1905 - Protection of Eastern manufacturers pushed as way to develop home market for western produce

Edmonton Bulletin, published by Frank Oliver, derided a presentation by a western farmer to a tariff commission investigating views of westerners on tariffs and protection of Canadian manufacturers.

the Edmonton Bulletin pointed out that the (un-identified) farmer was speaking just as an individual and did not have any farmer and agrarian organization behind him when he called for "the imposition of a duty that would throw the trade of the West absolutely into the hands of Canadian manufacturers in the fatuous supposition that by doing so a home market would be created which would consume enough products of the western farm to increase an permanently maintain the price for these products."

The Bulletin pointed out that a secretary of the Canadian Manufacturers Association had come out west at the same time as the tariff commission, and had met with individuals and visited farms and perhaps had inveigled this unidentified farmer to act as "shill" for the Association. (such activities had been seen elsewhere.)

The Bulletin firmly took the side in favour of free(r) trade with the U.S. in hopes that less-expensively priced farm implements would be available for western farmers. And the Bulletin article (Dec. 27, 1905, p. 2) pointed out that several farmer delegations had addressed the tariff commission, representing hundreds of "organized and progressive farmers", and all without exception had called for lowering tariffs on imports of manufactured goods from the U.S.

Of course Oliver and the Bulletin never were seen to favour the break up of Canada or selling out Canadian interests to U.S. corporations, such as was done by Mulroney and Reagan in the 1980s.

Oliver was a Liberal not a Conservative.

(back in 1905-1917 it was Conservatives who stood up for protective tariffs - go figure...)

The Conservatives' old-time stand seems to be against general western interests --

unless you take the unidentified farmers point that building up Canada will be good for the West in the long run. which at this stage in the game does seem to make some sense as we try sustain a prosperous economy based on internal trade and trade with anyone other than the U.S.

Because Alberta wanted the world price for its oil even if it sold to other parts of Canada today we do not have a National Energy Plan and now Alberta sells mostly to the U.S. from whom it does not get the world price anyway.

=====================