individually. They have gone there representing the Association as a body. They have also gone there representing individual interests, and I fail to see why the Tariff Committee should be condemned in any measure for what it has done in the past” (I.C., Oct, 1907, pp. 249-50).

38 Ibid., pp. 248-9.

39 I.C., Oct, 1908, p. 251.

40 Ibid., pp. 271-3.

41 I.C., Nov, 1911, p. 420.

42 Ibid., pp. 420-1.

43 I.C., Oct., 1910, p. 288; Nov., 1911, pp. 379-80.

44 I.C., July, 1919, p. 116.

45 I.C., June, 1919, p. 58.

46 I.C., June, 1920, p. 72.

47 Financial Post, March 13, 1920.

48 Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1921, pp. 3646–7.Google Scholar

49 Ibid., p. 3467.

50 Ibid., p. 3465.

51 Ibid., p. 3647.

52 Financial Post, March 20, 1920.

53 Ibid.

54 Ibid.

55 Cf. reproduction from several newspapers in the Financial Post, March 13, 1920. The Grain Growers' Guide published a series of denunciatory articles, and claimed that Murray's scheme had resulted in a reduction of its advertising revenue by $1,000 a week. Four hundred resolutions were passed by branch associations of the United Farmers throughout the West against the Murray plan, and these were supported by the Canadian Council of Agriculture, the United Farmers of Alberta, and the Grain Growers of Saskatchewan. (Cf., Canadian Annual Review for 1920, pp. 177-8.)

56 Cf. Industrial Canada from 1919 to 1921, and the bulletins and pamphlets published by the Association.

57 Cf. annual reports of the tariff committee published in Industrial Canada.

58 I.C., May, 1926, p. 39.

59 I.C., July, 1924, p. 130.

60 Ibid., p. 126.

61 Ibid., pp. 133-4.

62 I.C., May, 1924, p. 39.

63 I.C., July, 1925, p. 88; July, 1926, p. 101.

64 I.C., July, 1928, p. 173.

65 I.C., July, 1931, pp. 170-1.

66 I.C., July, 1930, p. 112; July, 1932, pp. 142 and 175.

67 I.C., July, 1933, p. 95.

68 I.C., July, 1928, p. 185.

69 I.C., July, 1929, p. 192.

70 I.C., March, 1917, p. 1274; March, 1918, p. 1613; May, 1918, pp. 75-7; May, 1923, p. 58.