1901-03-21

QUESTIONS.


Mr. TAYLOR asked :: What are the names of the members of the firm of the Ottawa Supply Company from whom goods to the amount of $2,017.09 were purchased, as shown In the Auditor General's Report for 1899 and 1900, page S-41?


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND S. S.@: Stratton.


MR. DAVID HODGE.
George Taylor: Has David Hodge, preventive officer at Mallory-town, in the county of Leeds, been dismissed ? If so, when? Were any charges preferred



against him? Was an investigation held? Is it the intention of the government to appoint a successor to Mr. Hodge, if he has been dismissed?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson) :: The services of Mr. David Hodge, acting preventive officer of customs at Mallory-town, were dispensed with on the 9th February, 1901.
No charges were preferred against him.
It was not considered that there is any necessity for an officer at that point.
It is not the intention of the government to appoint a successor to Mr. Hodge.


MR. A. FOSTER.
George Taylor: 


Has Mr. A.: Foster, lockmaster at Jones' Falls, on the Rideau canal, been superannuated. If so, when? If he has been superannuated, who has been appointed as his successor?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 


Bowman Brown Law: Foster, lockmaster at Jones' Falls, on the Rideau canal, has not been superannuated. Speaking from recollection, I think he has applied for superannuation, but his application has not yet been entertained.


P. E. I. RAILWAY.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	Did the government receive a petition, during the year 1900, from the inhabitants of lots 7, 8 and 9 in Prince county, P.E.I., asking that a branch line of railway be constructed from the Prince Edward Island Railway, at or near O'Leary station, to the Gulf Shore, at lot 7?
2.	If so, what action does the government intend taking in the matter, and will they construct this branch railway as contemplated and recommended by the late government?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: It does not appear that any petition such as described in the above question has been received by this department.


SS. AMELIA.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	What is the nature of the contract entered into between the government and Leslie, Hart & Co., owners of the steamship Amelia, running to the Magdalen Islands?
2.	What is the tonnage and class of boat required?
3.	What is the accommodation for passengers?
4.	What is the freight capacity and the facilities for handling same?
5.	What is the speed of boat, number of trips required during season, and port of departure and ports of call?
6.	Has any complaint reached the government about the service, and is the service to be improved? If not, why?


George Taylor: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: In the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I beg to reply :
1.	The service to be performed between the Magdalen Islands and Pictou is a weekly one, making each week one full round trip between Pictou and the islands and return, calling each way at Georgetown and Souris, in Prince Edward Island, at Amherst Island, Point BossS, Etang du Nord, Grand Entry and Grindstone Island ; and once each month during the months of June, July, August and September trip to be extended to Iiryan Island, and whenever the weather is unfavourable for landing mails at Etang du Nord, that for House Harbour and Etang du Nord, to be landed at Grindstone Island ; calls at Grand Entry need not be made after the month of September. The service is from the opening to the closing of navigation in each year ; and the contract terminates 31st December, 1901.
2.	The tonnage is 350 gross, and 103 net. The vessel is classed 100 A1 at Lloyds'.
3.	She holds a certificate for 250 passengers, sleeping berths to accommodate 20 passengers in the saloon, and the same number in the fore-cabin.
4.	Her cargo capacity is 15,000 cubic feet, or equal to about 2,000 barrels. Have no special information with reference to facilities for handling the same.
5.	Speed is about 121 miles per hour. Number of trips, see answer to No. 1.
6.	No complaint has reached the government about the service, which seems to be all that is required.


LONGUEUIL ORDNANCE LANDS.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Who has rented the ordnance lands in the parish of Longueuil?
2.	What is annually paid for the same?
3.	Is the rental paid in advance?
4.	Are there any arrears of rent due the government? If so, what is the amount of said arrears ?
5.	How many applicants were there for said lands, or portions of lands, and what were their names?
6.	Were these lands advertised for sale, and when?
7.	How many lots were sold?
8.	If no sale took place, what cause prevented said sale?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) :: 1.	Joseph Lapointe.
2.	Three hundred dollars.
3.	Yes.
4.	Fifty dollars of the rent for 1901 remains due and unpaid.
5.	Two. Joseph Lapointe and A. C. Bernard.
6.	Yes. July 17th, 1900.
7.	No lots were sold.
8.	The offers made did not exceed the upset price.


EXPORTS TO GERMANY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SMITH (Wentworth)-by Mr. Taylorasked :
1.	What were the exports of the Dominion of Canada to Germany in the years 1897, 1898, 1899 and 1900 respectively, and what was the total amount of duty paid thereon each year?
2.	What portion of these goods were entered at Hamburg, and what was the total amount of duties paid thereon in each year, 1897, 1898, 1899 and 1900?
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson) :: 1. The total value of goods exported from Canada to Germany during the fiscal years 1897, 1898, 1899 and 1900, respectively, was :
1897		  $1,045,432
1898		 1,837,448
1899		 2,219,569
1900		 1,715,903
2. The Canadian Trade Returns do not show the quantity or value of goods exported from Canada which were entered at Hamburg, nor the total amount of duties paid thereon in each year, 1897, 1898, 1899 and 1900. The official record of exports from Canada as compiled from export entries show the destination of goods exported by countries, but not by cities.


CORRECTION OF ' HANSARD.'
Mr. SAM. HUGHES (North Victoria).: Before the Orders of the Day are called. I wish to make a correction. At page 1355 of the revised ' Hansard,' in the report of my speech of March 12 last, the names are incorrectly given. I was speaking of a woman who had reported that her house had been broken into, and she herself insulted by British soldiers. The name of the woman was Mrs. Schalkwyk ; and the name of the woman she afterwards said had been insulted was Mrs. De Wahl. In case of any question arising about the matter in the future, I wish these names to be correctly reported in ' Hansard.' Mrs. Schalkwyk was the woman who claimed she was first visited, and Mrs. De Wahl was the one who, Mrs. Schalkwyk said subsequently, was the one insulted. The report is also incorrect in this way-the soldiers did not approach either of the houses, but merely spoke to the lady from the road, and the admissions show this fully.


UNITED STATES CATTLE QUARANTINE.
Mr. JAMES CLANCY (Botliwell).: I see the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) in his place. I would like to ask him if he will lay upon the Table all agreements and arrangements entered into between Canada and the United States relative to the quarantine of Canadian cattle entering the ports of the United States. I 574
ask this in order that business may be expedited when we reach the hon. gentleman's estimates.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. S. A. Fisher).: The only agreement that is in writing is that which was made in 1897. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) can have that at any time. I will see to it that the agreement is laid on the Table.


EXPORTATION OF GRAIN-REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION.
Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to call the attention of the government to the report of the Royal Commission on the exportation of grain, of which Mr. Horn was chairman. Some days ago, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) inquired with regard to that report-which is a very important one, and one that we should have before proceeding with the estimates-and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce {Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) stated that it had not yet been received. I have no doubt that it is now in the hands of the government. May we expect to have it soon ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: It can be brought down at once ; I will give orders accordingly.


PROPOSED POLAR EXPEDITION.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
The PRIME MINISTER.: Does my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) favour it ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Personally, i do-certainly.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is a matter which the government has had under consideration, but I am not prepared to say that we have reached any conclusion yet. It is only fair and reasonable that we should give an answer at an early date, and we shall do so as early as possible.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER (Pictou).: I desire to call attention to the condition of affairs respecting the meetings of the Public Accounts Committee-the ex-

traordinary infrequency with which that committee now meets. There is a universal desire in this House, I take it, that the business of the House shall be so expedited that our labours may be brought to an end within a reasonable time. I do not recollect any session when it was so difficult to get that committee together. There always seems to be some reason given for the committee not meeting. The absence of the chairman has been given as one reason, but that is not a good reason, so far as I can see, for the work of the committee being neglected. For the present, there is a vast amount of work to be done. It is ridiculous to suppose that the committee can audit anything like a quarter of the accounts it is their duty to audit, even if we sit for two months more. This week but one meeting of the committee has been called. I understand that the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding), realizing that there had been delay in connection with the meetings, and also the anxiety shown on all sides to expedite the work, said that he would consider some way to bring about more frequent meetings of the committee. Another reason given for the infrequency of meetings of the committee is, that there are meetings of other committees to which members of the Public Accounts Committee belong, and the Public Accounts Committee must give way. As to that, I would only suggest that there has never been a meeting of the committee this year at which there has not been a very good attendance, even when other committees were meeting. And the committee, perhaps, is over-large for the public purpose for which it is formed. I mention this matter rather at length today because I know there is a determination on the part of certain gentlemen who belong to that committee to carry out the audit of two or three accounts, the work in connection with any one of which, unless we get together more than once a week, certainly at least twice a week, will necessarily be prolonged.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I quite agree with my hon. friend (Hon. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) that, with respect to the past, perhaps it would have been better ir we had one or two meetings more. As to the suggestion that it is desirable that we should have two meetings a week, I do not feel able to agree to that as a fixed policy, because other engagements might arise to interfere with it. For example, yesterday we had difficulty in getting the members together, though I admit that there was a fair attendance, but members were constantly leaving the room to go into the adjoining room, where the Railway Committee was in session. The meetings of these committees side by side had a very confusing tendency. I think it right that the committee should meet frequently, and without Sir CHARI.ES HIBBERT TUPPER.
committing myself to two meetings a week as a fixed rule, I shall see to it that the members of the committee shall have ample opportunity to deal with the matters to which the hon. gentleman has referred. On the return of the chairman, who, I hope, will be here to-day or to-morrow, I shall ask him to join me in adopting means that reasonable frequency shall mark the meetings of the committee hereafter.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Hon. Mr. Fielding :
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty, and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
Mr. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure).: Mr. Speaker, the very kind and generous treatment which I was accorded in this House on the occasion of my seconding the reply to the speech from the Throne has led me to take advantage of this occasion to address the House a second time upon the very important issues which are now being discussed. I know that participating in the budget debate is always, more or less, an ungrateful task-the task of handling figures, for a man who is not very conversant with them is not always a task of the most inviting character. But, the subject is one of such deep interest to the country at large that I believe the representatives of the people in this House should make known their views and the views of the people they represent. I have the honour, Sir, to represent a county down by the sea, not in one of the maritime provinces, but one of the last counties in the province of Quebec, a purely agricultural and fishing county. There are no manufactures there, but I hope that when the railway communications are better established, we shall have an important agricultural development.
In the meantime the people of the county of Bonaventure are deeply interested in the fiscal policy of the government. Perhaps they do not take the same deep interest in the subject as do some of the manufacturing centres of the Dominion, but they are anxious that any policy which will advance the best interests of Canada at large should be adopted by the government of the day. The favourite policy in the county of Bonaventure is reciprocity with the United States. There never was on that coast a more prosperous era than that which extended from 1854 to 1865 ; in fact that period was the most prosperous ever experienced by the province of Quebec. We all know that the present government have made determined efforts to bring about a better understanding with the United States ; we know that the hon. the Prime Minister secured the holding of an
international conference, which after many months of prolonged sittings, was unable to agree. But, Sir, that task should not be abandoned. Nature, in placing us alongside the United States on a border of nearly 4,000 miles, surely intended that there should be closer communication, closer trade relations, closer business relations than exist at the present time. We know that a majority of the people of the United States favour a highly protective tariff. But changes are occurring every day and every year in the politics of the United States. A party may be in power to-day which does not favour reciprocity with Canada ; but we should not abandon the task of securing better trade relations with the United States. The present fiscal policy of the Dominion has been lately discussed upon every hustings throughout the length and breadth of Canada. The people of Canada to-day, X believe, are more conversant with our fiscal policy than they have been at any other time in our history. Since 1878, seldom has any other political question dominated the great question of our fiscal policy. Our people to-day are becoming better acquainted with the importance of a tariff which meets the requirements of the various sections of the country. I am at heart a free trader, and I would like to see, if it were possible, free trade to-day among all the nations of the earth. But, Sir, great and beautiful as is the theory of free trade, we all know that free trade is impossible in this country. We all know that a revenue must be raised, and the only way in which it can be raised according to our views is by a customs tariff. The present tariff is a protective tariff in a sense that it affords protection, but it is mainly a revenue tariff. That is the idea, so far as X have been able to gather, of the majority of the Liberals in our province, they favour a tariff for revenue purposes, but a tariff which will at the same time afford to our manufacturing industries that measure of protection to which they are entitled.
We have been told in this House that the present government have no policy, that the present government have stolen the clothes of their opponents, that the present government have adopted the policy of the opposition. Speaking for myself, I am willing to accept all that is good, no matter whence it comes, even if it comes from the Conservative party. That which was good in the old tariff should be maintained. But a tariff is like every other human institution, it varies according to the circumstances of the times. Not many years ago, within the recollection of men sitting in this House, the Conservative party were almost free traders. They supported a revenue tariff previous to 1872, when the French Liberals in the city of Montreal and in the province of Quebec forming the Parti National, had for their first and foremost plank protection to our native industries. Consequently there is nothing extraordinary in the fact that some Liberals should have remained protectionists, since we are the political heirs of those who, twenty years ago, were in favour of extending protection to our native industries. The upheaval following the Canadian Pacific scandal led the Conservative forces into opposition. Sir John A. Macdonald, with that cunning and astuteness in statesmanship which made him one of the greatest men this country has produced, saw that a party advocating the benefits of protection to the various industries of the country, would be popular, and he came out in favour of a high tariff. The Liberals of that day thought a high tariff was not in the interests of the country. The people decided in favour of a high tariff ; and for eighteen years this high tariff has prevailed. The Liberal party remained in opposition until there was a turn in the tide, until the people realized that this tariff was intended not only to protect the manufacturing industries, but, even more, to maintain in power the party which was then at the head of affairs. The city of Montreal prospered no doubt under that tariff, as did other sections of the country. But a turn in the tide took place, and when the people realized that this tariff was intended merely to protect the manufacturer at the expense of the farmer, at the expense of the mechanic, at the expense of the workingman, they declared in favour of a readjustment of the tariff.
The right hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues have been blamed for having maintained the tariff which we now have upon the statute-book. Mr. Speaker, what would have happened in this country had the Prime Minister and his colleagues, with one fell swoop, removed the old tariff and brought it down to 174 per cent? There would have been disaster all over the land, and the Conservative party would not have been able to find words strong enough to denounce the Liberal government. The fact is that our friends opposite are blaming the government of the day for having acted wisely, for having framed a policy that was calculated to protect all vested interests, while at the same time promoting the best interests of all sections of the country. Sir, we all remember the dire predictions which were made from every hustings in this country by hon. gentlemen opposite that if the Liberal party ever attained power our tall chimneys would become smokeless, soup kitchens would be erected on every street corner in our cities, our workingmen would be driven to the United States to seek that employment which their native land refused them. Have those prophecies been fulfilled ? Sir, this country has enjoyed a greater degree of prosperity during the last four years than it ever enjoyed before in all its history.

Hon. gentlemen preceding me in this debate have produced figures to show that in sixteen years, from 1880 to 1896, there was an increase of $36,000,000 in the business of Canada, while during the last four years there has been an increase of $142,000,000. That fact is the best answer which can be given to the demands which are now being made for a change in the fiscal policy of the country.
The hon. leader of the opposition has brought forward an amendment which certainly affords a new policy to the Conservative party. That new policy, in appearance, is the old one which is brought forward in a new form. The first paragraph of the amendment now before us is in favour of protection. Where can you find more adequate protection than that which is now extended to the manufacturing interests of Canada ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Charles Marcil: Is there, at the present moment, a single industry in this country which is suffering unduly or unjustly from the effects of this tariff ? Sir, I do not believe it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Charles Marcil: It is disappointing, probably, to our opponents that the Liberal party have not afforded them the satisfaction of being able to declare that the fiscal policy of the present government has killed this industry or that industry. They have been robbed of that pleasure, of that satisfaction, and they are sorry, as an hon. friend observes. They have thought that the best way is to bring in a rider to the protection clause in this amendment proposing that we should ask for a mutual preference from England. Down in our province the Conservative party has at ail times claimed to be the pillar of the church and the state. It has lived upon prejudice, while in other parts of Canada, it has lived, to a certain extent, upon the loyalty cry. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what,. during the twenty, or twenty-five years, that the Conservative party held the reins of power in this country, did they do to bring about a better and closer understanding with the mother country ? What, Sir, have you heard in the old days of the national policy about bringing about a better understanding with Great Britain, bringing about a preference of any kind, or of any character, preferential trade, mutual or otherwise ? Sir John Macdonald, for the purpose of obtaining power, did not hesitate to introduce a tariff which was anti-British, which tended to remove Canada, as far as it could possibly be done by tariff, from its connection with the mother country. He had no idea then of bringing about a better understanding with Great Britain. He introduced a tariff which stood until dt fell into decay in 1896. Our hon.


Charles Marcil: friends declare, in another part of this amendment, that they are anxious to bring about closer trade relations with Australasia. If my memory is not at fault, there was a former Conservative Prime Minister of this country who made a futile attempt at bringing about a better understanding with Australasia. That will be within the memory of some hon. gentlemen. About the same time attempts were also made to bring! about closer trade relations with the West Indies and other portions of the British Empire. There is no sane man in this House, or in this country, who would not employ all reasonable means to bring about closer 'trade relations, not only with Australia and the West Indies, but with every other country under the sun. We have brought about certainly an increase of business with Great Britain, but the task of the government, great as it has been during the last four years and beneficial as it has been to Canada at large, as shown in the enormous increase in our trade by $142,000,000 in four years' time, is not yet finished, and the efforts of the government must not stop at Great Britain. There are other countries where the farmer, the mechanic and the business man of Canada can find a market. Germany has been mentioned. Great as might be the German market, great as is the German Empire, there is a country lying alongside of Germany where Canada should have a market of the first order. I refer to France. France's natural condition today is such that she should have a large and increasing trade with Canada. We should have a trade there which should rank, at least, according to our population, in proportion to the trade which the United States have with that country. There is a great trade to be fostered with Belgium and with other countries in the eastern parts of Europe. No doubt the government are giving their attention to this point and are trying to increase as best they can our markets with these foreign countries. The last paragraph in the amendment refers to the duties on foreign goods. This may properly be described as advocating a reciprocity of tariffs. A reciprocity of tariffs is a thing which certainly might be in the interest of the country at a given moment, but it is one of those questions which has to be settled gradually as occasion presents itself, as it comes forward and the government, which have been in power for four years, cannot be expected in that time to bring about a complete revolution in the business affairs of Canada. As far as we are concerned down in our province, and I believe the same may be said of all the other provinces of Canada, the people are satisfied. The last elections were carried out not upon the policy which has been brought forth by the opposition, but upon other cries with which the members of this House are conversant, but, the people of Canada at large, I have no doubt, are satis-

fled with the present administration of affairs. They are satisfied with the fiscal policy. That policy has been clearly defined by the bon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), by the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright). It has been said, very truly in this House, that there should not be any whimsical changes in the tariff of the day. If there is anything which unsettles business it is these changes in the tariff. These changes occurred very often under the late government, but they were not as complete as might have been desired by some friends of the administration. The permanency of the tariff is one of those things which is a guarantee in itself to the manufacturer, and through the manufacturer, to the workingman and to others who are interested in the progress of the country. Now, I have referred in broad general terms to the amendment which has been placed before ns and I wonder whether the Conservative party really think that the country is going to accept this as a change in their old policy. I do not think so and the best reason for not thinking that is that'it is nothing more or less than a repetition of the old policy except in the name. We have been told that during the eighteen years of the national policy Canada progressed to an extraordinary extent. Such may have been apparently the case in certain manufacturing centres, but the country at large made no progress. The country at large remained stationary and emigration remained unchecked. During the thirty years in which the Conservative party were in power in this country, thousands upon thousands of Canadians left the country and settled in the United States. It is an almost incredible fact, but nevertheless true, that there arc in the United States to-day over a million of Canadians, that there are almost half a million, if not half a million, of French Canadians in the eastern states, and that there are more people from the maritime provinces in some of the eastern American cities than are to be found in the cities of Halifax, or St. John. These things occurred under the old wavering policy of the Conservative party, but that condition of things has changed for the better now. A change has been brought about, a wise policy has been inaugurated, a policy which has produced a better understanding among the various classes of the Canadian people, a policy which is keeping our people at home, which is keeping them employed, which is keeping the manufacturers busy and which is finding markets for our farmers.
We are told now that this new policy of the Conservative party is intended to benefit Canada at large. That is a matter for difference of opinion and for discussion ; that is a question which cannot be settled
off-hand; but I would like, Mr. Speaker, with your permission to answer certain statements which have been made by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace), and by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) as to what policy was really endorsed by the people of Canada at the last election. These gentlemen opposite have told us that the race and religious cry was raised in the province of Quebec, and that it was that cry that carried the election.	Our friend from West York (Mr. Wallace), who I know is very advanced in his ideas on the subject, when speaking on this motion the other night, said, alluding to the right hon. the Prime Minister :
But he never went to a French gathering in which he did not refer to them as his fellow-countrymen because of their French origin. I have read the reports of his speeches, and in these he was wont to say: I am a Frenchman and am proud of it. The same blood flows in my veins as runs in yours, and I want your vote on the ground that we are all French.


Mr. WALLACE.: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Marcil) permit me. I said :	I
want your votes because we are French. I supplied that myself. I gave the quotation as read by the hon. member: The same blood flows in my veins as flows in yours. After that, as the ' Hansard ' report will show, when the Prime Minister interrupted L stated that the words that were added were mine, and that they contained the only inference that could be drawn from his argument, else 'why did he use such language. I asked that question. The further report of the debate will show that.


Charles Marcil: When the hon. gentleman from West York (Mr. Wallace) used those words he was at once called to order by the premier, who denied having used them.	[DOT]


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: He was not called to order.


Charles Marcil: That is the report that ' Hansard ' gives and the Prime Minister denied having used these words.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: He denied having used words I did not attribute to him.


Charles Marcil: I could quote other portions of the hon. gentleman's speech which all tends in the same direction. Here, for instance, is some language used by the hon. member for West York :
Why, these men are in power to-day because" they successfully raised that cry. They have fifty-eight out of sixty-five members of the province of Quebec, not because their public policy was acceptable to the people of that province, hut because of the racial cries that were raised by the Minister of Inland Revenue, by the First Minister himself, and by all the ministers and by all the members on that side of the House.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Hear, hear.


Charles Marcil: I should
like briefly to refer to the vote in the province of Quebec at the last election to show that no racial cry ever dominated in that province. The Conservative party in Canada has had a glorious past. The Conservative party of former days was led by men-and I do not wish to be personal to those who are now at the head of that party-but in the past it was led by men who certainly accomplished a great deal for this country. Confederation was brought about through the efforts of Sir George Etienne Cartier, supported as he was by the almost unanimous feeling of the province of Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Charles Marcil: For thirty years the province of Quebec maintained the Conservative party in power, and during these long years was there ever a cry raised that the province of Quebec voted Conservative because Cartier was a Frenchman? Never, Sir, did we hear that. The province of Quebec in those days believed the Conservative party was the political party which could bring about the best understanding in this country, which could develop this young land of ours and lay the foundation of a great nation in the future. The Conservative party in those days had a dual policy. The French Conservative party in Quebec used the church; that is, impressed the people with the idea that it had the support of the church. That was one policy of the Conservative party, and the other part of the Conservative policy was furnished by the friends of the hon. member for West York.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Charles Marcil: To-day the conditions are changed. On the 7th of November last, Quebec voted in favour of the best men and in favour of the best policy. There was a man in the province of Quebec at the last election who had sat for over twenty years in this House; an estimable gentleman personally; a gentleman who aspired to the leadership of his compatriots, but that man had the ill-luck to link his fortunes with the member for West York, and so we saw the French and Catholic county of Beauharnois discard its former member (Mr. Bergeron) and elect an English-speaking Protestant Liberal (Mr. Loy) in his stead.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Would the hon. member permit me ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I am asking the hon. member (Mr. Marcil) a question and not his Packers. The hon. gentleman said that Mr. Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).
Bergeron linked his fortunes with mine. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Marcil) read the Toronto Globe he would have seen the report of a speech made by Mr. Bergeron in the city of Montreal in which he bitterly attacked myself. I presume, Mr. Speaker, that that accounted for his defeat in Beauharnois; and by a Protestant.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Charles Marcil: I am sorry that the member for West York had to be disavowed by his own colleague, but I am still more sorry that Mr. Bergeron ever allowed himself to link his fortunes with those of the hon. member (Mr. Wallace). I do not wish, Sir, to wander away from the amendment before the House, but I think I am justified in my remarks in view of the statements made by the two hon. gentlemen to whom I have referred (Mr. Wallace and Mr. Bennett). I do not wish the statement to be allowed to go broadcast through the country, without contradiction, that the province of Quebec voted upon racial issues at the last election. There are in this House eighteen English-speaking members from the province, of Quebec, thirteen of whom are Protestants and the other five English-speaking Catholics. Without analysing the vote in detail, I may mention some very conspicuous instances to show that the French Canadians voted for the best men regardless of race or religious issues. We have in the city of Montreal an electoral division composed of St. Lawrence and St. Louis wards, the latter ward being overwhelmingly French and the former largely Catholic.
The French Canadians of that division could have legitimately asked to be represented by one of themselves ; but they gave way, and my hon. friend (Mr. Bickerdike) was elected by an overwhelming majority. One of the old historic counties of the province of Quebec, the county of Chateau-guay, that piece of land which should be sacred to all Canadians, for there French Canadians saved the British flag to this country-that county, with its overwhelming French Catholic population, has been represented in this House since confederation by a Protestant. We have the constituency of Quebec West, which is overwhelmingly Catholic, represented in this House by one of the ministers of the Crown (Hon. Mr. Dobell). We have the county of Sherbrooke represented by my hon. friend (Mr. McIntosh), although the French Canadians are in a majority there, and could have insisted, had they so desired, on being represented by one of their own people. They preferred, however, to have an English-speaking Protestant, because they are represented by a French Canadian in the local legislature. That is an arrangement very often made in the province of Quebec. Then there is the county of Missisquoi, which for

many years lias been represented by an English-speaking Protestant. An Englishspeaking Protestant (Mr. Meigs) represents it in this House at the present time, and a French Canadian represents it in the local legislature. We have the St. Antoine division of Montreal, which ranks as a Protestant division, though its population is almost equally divided between Catholics and Protestants. The religious question was never raised there, and it is represented in this House by an English Protestant (Mr. Roddick). Then, the county of Quebec, nine-tenths of the population of which is French, and in w'hieh it Is rare to find an English-speaking man, is represented in this House by the Solicitor General, one of the most prominent Irishmen in the Dominion. The county of Jacques Cartier, also overwhelmingly French, is represented in this House by my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Monk). The united counties of Richmond and Wolfe, two former Englishspeaking divisions of the eastern townships, where the population is almost three-fourths French, are represented in the local House by au English-speaking Protestant, and in this House by an Irish Roman Catholic. You have here eighteen constituencies in the province of Quebec, in which, with very few exceptions, had the French and Catholic vote been used as such, the French Canadians could have elected an almost solid representation ; but they did not do so. They voted for the policy first and for the men afterwards ; and why should they not ? Is there a man in this country who has not been at all times proud of the Prime Minister of this Dominion ? Are the French Canadians to be called upon to vote against him merely because he is a French Canadian ?
In the debate in this House the other day it was stated that race issues were being raised in North Bruce. I do not know whether they have been or not; but North Bruce has evidently remained, according to last reports, true to its old policy. I hope the electors of North Bruce did not vote on racial lines. If they voted on party lines, they had a right to vote as they did, it is a free country.


Mr. SPROULE.: I would like to tell the hon. gentleman, as one who was there, that the racial question was never mentioned, so far as I know, either on the platform or off the platform.


Mr. HORSEY.: The hon. gentleman is not omnipresent.


Charles Marcil: There has been an allusion by my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) to the vote that was given by the French Canadians in the province of Quebec, and the hon. gentleman said the race cry had been raised in North Essex, that it might have been raised
in Nipissing, and that it was raised in Glengarry. North Essex was formerly represented in this House by a French Canadian, and the French Canadians of that constituency might legitimately have hoped to be again represented here by one of themselves ; but they could not be better represented than they are at the present moment. The French Canadians are in a majority in the district of Nipissing, but they are represented by two English-speaking gentlemen-one in the Ontario House and one in this House. And I have the word of the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell) that the race cry was never raised in Glengarry, but that the French Canadians there voted on party lines, and that he owes his election largely to the Scotch vote in that constituency.
Now, our friends opposite tell us that the last general election was fought on the fiscal policy and according to the ordinary rules of discussion. I hold in my hand a Conservative dodger which was circulated in the county of Albert, N.B., where there is probably not a French elector. It is entitled : 1 Conservative victory all along the line ; every province gives Conservative gains,' and one of the paragraphs reads as follows :
It is the turn for an English-speaking premier, and every lover of fair-play says Tupper should have a chance to show what he can do.
Was a straighter appeal ever made to racial prejudice than was made on that occasion? The Union .Tack dominates this dodger, my hon. friend remarks ; but the best friends of the Union Jack in this country have not been the men who have exploited the Union Jack, but those who have stood by it when it was in need of friends. And since the South African war has been mentioned, I wish to declare, as my own personal conviction, speaking as I do from my knowledge of the province of Quebec, that it was the. most fortunate thing that ever happened to Canada that we had at the head of affairs the right hon. gentleman who now leads the government, when our opponents for party purposes raised the cry of sending contingents to South Africa. The vote which was given in this House 1 the other night is the most eloquent tri-* bute that could be paid to the genuine patriotic services which the right hon. Prime Minister has rendered not only to Canada, but to the empire at large.
; I shall conclude these somewhat disconnected remarks by alluding to a charge which was made against me the other >
night by the hon. member for East Simcoe i (Mr. Bennett). That hon. gentleman charg-: ed that in 1897 I went into his riding for ! the purpose of raising the race cry.
i Mr. BENNETT. If the hon. gentleman 1 will allow me, I would ask him to read

from ' Hansard ' exactly what I said and make his answer to that.


Charles Marcil: Here are the words of the hon. member :
The hon. gentlemen are quite welcome to have Quebec on the terms they got it. They conducted a campaign of race and religion iu the province of Quebec ; and wherever they could introduce the same campaign in the province of Ontario, they did so, and did so successfully. They introduced it in Glengarry, which has a large French population, and that is the reason they carried that county. They introduced it in the two ridings of Essex, where there is also a large French population, and that is the reason they carried them. I was amused at hearing the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), in seconding the address this session, express the hope that these cries of race and religion would be buried and put out of sight. That hon. gentleman was in my riding in 1897, when there was a by-election. I had been unseated. At that time the French Canadians-and there are about 500 voters in that locality-were sympathizing very^ keenly with their fellow-countrymen in Manitoba, who they thought were deprived of their school rights. The hon. member for Bonaventure came there. He did not appear in the English parts of the constituency-


Mr. BENNETT.: Hear, hear.
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) (reading)-
-but he could be found in the French settlements day in and day out. And the hon. gentleman never came back to redeem the pledge which he made on that occasion.


William Humphrey Bennett: Read the pledge.


Charles Marcil: I hope the hon. gentleman does not want me to read the whole of his speech. The pledge was this:
He first asked that the government might be excluded for not having passed a remedial Bill in their first session on the ground that they had not time, but he said there was a session coming on in 1897, and if a remedial Bill were not passed then, he would come back there and denounce the government at the earliest opportunity.


William Humphrey Bennett: But you never came back.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There was no necessity. .


Charles Marcil: I was invited one day to visit the constituency of East Sirncoe. I was told that on the borders of the Georgian Bay there was a large number of French Canadians, probably a thousand or more-people who had lived peaceably in the parish of Lafontaine and the town of Penetanguishene the last thirty or forty years. Lafontaine is one of the most extraordinary places I have ever visited. It is a purely Frencli settlement in an English constituency. Those people, law-abiding, good citizens of Canada, industrious farmers-many of them are unable to speak or understand the English language. Where


William Humphrey Bennett: then is the crime in a speaker from another part of this country, from the province of Quebec, going up there to discuss the public questions of the day. My hon. friend tells me that I limited myself to the French districts of Lafontaine and Penetanguishene. Let me tell him that one evening, after speaking at one of those' places and returning in company with Dr. Spohn, a former member of this House, I was invited to do a most extraordinary thing, and I did it. I was invited to address a public meeting in an Orange hall. I accepted the invitation, and I must say that I never obtained a more respectful hearing than I did that night. I do not know how these people voted, they probably voted for our friend who now represents the county, but I will give you, Mr. Speaker, the reason. It was -though I do not wish to be personal to a man who is not present-it was because of the unpopularity of our own candidate. Mr. H. H. Cook. I can inform the hon. member (Mr. Bennett) that if any other reputable citizen of East Sirncoe had, upon that occasion, been the candidate of the Liberal party, the hon. gentleman would not have been returned to this House. I was often warned at some of these meetings that I could not bring forward Mr. Cook, who was then our Liberal candidate, because he was too unpopular. People would say to me :	We
are willing to vote for the government but we cannot vote for Mr. Cook. That was the reason which accounts for the election of the hon. gentleman. I am glad to notice now that the hon. gentleman and his late opponent in that election have become strong, steadfast friends. They are to-day concocting a scandal over the question of a senatorship.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I rise to a point of order. I understand your ruling, Mr. Speaker, the other night, when the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) was speaking, to be that hon. gentlemen must apply themselves exclusively to the amendment of the leader of the opposition. I rise simply for the purpose of information, because if this hon. gentleman is to be allowed to travel all over the question, when I rise to speak, I intend to do the same.


Mr. SPEAKER.: It is true that the other night I stated the rule which should prevail, but those hon. gentlemen who were present will remember that hon. gentlemen on both sides asked that no restriction should be placed on the discussion, and of course I was in the hands of the House.


Mr. HAGGART.: Hear, hear. Let him go on.


Charles Marcil: There is another point to which I wish to refer. The hon. member for East Sirncoe spoke of a pledge that I made on the Manitoba school ^question. Well, I did not return to the
county of East Simcoe for the very good reason that I was engaged elsewhere during the lasit election. Since visiting the division of East Simcoe, I was given the opportunity of visiting the province of Manitoba and participating in the local provincial elections there. I went into the houses of the half-breeds, I went into their schools at St. Boniface, St. Vital and the other places in the three French counties of LaVerandry, St. Boniface and Carillon, and I am glad to be able to declare to-day that the French Metis and the French Catholic population of that province never had as efficient schools as they now enjoy. If I am not mistaken, the hon. member for West York visited Manitoba at the same time. He probably went up there to support the Greenway government, which had done away with the Catholic schools, or something else. But what happened was this, that the people who were interested in the Catholic schools of Manitoba, the people whom the Conservative party had sought to hold up to this country as victims, voted almost to a man in favour of the Liberal candidates and the men who had opposed the Remedial Bill in this House and out of this House, voted to bring about the downfall of the Greenway administration. There is my answer to the challenge concerning my pledge on the Manitoba school question.
Further than that I have nothing to say. I hope that an early opportunity will be given me to return to East Simcoe.


William Humphrey Bennett: You are very welcome, I can assure you.


Charles Marcil: And I will not only speak to the French of East Simcoe, but I hope an opportunity will be given me to speak to the Orangemen. We have Orangemen in the province of Quebec and some of them-the majority of them I must say-are, as a rule, peaceful, law-abiding citizens. They hold different views from ours on matters of religion and as to loyalty and the maintenance of the empire, and so on, but this is a free country, and I hope that as long as the hon. member for West York remains at the head of that distinguished order, he will inculcate among its members a love for this country.
Glancing the other day over Leggo's ' Administration of Lord Duff or in in Canada,' my attention was attracted to an address, which was presented, some thirty years ago, almost, by the then warden of the county of York, who now represents West York in this House. About that time Lord Duf-ferin, who was without exception the most illustrious Irishman Great Britain ever sent to Canada, made an appeal, subsequently to this address, to the Irish Protestant Society of Toronto. In that appeal he asked his countrymen not to bring to this country what has caused the misfortunes of Ireland for many centuries. I am sorry to say that
the words of Lord Dufferin have had no effect upon the hon. member for West York.
Some days later, Lord Dufferin, on leaving these shores, on leaving the old city of Quebec, where he had been welcomed as French Canadians have always welcomed the representative of British authority in this country-Lord Dufferin, in parting, uttered these words at Laval University, and I shall conclude with his remarks. We should follow his advice and try to lay aside our racial antipathies, our racial divisions, and to bring about a better understanding among all classes of the community. I adhere to the declaration I made in this House when first I had the honour of addressing it-I desire that what little I may do in public life in Canada, what little I may do in this House, shall have the result of bringing about, if possible, a better understanding among all classes of the Canadian people. These were the words that Lord Dufferin uttered :
At this moment the French Canadian race to which you belong is engaged in a generous struggle with their English fellow-subjects to see which shall contribute most to the advancement of the moral, material and political welfare of this country. There is not a student, a man of business or of science, a politician or an author of either origin who does not feel the inspiration of this noble rivalry. Upon the success of your exertions, upon the efficacy of your discipline and training, upon the character of the mental and moral atmosphere you create within your walls, will, in a great measure, depend the issue of the conflict. In that conflict I can heartily wish you success without compromising my impartiality, for it is a struggle wherein the defeated reap laurels as untarnished-benefits as universal-as those which crown the winners, since it is round the brow of Canada the wreath of victory will be twined, and into the lap of Canada the prizes of the contest poured.
Sir, there was the parting advice tendered to this country by one of the most illustrious men whom Great Britain ever sent here. And, as I have said to our friends from Ontario, men of another race, and another nationality-no, we are all the same, we are all Canadians, but of another origin-I would remind them that when they come in contact with the people they should try to bring about a better understanding, and inspire themselves with what we see in the province of Quebec down on the Plains of Abraham, where the fate of this continent was settled. There, Sir, beneath the protection of the British guns, stands a pillar of stone, and upon that pillar are graven two names, Wolfe and Montcalm-Wolfe, the victorious British general; Montcalm, who died in the arms of defeat. Let us, in our efforts towards building up this country bear in mind that silent witness of the understanding which was brought about by our forefathers, so that we may perpetuate that understanding among the present generation of Canadians

and transmit it to those who shall come after us.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I cannot take up the gauntlet thrown down by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and discuss the amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) from the point of race and creed from which he has discussed it to-day. Nor can I, even in discussing so important a question as this, take advantage of this opportunity to tell the hon. leader of this House (Bt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) what the echo from North Bruce was which he wished so much to hear when he discussed this question the other day.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) may tell me the echo from Prince Edward Island, perhaps.


William Findlay Maclean: The right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) expressed a desire the other day to hear from North Bruce. But I can tell him that something is happening on his side of the House that is a surprise to us and a surprise to the country ; and if his followers continue to make protectionist speeches, such as that delivered by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) the other evening, that of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) yesterday, and that of the hon. member for Bonaventure to-day. when he was discussing the question on its merits, he will soon have no free traders behind him at all, but all will be on the protectionist, that is to say, on the Conservative, platform. In discussing this question, 1 wish to keep to the view of protection and free trade laid down by the Prime Minister. As he has challenged the relative merits of protection and free trade, just lor a tew moments I intend to discuss the principle underlying these two ideas. After that, I purpose discussing the attitude of the Liberals towards protection, the attitude of the Liberals towards mutual trade, and this new question of reciprocity of tariffs. Now. I have no hesitation in telling the House that I am a protectionist, and that, on that subject, I am, as the right hon. gentleman calls me. a stalwart. I have always believed in the principle of protection, and never in the principle of free trade. And when it comes down to a discussion of the two principles, we can say this-that protection has been vindicated, while free trade to-day is questioned in every quarter of the world. Now, what is the principle underlying protection ? Is it not this-that protectionists recognize the fact that life is a struggle, not only between individuals, but between nations ? The free traders tell us that underlying the principle of their theory is the brotherhood of man. Sir. there is no prospect of the principle of the brotherhood of man being accepted : on


Charles Marcil: the contrary, the nations, from one end of the world to the other, recognize that a struggle goes on among them, and that it is incumbent upon a nation to protect and maintain itself in that struggle as against other nations. Another principle that free traders go on is, that there ought to be competition, and that competition will settle all difficulties in connection with trade and commerce. As a protectionist, I say that the underlying principle ought to be a regulated production-it is this that will give the greatest value to industry, and not competition. Another thing that we protectionists say is, that the great object of a nation ought to be to keep its own work for its own people, and its own markets for its own products. The free traders tell us that the proper rule is to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest. We take issue with them on that point also. And how would we who are protectionists say that a nation should attain the end to be sought ? By what we call national policy. We recognize that there is a struggle among nations, and that it is possible for a nation, through its fiscal policy and its legislation, to make itself strong so as to be able to hold its own and build itself up in that struggle. How does it do that ? That is a point upon which I wish to lay considerable stress. How does a nation, through its fiscal policy, make itself strong and build itself up ? In a number of ways. It seeks to transfer industries from other nations ; it seeks to develop the industries that it has at home, and it seeks to give diversity of employment to its people-am! in that way it adopts what Sir .Tohn A. Macdonald called (and it is a good name for it) a national policy. The tools, the engines of that national policy, as directed to this end. are many, and I wish to enumerate them here to-day.
In the first place, the great engines or means used in a protectionist policy is a customs tariff composed of specific and ad valorem duties. The next thing is a tariff with a free entrance of specific raw materials, or a rebate of duties on foreign raw products not manufactured within the country importing them. Another thing that protection resorts to is drawbacks : another thing is bounties on productions and bounties on exports ; another thing it resorts to is putting larger duties on raw products exported ; another thing is treaties of reciprocity, or reciprocity in preference ; another thing is maximum and minimum tariffs with friendly and unfriendly nations ; another thing is countervailing duties ; another thing is subsidies to railways and steamship lines, or giving low freights and cold storage to exports, and low freights for essentially raw products when imported. Still another thing adopted by every protectionist government to-day is the policy of promotion, or taking part in exhibitions, exhibiting in foreign countries its own pro-
ductions, resorting to a consular service, appointing trade agents ito build up trade, and in a hundred other directions making use of a promotion system. There are many other ways in which a national policy employs whatever measures will effect the end of building up the country.
Now, free traders pretend to ignore all these things. They say they do not believe in them, they say that the least government is the best-that is one of their great principles. They say a legislature can do very little to promote trade, and that the proper policy of a government is to do as little as possible in the way of promoting the industries of the country. On the other hand, we who are protectionists contend that it is the duty of a.government to do everything possible, and to interfere, if necessary, as much as possible on behalf of manufactures with a view to building up the country. The national policy of interfering through legislation by parliament has proved a success. A national policy has proved a success, not only in Canada but throughout the world wherever It has been tried. Free trade is questioned to-day, and is almost a failure in the one or two countries that have adopted it. Now, what are the countries that have adopted the principle of protection ? Let me name some of them. There is the United States, the greatest country in the world to-day in the matter of production and export of its own productions. There is Germany, there is Russia, there is France, there is Italy, there is Canada, Australia is coming to it, South Africa will come to it, and every nation that is emerging or hopes to emerge and to take its place among the nations, is adopting a national policy and recognizing the principle of protection. All these countries employ these engines that are said to be paternal, that are said to be protectionist. But they are effective and accomplish the thing designed, they do build up a country, and every one of these countries that I have named has employed them, and is employing them, and intends to employ them hereafter to a much larger extent.
Now, England is the typical free trade country, and to-day I would like to ask lion, gentlemen opposite who declare themselves free traders, whether England has not employed many of these protectionist measures in the past ? She has employed them in the past, she may 'have disowned them for a time, but I believe she will employ a great many of .them in the future. Englishmen are getting tired of this doctrine of this brotherhood of man. that the least government is the best, and they are casting about for ways in which they can help themselves. The Manchester school is dead. .Tohn Stuart Mill and all his free trade theories are nothing but ghosts. The little Englander party has disappeared from English politics. Many principles that Cobdenite free traders have advocated in the past are very much
questioned to-day, and there are a great many people now who are ashamed to wear Cobden medals, even though the medals are bestowed upon them by the Cobden Society. The people of England see how things are going; and one of the most significant things we have seen in our day is the fact that the iron and steel industry is passing from free trade England to the protectionist United States. That is a most significant fact in regard to England's fiscal policy, it is a thing that is coming home to Englishmen, that is being discussed in all their boards of trade and chambers of commerce, that is being discussed in their papers and by their public men. It is a question to which they cannot at the present time find an answer. Perhaps we protectionists in Canada will yet be able 'to tell them where a remedy may be found. No protectionist to-day needs to apologize for his belief ; but the free trader finds all his former theories questioned to-day by his own supporters. Therefore, I say that protectionists have seen their principles vindicated, while free traders have seen every principle they have advocated disowned by other nations and questioned by those who heretofore have supported them.
Now, a national policy, or a principle of protection, is the policy adopted by nations who are rivals for the world's trade and have to struggle for theiir part of it. The principle of the brotherhood of men is for people who are brothers, but for those who are not brothers the principle does not apply. It may apply when the poet's dream is realized of ' the brotherhood of man, the federation of the world.' When the federation of the world takes place, that principle will be all right; but so long as nation has to struggle with nation, the principle of protection has to be resorted to by every nation which wishes to hold its own.
Now, having laid down these general principles, I wish to discuss the attitude of the Liberal party on the question of protection. To find out where the Liberal party stands on this question, I must take the speech of the Prime Minister, made in this House on this very question ; and to ascertain his position I shall have to read a few sentences from hds remarks. In the first place I will quote what he said about the Conservative party and the national policy :
The same old national policy, with a few adornments which, instead of taking from Its native deformity, only add to It.
And one or two of these adornments of the national policy the Reformers of this country are supporting to-day. He went on to say :
There is nothing new in the Conservative policy to-day.
Well, there is something new, there is this new at least, that it is sticking to its principles and maintaining them on every occa-

sion. It is also enlarging the principle of protection as applied to Canada, and enlarging it, as I will show later on, to the whole empire. Now, what does the hon. gentleman say, speaking for his party, in regard to protection ? He says that they are free traders, they are for a revenue tariff, while we on this side are protectionists. Here are his own words :
There is this difference between us, that while they would levy those duties only for the benefit of individuals, we levy them for the benefit of the revenue first and foremost.
Then he admits there is no doubt that protection is an incident of the tariff.
Still further on he says :
It will be many years before we can have free trade as they have it in England.
Now, we have these four statements, and I hope I have the attention of the right hon. leader of the government, because 1 do not wish to misquote him, I wish to put in one sentence what he says is his attitude and the attitude of his party in regard to the fiscal policy of this country. I take it to be this:	The Liberals are against protection; they believe in free trade as a theory, they are for a revenue tariff which of necessity implies incidental protection, but, of such incidental protection the less there is of it the more is such a tariff desirable; and also, they regret that it will be many years before we can have free trade as it is in England, but that is the goal. Now, I think that is the platform of the Liberal party; that certainly is the statement which the right hon. leader of the government made, and this side of the House and the country will hold him and his party to it. On that platform we take direct issue with them. We say we believe in protection, we say we do not believe in a revenue tariff, but that we believe in a tariff that will protect Canadian industries, we do not want free trade as they have it in England. Eree trade as they have it in England is not the goal of the party sitting on this side of the House. Not only does he justify the national policy in that statement, but he is perforce made to justify all those instruments of protection which I have already outlined. But is his practice on the lines of these precepts which he has laid down ? Let us take some of the means that I have enumerated in connection with the national policy and of protection and see where he and his party are. Specific duties are one of the great instruments of protection. Does he use them ? Having condemned them, has he removed them from the statutes of this country ? They are protectionist instruments pure and simple. Take other instruments of protection, take rebates and drawbacks, bounties on production, bounties on exports, rebates on exports, the prohibition of exports a policy which the right hon. gentleman's


William Findlay Maclean: friends in Ontario have adopted in regard to the exportation of logs and which the lion. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) proposes to adopt in connection with logs cut on Indian reserves, reciprocity treaties, steamship subsidies and cold storage on steamships, trade agents purchase of products aud selling them abroad. Has he not employed every one of these engines of protection under this so-called revenue tariff ? He is either a bogus free trader or a protectionist who is ashamed to admit that he is a protectionist. Where is he V He has not employed all of them ? There is reciprocity of tariffs, which is to come, there are countervailing duties, there the system of the maximum and the minimum tariffs which is to.come, and there may be some other instruments of paternal government as it is called and he may have to come to them. But, all of the others he has employed up to date, and yet he says he is a revenue tariff man. Now, what is the difference in degree between this so-called revenue tariff that he says he upholds and a protectionist tariff which we claim it was in former days and which specifically it is to-day What is the difference in degree between the tariff which he upholds to-day and the one which he denounced when it was introduced into this country ? How are they going to get over that difficulty ? The late Minister of Finance told us that the difference between the old and the new tariff was 79-10Qths of 1 per cent or something less than that. The right hon. gentleman claims that there is a marked distinction between the two policies, but will any one tell what the difference in degree, as to the incidence between the two tariffs, is ? Now, I want to make some reply to the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and the right hon. leader of the government. Of this revenue tariff of which the right hon. gentleman says he is the champion, he states :
The result of the policy adopted in 1897 is that the country has never been so prosperous.
And then, he said :
Under our new tariff, our revenue tariff, the trade of the country increased in the four years from 1896 to 1900, $142,000,000. Under the national policy the increase under the same head was $36,000,000 for sixteen years.
On this statement of the results he left the people and the House to judge of the merits of the two policies. Why did the country boom when hon. gentlemen came into power ? Why did trade increase in volumeV It must be for one reason aud one alone, that hon. gentlemen declined to put into practice the policy which they announced they would adopt of wiping the national policy off the face of the earth. That is why the country has boomed. Up to that time capital had been frightened and labour intimidated. Men were of limited means
and they were afraid to put their money into manufacturing enterprises, because they were led to believe that if the Liberal party came into power the national policy, as they said in East York when I contested that riding, would be wiped off the face of the earth. It is because they did not wipe the national policy off the face of the earth and because they adopted the policy of Sir John Macdonald, because the whole country was so united in supporting the policy of protection that no one in a responsible position dared to get up in his place and propose to remove it, that the country prospered. What would have been the state of the country if lion, gentlemen had carried out their pledges and had wiped the national policy off the face of the earth ? Instead of smoking chimneys we would have had smokeless chimneys, we would have sent our labour abroad and driven our capital out of the country. There would have been no increase in trade. The glory of hon. gentlemen to-day is that they did not do what they promised, and because they did not do what they promised the country has prospered. What was the conclusion of the apology of the right hon. gentleman for being a protectionist ? It was this :
It will be. many years before we can have free trade as they have It in England.
And hfs Finance Minister, in 1897, as has been quoted already in the House, said :
So far as protecting the industries of the country is concerned, eternal vigilance must be the price of protection.
This is a nice statement to come from two hon. members of the government. One says that free trade as they have it in England is far away and the other tells the people that if they have protection it will only be by the exercise of continual vigilance. The national policy has vindicated itself in the minds of the men who first promoted it and supported it. It has vindicated -itself in the minds of all, because the Liberal party have had to adopt it, have had to support it, have had to maintain it, notwithstanding that they would destroy it, and if John A. Macdonald lives today in this country, he lives not only in the principles of his own party, which we are maintaining to-day, but he lives as a present force, in this country, to-day, because the men who decried him and decried his principle of protection are claiming, as the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) have done, that the Liberal party are trying to maintain it in their own way. This is Sir John Macdonald's glory; it is a living glory and he is a most living force in the affairs in Canada to-day. Now, I want to discuss the question of the preference. The right hon. Prime Minister, said in dealing with that preference ;
How are you going to secure mutuality of preference where you have protection in Canada and free trade in England?
Further on he said :
Canada will be protectionist and so will Great Britain, and what mutual preference could you have under such conditions?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Might I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) if the policy, as enunciated in the amendment of the leader of the opposition, is what he described it just now ; reciprocity in preferences ?


William Findlay Maclean: I am coming to that.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon gentleman (Mr. Maclean) has already stated that that is the policy of the opposition.


William Findlay Maclean: I have been dealing with the record of the Liberal party on protection ; I am going to deal with mutual preference now, and I am coming to the preference of reciprocity, and I will tell you exactly where we are as to that.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I thought we knew it.


William Findlay Maclean: The Minister of Customs has asked for information, and I am glad to give it to him. Now, the Prime Minister asked us : How free trade England and protectionist Canada could have a mutuality of preference, and he said :	If
England became protectionist and Canada remained protectionist there could be mutuality of preference. Well, there are numbers of instances on record which will answer the right hon. gentleman's question. Does he not know that the protectionist United States has, under its fiscal system, given a preference to free trade, or semifree trade, nations, and that free trade England has given a preference to protected nations. It is all very well for the First Minister to make a fine rhetorical phrase in the House, but in cammon practice the thing is being done every day. The protectionist United States is making treaties with the South American republics and with Germany, and has sent her commissioners to France to establish some kind of mutual preference. There is an answer to the Prime Minister's question. It is possible to have this mutuality of protection between free trade and protectionist nations, but what we criticise the government for is the one-sided character of the preference they have given, and which I do not believe in, especially as towards England.
But what is the record of the Liberals when in opposition ? They were in favour of giving a preference to the United States and against the mother land. They were in favour of unrestricted reciprocity, which its author, Mr. Erastus Wiman, defined it to be :

Free trade between Canada and the United States and the rest of the world, and involving discrimination against the mother country.
And Sir Richard Cartwright, speaking at Pembroke, October 21, 1890, admitted this was so, and said :
Some men, whose opinions I respect, enter objections to this unrestricted reciprocity proposition. They argue, and argue with force, that it will be necessary for us if we enter into such an arrangement to admit the goods of the United States on more favourable terms than those of the mother country; nor do I deny that this is an objection, and not a light one.
The present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) is on record as being prepared to give the United States a preference as against England, and he and his party now charge us because we do not believe in a mutual preference as between us and England, because it is a one-sided preference. Let us look for a moment at the eiforts of the Liberal party in this country to establish unrestricted reciprocity between Canada and the United States. I shall tell the House what was the real origin of that unrestricted reciprocity movement in Canada fifteen years ago. There was then in the United States a very able, a very clever, man, and at that time, a very wealthy man. That man saw the rise of his friend and acquaintance, Grover Cleveland, from an unimportant position, to be president of the United States. This man, who lived in New York, became very ambitious, and he said to himself : If Grover Cleveland can be president of the United States, why should not I, who am as able a man as he is, be president. But when he looked into the matter he found that there was one obstacle in the way, and that was that he was not native-born of the United States. He was a Canadian-born, and so he started out to qualify himself to become president of the United States, as Grover Cleveland had become president. I am telling no fiction to the House now. Erastus Wiman saw that the only way in which he could qualify for the presidency was to become native-born, and the only way he could become native-born, was to lead his native Canada into annexation with the United States. He came over here on that expressed mission, and he captured the Liberal party and the Liberal newspapers, and for years he engaged them to gratify his ambition to become president of the United States. That is the real story of the unrestricted reciprocity movement in Canada from 1886 to 1894. And it was the present Prime Minister, the United States senator from Canada, as he was called in the United States, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who went up and down this country preaching in favour of unrestricted reciprocity, which really meant annexation. And these are the men who are chiding us to-day because we do not believe in a one-Mr. MACLEAN.
sided preference. I am stating an historical fact, and when the memoirs of Erastus Wiman are written, and when the archives of the New York Sun are laid bare, as they will be laid bare before the people, the Liberal party of Canada will be on record as favouring unrestricted reciprocity, which really meant annexation, and which, to Erastus Wiman, meant nothing else but annexation so that he could qualify himself to be come president of the United States. That being the record of the Liberal party, what happened ? They got into power, and they had to find an excuse to get out of the trouble they were in, and to illustrate their predicament, I shall refer to the ancient history of the children of Israel and the law of the scapegoat, and I want to direct the attention of hon. gentlemen to what that law is. I am glad to see my hon. friend from the west (Hon. Mr. Sifton) in the House so that he may hear it for once : The Scapegoat.
(Leviticus XIV.)
5. And he (Aaron) shall take of the children of Israel two kids of the goats as a sin offering.
7.	And he shall take the two goats and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
8.	And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats, one lot for the Lord, and the other for the scapegoat.
9.	And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord's lot fell and offer him for a sin offering.
10.	But the goat on which the lot fell to be a scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
21.	And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in ail their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send him away by a fit man into the wilderness.
22.	And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
26. And he that let go the goat for a scapegoat shall wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water, and afterwards come into the camp.
Who was the scapegoat for bon. gentlemen opposite ? The Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was Aaron the high priest; the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) was the son of Aaron, and the fit man who was to lead the goat into the wilderness was the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), and he never washed his flesh or put off his clothes and had them made clean in that respect, until that night when in the basement of this building that celebrated panegyric was passed upon him which was read in this House the other day. The scapegoat which these gentlemen employed, as an atonement for their sins in being ready to give a preference to the United States instead of to England, was the industries of this country, which they turned loose in the wilderness ; and the industry which
most of all was made the scapegoat for their political sins was the woollen industry. That is their record on preferences. They are on record as being in favour of giving a preference to the United States. They are on record as sacrificing Canadian industries in order to give a bogus preference to the mother country-a bogus preference which I do not believe in. I would sooner take the word of Sir John A. Macdonald in regard to the views of the Canadian people in the matter of a preference to England ; and here are his views on that subject, contained in a letter written by him on April 6, 1891 :
While Canada cannot promise a reduction of duties, she will be quite ready to give British goods a preference in our markets if our products receive a corresponding preference in England.
We hold that view to-day ; the people of Canada believe in it; and the people of Canada will have no other preference than one which is mutual, as laid down in this statement of Sir John A. Macdonald. Sir John A. Macdonald never needed to sacrifice the interests of Canada ; he had no record which compelled him to do so ; and when it came to an issue between the rights and interests of Canada and the desires of England, he always put the interests of Canada first. If any hon. gentleman doubts that, let him read Pope's history of his life, as I have been reading it in the last few days, especially in connection with the Washington Treaty. He was besought day after day by the English members of the commission to sacrifice the Canadian fisheries ; but he said, ' I will not sacrifice them unless there is proper compensation,' and he stuck to that position to the last, and it is the position of every Conservative in Canada to-day, even in regard to England. We are ready to give concession for concession ; but we do not believe in a one-sided preference such as obtains to-day, which sacrifices Canadian industries and Canadian workmen, and which when analysed is not a tribute to the mother country, but only a tribute of Canadian mills and Canadian workmen to the mills and workmen of Lancashire. Surely, the woollen mill is as good an asset of the empire in Canada as in Lancashire. If it is, it should be kept here, and not transferred to Lancashire. That, I take it, is the feeling of the people of Canada; that, I know, is the feeling of gentlemen on this side of the House ; and the day will come when the people of Canada will rise almost en masse to have the wrong put right, and to have a preference based on the principle of true mutuality, the principle of giving something for something in return. That is the record of hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to a preference ; and, in contrast to that, I have stated what I think are the views of Con-58
servatives-that we believe in a mutual and not a one-sided preference, and we believe that a woollen mill is of as much value to the empire located in Canada as it is transferred to Lancashire.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If not, what ?


William Findlay Maclean: If it continues to injure Canadian industries, I am prepared to repeal that law any day ; and my vote can be had for its repeal to-morrow.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is the policy of the party ?


Mr. MACLEAN  .@: mat is my view of it. I am speaking for myself, and the hon. gentleman will find a great many gentlemen here who will express the same view before this debate is over.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Is it expressed in the amendment ?


William Findlay Maclean: And this so-called preference to the English manufacturers is not, as a matter of fact, given to them exclusively. The Germans are getting the best of our woollen mills, because on the woollen goods imported into this country 25 per cent of the work is done in England and 75 per cent in Germany; and the thanks we get from Germany is that they are turning Canadian wheat and other food products out of their markets.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Your policy is to repeal it ?


William Findlay Maclean: My policy is to repeal the one-sided preference.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: And the amendment you offer ?


William Findlay Maclean: The amendment we offer is exactly on my lines ; it declares for a mutuality of preference.
Now, I want to come to the third feature of the amendment, that is, in regard to a reciprocity of tariffs. An essential feature of the principle of protection in these new and later days is reciprocity of tariffs, or, to put it in another way, reciprocity of treatment. What our relations with Germany are has been already discussed. What are our relations with our neighbours of the United States ? The hon. gentlemen opposite spoke of our friendly relations with the United States. I do not believe they are friendly ; I do not believe they are neighbourly. How do the United States treat us, and how do they treat Great Britain ? What has happened within the last few days on the question of the Nicaragua canal ? The Congress of the United States, through their Senate, undertook within the last three months to abrogate the treaty defining the position of the Nicaragua canal, and to substitute



in its place one of their own making ; and if they had succeeded in that, what would have followed ? But they did not succeed. Canada had dor the first time a true friend in the Foreign Minister of Great Britain. Lord Lansdowne has become Foreign Minister. He knows the people of the United States, and he knows the people of Canada ; and he knew that if he had surrendered to the United States in regard to the Nicaragua canal, and had allowed the Senate of the United States to interpret the treaty to suit themselves, three weeks would not have gone by until the Senate of the United States would have passed another Act defining the boundary between Alaska and Canada. That is the way the United States, if they were powerful enough, would settle every question between us and them. They are not liberal toward us ; they never have been. They have not been friendly toward us in connection with their coasting laws. They have passed alien labour laws against Canadians. In every way they have been an unfriendly nation. And all the time we have been giving them our markets. Now, the day has come when the people of this country believe in reciprocity of treatment in the mat'ter of trade as between the Americans and ourselves. I myself believe in tariff for tariff.
I believe in the lex talionis-an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. There is no other way to bring the Americans to then-senses and make them respect our rights in connection with our fisheries and the Alaskan boundary and dn other respects. There has never been the slightest trace of magnanimity in their attitude towards us or any other smaller country. They are bulldozers, men 'of sharp practice, they take every advantage of an opponent, and yet the United States is the most vulnerable country on the face of the globe to-day England could bring the United States to time in an incredibly short period. We import from the United States many things which we could just as well make at home, and England imports many things from that country which she could just as well get elsewhere, and which she could get probably better in her own colonies. And the day she announces to the world, and especially to the United States, that such will be her policy, on that day the American farmer will be brought to his senses and will put the screws on the tail twisters who live in the eastern states of the union. You will never bring the Americans to time until the American farmer finds that he is not going to get into the English market with his wheat and corn and pork and other products. Just as -soon as England recognizes the fact-and she is rapidly coming to recognize it-that she is buying from the United States many things which she can make at home or get elsewhere, you will find Uncle Sam on his knees asking Eng-


William Findlay Maclean: land for some kind . of reciprocal trade arrangement.


Mr. GERMAN.: I thought you were all for protection.
Mr. MACLEAN! So I am, and I say that Uncle Sam is in a position to turn England down just because England is a protectionist and has been foolish enough to give free access to the Americans into her markets, although Uncle Sam puts up a high barrier against the admission of her goods into his territory.
The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell), the other night, spoke about the position of England to-day, and depicted her as engaged in a life and death struggle with the United States and Germany. Well, the struggle is between free trade England and protectionist United States and Germany, and if England had the sense to adopt a protective policy, she would soon put an end to that struggle. We, however, are in a position, irrespective of England, to resort to reciprocity tariffs, and I believe that the sentiment of the Conservative party in this country to-day is that the only way to put a stop to our enormous purchases of goods from the United States, which we can manufacture in Canada, is to adopt the policy of tariff for tariff and preference for preference and nothing else. A man named De Witte, who is Finance Minister of Russia, has found out the value of such a policy in the trade relations of his country with the United States. He brought the American republic to time only the other day simply by imposing a retaliatory tariff. And to-day the manufacturers of the United States are doing, what the right hon. gentleman charged our manufacturers with doing at Ottawa-they are going to Washington and asking for tariff tinkering. The strongest representations have been made to Washington to abrogate the countervailing duty on sugar, and these representations are simply due to the course taken by this Finance Minister of Russia, the greatest living exponent of protection to-day. who has found a way of bringing the Americans to their senses, and that is by giving them tariff for tariff. Nations all the world over are finding out that the only way to bring a hostile rival to time is to extend to him the same treatment as he deals out to yon-fair treatment for fail-treatment, rough treatment for rough treatment, prohibitory tariff for prohibitory tariff.
The United States have a reciprocity clause in their Tariff Bill, and this great protectionist country is enabled by that clause to make trade relations with other countries. We should follow their example. The Liberals have repudiated in this House the efficacy of this doctrine of reciprocity of tariffs. * The right thon. the First Minis-1 ter spoke on this question as follows :
1829 MARCH 21, 1901 1830	
The tariff of the people of Canada is to be determined by the people themselves, not from any consideration of the tariffs of the United States or of other countries, but simply from the consideration of what best suits the Canadian people. Further on, he said : Let us face the situation bravely like men, let us resolve that whatever may be the American tariff, we shall be guided only by the measure of what is our own interest in this respect. There the right lion, gentleman begs the question. The tariff that is in our own interest is a tariff that will keep out American productions and give work to our own people. We are bringing in a hundred million dollars worth of their goods every year, a great deal of which we could make better at home, and the only way to keep out these goods is to adopt a similar tariff to their own. The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) spoke of reciprocity, and the good time enjoyed under that policy down in the province of Quebec, and he hoped that we would again obtain reciprocity with our neighbours. Let me simply quote what his leader said last year in this House : I have no right to speak of what took place in the commission, but I have a right to refer to what is now in the minds of the Canadian people, and if we know the hearts and minds of our people at present, I think I am not making too wide a statement when I say that the general feeling in Canada to-day is not in favour of reciprocity. Mr. CLARKE. Who said that ? Mr. MACLEAN. The Prime Minister. I wish now to quote the language of a distinguished authority, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), on this question of reciprocity of tariff. That hon. gentleman went down to Boston last week and made a speech there, and, I find, in the Hamilton Times of March 18th, this report of his speech at the Free Trade League dinner in Boston. The hon. gentleman said: Canada May Reciprocate. I do not hesitate to say that if the repressive and ill-liberal policy which has characterized the United States in their dealings with Canada, especially since the passage of the Dingley Bill continues to be enforced, Canada, failing to secure reciprocal trade, will be likely to adopt a reciprocity tariff of the most drastic character. The greater part of the $62,000,000 worth of manufactures that she imports from the United States can be manufactured in the Dominion, and an increase of duties from her own standard of 25 per cent to the American standard of 50 per cent, would go far to secure this result, and the favourable influence this scale of duty would have upon trade with the mother country could be obviated by the adoption of the rebate of 40 or 50 per cent on the duties in the case of any country that admitted Canadian natural products free of duty. The question as to what the future relations of the English-speaking people upon the North 581	American continent shall be is one of vast importance. No person who took pride in our race and antecedents and hoped for its happiness and prosperity in the future could be indifferent as to this matter. The trade policy of the United States towards Canada for the last thirty years or more had been one which was not calculated to draw the two peoples together in bonds of amity and friendship. Its practical operation was viewed by the great mass of the Canadian people as unjust, its character was considered narrow and ill-liberal, its tendency has been repellant and its influence bad widened the breaches that existed between the two countries, originated animosities and creating as far as its influence extended, a ^feeling that the reverse of that which the friends of the English-speaking race could desire. He trusted that we might be upon the eve of a change in this respect, and that the overtures which Canada was prepared to make to the United States, and had, indeed, been making for a quarter of a century past, might receive adequate'and proper response from the great republic. Notv, there is what a distinguished member of the Liberal party said on this question of reciprocity of tariffs-that our twenty-five years' efforts to get better trade relations with the United States have failed, and we must resort to reciprocity of tariffs. And I agree with him. And the other day in a discussion with some gentlemen interested in the lumber trade, he is reported to have said : And if the trade relations between these two countries are ever considered again, I believe that the influence that would be exerted upon these negotiations by the imposition of a lumber duty would be a most salutary and a most powerful one. What we need, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the United States, is to try and secure their respect, and we can never secure their respect unless we have a proper care for our own interests	We can secure that respect by caring for our own interests in' Canada, in the same manner as they care and protect their interests, and if we decide to protect the great industry in Canada as they have decided to protect that industry iu their own country, we will secure the respect of the Americans; we will secure the operation of influences upon negotiations which will be of a very important character, and in addition to that, we will do an act of justice to our own people. Now, if men in this country who profess to be free traders and to uphold free trade doctrines have felt obliged to retrace their steps and take the position now taken by the bon. member for North Norfolk, what have these lion, gentlemen to say when they decline to discuss the question of reciprocity of tariffs and when they say it is not in the public interest. To my mind, as I have said, It is in the public Interest, and It is the only way in which we shall get fair treatment from the United States-and the sooner we come to the doctrine of reciprocity of tariffs the better. Hon. gentlemen opposite have taken the other planks of our platform: they might as well come to this one also and put in force not only against

Germany, but against the United States. When we do that, we shall get fair treatment and we shall compel the Americans to respect us, to respect our boundaries and to respect our fisheries. And in no other *way shall we ever be able to compel them to do it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) apply that to all countries V


William Findlay Maclean: If it was essential for Canada to apply it to all countries, I certainly would do so. I am a believer in the maximum and minimum tariff. There are a hundred ways in which you can get even with a hostile nation-there are a hundred weapons put in your hands in these days- minimum and maximum tariffs, reciprocity of treatment, drawbacks, bounties and so on. If the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) will give me a specific case, I will give him a specific answer. But it is clear to me that the people of Canada, the government and the legislature of Canada, ought to be in a position in some way to bring the Americans to time and compel them to give us fair treatment and, if they do not give us fair treatment, to deny them the advantage of our markets.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Does the hon. gentleman mean that he would put the same duties on the goods coming from another country that that country puts on ours ?


William Findlay Maclean: As I told the hon. gentleman, I would find a way to meet the antagonism of a hostile country. It would not necessarily be by imposing reciprocal duties. Perhaps the increase of our tariff on some articles by 10 per cent would do it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I mean, in the case of Great Britain, would the hon. gentleman go in for reciprocity of tariffs '!


William Findlay Maclean: I have already discussed that.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: And what is the hon. gentleman's answer ? Would he have us put the same duties upon British goods that they put upon ours ?


William Findlay Maclean: Gould we not, as the hon. member for North Norfolk suggested, give them the preference that we now do, or even more-40 or 50 per cent ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: But the hon. gentleman spoke of reciprocity of tariffs ?


William Findlay Maclean: I propose reciprocity of tariffs as against the United States. But we could give England a preference of 50 per cent in order to trade more largely with her and to bring the Americans to time. Why, that is the government's own plan, it


William Findlay Maclean: is the principle upon which they are working now.
I have endeavoured here to-day-and I am approaching a conclusion-to expound the doctrine of national policy and to show how that national policy can be improved and advanced. We on this side believe in national policy, we believe in protection, we believe in mutual preference and we believe in reciprocity of tariffs. But we also believe that the national policy that is suited to Canada can be extended and expanded into an Imperial policy for Great Britain and her colonies as against the world. That is the new doctrine to-day. Let me repeat it-that the national policy that is suited for Canada can be extended and expanded into an Imperial policy. And that Imperial policy, using these engines of national policy which I have enumerated here to-day, can be employed to build up Canada, to build up Australia, to build up England, to secure markets for the mother country to cause the colonies to become greater, to make Great Britain independent of the hostile nations by which she is surrounded. The right hon. leader of the government said the other day that he believed in that great free trade that would yet come between England and her colonies. Can it come in any other way than by the mother country and her colonies uniting in an Imperial policy for some kind of fairer or freer trade amongst themselves as against the outside world ? It can mean nothing else. Therefore, Canada is giving the keynote to the empire in this amendment- namely, that what we call national policy in this country can be so expanded as to apply to the rest of the empire. Hon. gentlemen opposite say it cannot come, they say that England will never come to protection. I have given some reasons why I think the people of England are moving on that line. And they will learn something from Canada, they will learn something from this debate. And the moment the English people see that there is something in it, the moment they see that the empire can be united as against outside nations, they will make some sort of preferential trade between us and them, and they will find some means of closing their markets to outside and hostile nations. Now, in what does statesmanship consist ? I wish to direct the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to this matter. Statesmanship consists in compromising in some way antagonistic principles. There is a principle of free trade, and there is a principle of protection, and each is advocated by certain doctrinaires. But the statesman finds some way of compromising these principles and of doing something for his country by that compromise.
But England, which lias been upholding the doctrine of free trade, and we who are upholding the doctrine of protection, each in our own way, can find a common ground.
What is the common ground ? What will he the cry of the empire from one end to the other ? It will not be free trade, it will not be protection, but it will be fair trade under nil Imperial fiscal policy. Fair trade is the keynote, fair trade is the cry in England today, fair trade is the cry in Canada to-day; fair trade is involved in every one of those principles which have been laid down here by the opposition. We want first of all to be fair to our own industries, to give them the protection they need. In the next place we want to be fair as between ourselves and the mother country, to give her something and to get something in return. Most of all we wish the empire to be united, to be joined to its colonies, to be fair in its trade with all the world, and all the world to be fair in its trade with the mother land.
Now, in conclusion, I wish to say that Canada has led the empire in many respects. Canada has been given credit for doing many things that were not thought of in England, but are now being worked out. I believe Canada to-day is playing a most important part in the history of the empire by showing that this principle of a national policy, which has been so successful in Canada, can also be employed, in some of the many ways which I have enumerated, by the people of Great Britain. I believe the empire can employ many of these measures and work them out, and thereby make itself stronger and lead the world, instead of losing her supremacy, as she is now doing. I believe she can thereby make herself great and hold her own in the fierce struggle of the nations which is the characteristic of the day. It is not the brotherhood of man that is the characteristic of humanity to-day. it is a struggle for existence between the nations. Let me refer to a paper read recently by the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Mills) in this present government. He said the industrial struggle is so great that only four or five nations will emerge out of it: Great Britain will be one, the United States will be another, Germany will be the third, Russia will be the fourth, and perhaps Japan will be the fifth, but all the rest must go under. This struggle is on, an industrial war the like of which was never known in the history of mankind, is on to-day. In this great struggle only that nation will survive that looks after its own interests, that resorts to these various protective measures that I have mentioned. Only that nation which will combine its industrial energies and develop them on the best possible lines, will come out of that struggle. It may be that Great Britain will have to go down, she will go down if she maintains her free trade doctrines and allows all outsiders to raid her markets. She must go down if she allows her iron and steel industries to pass into the hands of the United States, if she allows her woollen industries to go down, as they are going now. although we have given some of them
back. But if she allows her great industries to be raided by an armed camp of hostile nations, who are becoming themselves intensely industrial, England will have to go down. But I believe England is coming 'to her sober senses, the doctrines of the Cobden school are being questioned. I believe England to-day is about to retrace her steps, and in some respects to resort to the principles of protection, to resort to the principle of a national policy, and in that way to renew her vigour and fortify herself for the great industrial warfare that is now beginning throughout the world.


Mr. WM. ROCHE (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, I hope that while I sit in this House, I shall not offer myself as an antagonist to anybody. But it seems to be the custom in this debate for speakers to follow each other from opposite sides. I do not consider myself equal to the hon. gentleman who has just preceded me (Mr. Maclean) in knowledge of the abtruse doctrines which he has expounded to us. I do not purpose to follow him through the labyrinth into which he has entered this afternoon, nor to attempt to refute, even if I could, the arguments and theories which he has advanced. Perhaps many of those theories would require a whole evening to discuss and elaborate. I am glad to see that the hon. gentleman has shown evidence of so much research. It does him infinite credit to have taken the pains to investigate the various features of the fiscal policies which we are discussing. I think that all the hon. gentlemen who have taken part in this debate on the other side have bestowed much study on the trade returns, and have evidently resorted to sources of information outside of this Chamber.
Another thing which I was pleased to notice was the fact that the hon. gentleman who has preceded ne has studied the Scriptures. The subject which he treated this afternoon is one of deep interest, that was the subject of the scapegoat. If I remember the story aright, the scapegoat was set free in the wilderness. The hon. gentleman says that the industries of Canada are the unhappy scapegoat. Well, if he will let them free according to the divine ordinance concerning the scapegoat, I do not think we will have any cause to quarrel with him. If he will allow the industries of Canada to be free to pursue their own course and to work out their own destiny, we will not quarrel with him.
Now, the hon. and learned gentleman who offered the amendment, the leader of the opposition, referred to the old cynic, Diogenes. He told us that one day Diogenes went through the streets of the city where he lived with a lighted lamp, and when people asked him what he was looking for, lie replied that he was looking for a man. Well, perhaps the hon. gentleman was reminded of the story when he looked around

among his own followers, and saw the straits they were in. But there is another incident in the history of Me great philosopher which it may be useful to refer to. On one occasion he paid a visit to the philosopher Plato. Plato had imported, which was as great a heresy, perhaps, in those times, as it is now, a very elegant Persian carpet. Diogenes, to show his contempt for it, stamped vigorously with his feet and said : I trample on the pride of Plato. Monday, I think, was the visiting day of Mrs. Diogenes. Plato returned the visit. Diogenes had got out his old carpet, and displayed it to Plato in order to shame him because of his luxury and refinement. Plato said to him : I see the pride of Diogenes through the holes in his carpet. Now, the lion. Minister of Finance has brought out his carpet, and has laid it down, all woven in silver and gold tissues, and for ornament in the middle of it, he has placed his $8,000,000 surplus. The learned gentleman from Pictou (Mr. Bell), whose[DOT] talents I recognize, and the learned gentleman who leads the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), looked into the old dust hole of the Liberal-Conservative party, drew out the old tattered carpet of the national policy and commenced to beat it. The learned gentleman himself took a sturdy whack at it. the kon. member for Pictou took another beat at it with a pretty long pole, the hon. member for York (Mr. Wallace) vigorously applied the lash to it, and my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) this afternoon has given it a fresh beating: but, there is no use, because all that will come out of the old national policy carpet is dust, with a liberal assortment of microbes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Was it a Liberal assortment of microbes ?


William Roche: Yes, a liberal assortment of microbes. My learned friend from York will excuse me, as my metaphors are not as legitimate a subject of warfare as were the metaphors of the hon. Minister of Finance the other day. In regard to the speech of Mr. Bell, I wish to say a few words. He will excuse me for mentioning his name, and hon. gentlemen opposite will excuse me for mentioning names, because I am not familiar with the constituencies from which they come. I mean no disrespect to them, but I mention their names simply to indicate the gentlemen to whom I refer. Now. the learned gentleman from Pictou (Mr. Bell) admitted that we had this surplus of $8,000,000. He could not dispute that very well, but he admitted it with the best grace he could. When he could not exactly deny that there was a surplus, and I think he had no intention of denying it, he tried to excuse the surplus and to minimize the effect of it in the country by saying that there had been surpluses before in the days of Sir Leonard Tilley, and he found fault, not with the Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).
surplus so much, although he intimated that there was some inaccuracy in the calculation, and claimed that there was an excess of money collected from the country by means of the tariff ; but, because of the use that was made of the surplus. And here there is a legitimate cause of dispute or of a difference of opinion. He said that Sir Leonard Tilley used the surplus for the reduction of the debt, that Sir Leonard Tilley had also the Riel rebellion to provide for. as well as the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that, having applied sums for the payment of this service and for the reduction of the debt, this was a precedent which should have been followed by the Minister of Finance. Now, there may be cause for difference of opinion on this subject. I do not think that the circumstances will be repeated. Under the same conditions, no doubt, the argument of the hon. gentleman might legitimately apply, but when conditions are different the argument cannot be made to apply. I do not think this governemnt will have another Riel rebellion in the west, and if I can judge from the sentiments of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) who has preceded me, and the sentiments expressed by other hon. members in the House, the present government will not repeat the bargain which was made with the Canadian Pacific Railway. They will not pay $25,000,000, or grant the numbers of acres of land which the late government gave to the Canadian Pacific Railway. I beg the pardon of the hon. member for Pictou when I state that Sir Leonard Tilley and the Conservative government did not build the Canadian Pacific Railway. I believe that they gave a subsidy towards the building of that railway. I believe they made a donation of land, but they do not own the Canadian Pacific Railway at this moment. It may be that the Canadian Pacific Railway own them, but, from the expressions I have heard lately, and the opinions entertained on this side of the House, I do not believe the Canadian Pacific Railway will own this government. The hon. gentleman who spoke this afternoon laid down some of the essential features of protection, and he gave them with a certain amount of elaboration and in detail. My idea of protection is. that it is the whole of the inhabitants of the state giving, by their influence and by their authority, support to all the industries of the state, and support to all the employment of the people, and to do that in such a way as will employ the energies and resources of the people. Now, we believe that result is best attained by a revenue tariff. Protection, simply and in the abstract, is not the question which we have before this House. The theory of protection is not one which has been employed by the previous government or will be employed by this government. What took place under the national policy ? The national policy was
the greatest pretense which had ever been exhibited before any civilized people, the greatest hypocrisy, the greatest deceit. What did it profess to do '! It professed to protect the industries of the people. It professed to afford assistance, either positively or negatively, to all the industries of the country, and to all the employments of the people, whereas it did nothing of the kind. It did not assist all the industries of the country. There were a few industries selected that were made the subjects of special care in the measure of protection afforded, but the other industries of Canada were left, like the scapegoat in the wilderness, to find refuge in free trade, or to support themselves on the scant herbage of the deserts of eastern lands. That was the national policy. The people of Canada in 1895 were as sick of the national policy as the people of Canada would be sick of the proposals of my friend from York (Mr. Maclean) if they could be carried into effect. What' was the cause of the success of the Liberal party in 1896 ? It was not the racial cry, nor that it attracted the national spirit of Quebec, nor that the Liberals were sufficiently numerous to overcome their opponents ; but it was because the people of Canada were tired of the national policy and distrusted what would become of the country under that highly artificial system. A number of pronounced Conservatives believed that the national policy had worked its purpose and run its course, and rather than it should be allowed to wreck the country they voted for the Liberal government to turn down the national policy and to revive a revenue tariff. That is the reason for the return of this government to power. It was because the so-called friends of the national policy abandoned it and left it to its fate. Now, this national policy which has been lauded by gentlemen on the other side of the House to such an extent, was originally called the American policy. After the conflict between the United States and England, in 1816. the war party in the United States, under Mr. Crawford and Mr. Calhoun, launched what they called the American policy. In 1824 it was introduced into the House of Representatives by that distinguished American statesman Henry Clay, who, in his speech, set out all the arguments in favour of protection as well as any of these gentlemen opposite could do. And Homy Clay enforced his arguments with all the acrimony he could against England. He had been an ambassador to Ghent and had seen the power of England. His country had grappled with the power of England in war, and now the Americans were prepared to grapple with her in peace by means of tariffs. This policy which in Canada is dubbed the national policy was dubbed by Henry Clay and his associates the American policy, and these Americans intended by it, to reduce the pride of England. They intended by it to
share in the trade of England, and to participate in all the advantages which would accrue from the growing commerce of the world. One of the principal articles which was aimed at under that American policy was the woollen trade. Henry Clay pictures it in its decay and tells how they were to grow American wool, how they were to put a high duty on British imported cloths, and imported wool, and how they were going to drive the British manufacturers out of the markets of the world. That was in 1824, but where is Great Britain with regard to the woollen trade in 1900 ? Three-quarters of a century after Clay introduced his policy, Great Britain holds the woollen trade of the world, despite the efforts of the United States and despite their great American policy. And when these gentlemen opposite speak of their desire to aid the suffering mother land ; when they speak of their desire to participate in the struggles and the triumphs of the empire ; when they tell us that her interests are ours, and that England and Canada must stand or fall together, I ask them to look hack to the arguments of Henry Clay when he inaugurated has policy for the purpose of crippling Great Britain, and I ask them to answer us : If these considerations apply to the present exigencies, and if they will not, before they propose such a policy for the future of Canada, pause, and remember that this policy originated in the United States with the intent to endeavour to cripple the trade of England. The learned gentleman from West York (Mr. Wallace) made war upon a metaphor used by the Finance Minister. The Finance Minister said that perhaps we had seen for the time being as great an era of prosperity as we shall enjoy, that maybe we were on the crest of the wave, that perhaps that prosperity might be temporarily checked, that perhaps we might go on afterwards to a period of expansion ; hut in the meantime it might be wise to be cautious. The hon. gentleman from West York (Mr. Wallace) made war upon that metaphor and he said that if we were on the crest of the wave it was the experience of those who had made a sea voyage that when the ship is on the crest of the wave she sinks down rapidly afterwards. Well, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) may have been on the crest of the wave, but I would suggest to him that if the ship went down afterwards he will at least admit that he was half seas over on the occasion. The gentleman (Mr. Wallace) went on to enlarge at great length on the disastrous appearance of the country, and he stated that although we really appeared to be prosperous there were signs on- the horizon that that apparent prosperity would soon come to an end. I think the reasons that the hon. gentleman gave for forming that conclusion were insufficient. I think that the leader of the opposition, if he applied his logical and mathematical mind to the subject,

would say that they were conclusions formed on insufficient evidence.
What did the hon. gentleman give us as proofs on which he made that deduction ? I do not believe that from his standpoint he could have made a more powerful address than he did. The subject was well considered ; a great deal of his speech was on the spur of the occasion, and was given with that force which personal encounter evokes ; he made, as he ought to make on every occasion, from his knowledge and experience in this House, a deep impression ; and it was a pity to see a practical mind, an official mind like his, deluded by the insufficient evidence on which he formed his opinion. He may have had a great deal more in his mind, and he may have given us the result without stating the evidence; but while he stated that the trade in animals was decreasing and that the fisheries were decreasing, he did not give the amounts they were decreasing.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I did.


William Roche: I may remark that if our exports diminish in one or two articles, the resources of this country are so large and so varied, and the employments of the people are also so various, that any temporary diminution in the export of any one article is compensated for by an excess of others. That this is the true state of the case was exemplified and proved by the general trade returns of the country, showing that for the period of five years the exports of the country have increased gradually and steadily, and that during the last year they have increased ; and. the same thing is true of the imports. Now, these are evidences to a statistical mind like that of the learned gentleman from West York, to prove that he must look further and search deeper for evidence to produce conviction in this House and in the country that the state of the country is a serious or alarming one. There was no such conclusion conveyed by the sentiments he produced ; and I am not so silly as to imagine that a gentleman of his character, reputation and experience in the House and the country would bring forward a mere bald opinion without fortifying it with some statistical evidence to justify the conclusions he formed.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Roche: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock, I was arguing that the hon. member for West York, instead of forming a judgment from a sufficient number of facts, had rather dipped into the returns for the purpose of making out a case against the government and their policy. The hon.
Mr. ROCHE (Halifax)
gentleman gave some statistics to show that his contention was borne out by a decline in the exports of fish and animals. I do not mean to insinuate that the hon. gentleman attempted in any way to mislead the House ; but I simply say that he arrived at that conclusion from insufficient data. We know that the fishing industry is a most variable one, that it does not depend at all upon tariffs and cannot be affected to any great extent by the policies of governments, but that it depends on the coming of the fish around the shores. Those who live in fishing constituencies know that during the past year the catch of fish was large and general, but that the price declined. From the figures of the official reports, it might be shown that there was a real decline in that industry, whereas the quantity sold and exported may have been equal to that of previous years. In the same way with animals, if the calculation be made merely from the value of the exports in dollars and cents, it may lead to a deceptive conclusion. You require to look carefully into the number of animals shipped and at the state of the market, to judge whether it paid the producers of animals to export them to foreign markets or to have them consumed in Canada. The hon. gentleman drew the deduction that our trade was suffering and that our finances were in a serious if not dangerous condition by stating that where we exported $188,000,000 and imported $199,000,000, the difference of $11,000,000 showed that we were in debt. An hon. gentleman the other day gave some statistics of the shipment of apples to the old country, going carefully into the details-and perhaps I might take that as an illustration. Y'ou may select from the whole list of shipments one or two articles of export that show a decline in value or in quantity, while the general aggregate shows that others have been substituted for them, and the whole volume of exports has not declined. For example, suppose a man ships 1,000 barrels of apples at $2 a barrel, and suppose he pays $1 a barrel for freight ; that is $3,000; and he obtains for those goods in the market to which they are despatched $4,000. You have a return of $4,000 which would be counted in the imports ; whereas if a man ships 1,000 barrels of apples, and they were badly packed or suffered from any of those accidents which sometimes happen to such articles, he might have to sell them in the market to which they were despatched for $2 a barrel; so that he would only obtain $2,000, and the returns would only show imports to the value of $2,000. In the one case we only imported $2,000, whereas in the other case we imported $4,000. Thus, while the statistics of imports and exports in general indicate whether the trade of the country has been
prosperous or the reverse, they are not an accurate criterion on all occasions. The balance of trade shown by contrasting the imports with the exports is sometimes a very delusive theory.
In this connection the hon. gentleman from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) gave some statistics, but they were culled and collected in the same way as these I refer to. He took, for instance, the exports of ham and cheese, and although those articles had largely increased in the four years preceding, yet when 1890 was contrasted with 1899 there was a small decrease. But that is not a comparison which can give a correct idea of the trade. You have to take a series of years and take the trade as a whole, and not select some particular articles in which there might be a decrease one year as compared with another.
Besides the amount in dollars and cents of our exports and imports may not represent the real value of the trade. The true value is the amount of profit derived from it, or the return from the material and labour used in producing or trading in the articles exported or imported, so that you cannot arrive at an exact estimate by the volume of statistics, although prirna facie and on general principles that is the only means of estimating the production of any country.
The argument is advanced by hon. gentlemen opposite that the 33J per cent preference has not accomplished the purpose intended, and has not come up to the expectations of those who inaugurated that policy. Well, I do not see how such a contention can be maintained, in view of the fact, which is unmistakable, that whereas previously our imports were declining, they have, since the preferential rate was established, recovered from that decline; and although the increase may not have come up to the full volume expected, nobody can say but that this preference has been effective in arresting the decline in our imports from Great Britain.
I fail to understand why hon. gentlemen opposite should lay such stress on the difference between British and American importations. Is it because they wish to encourage the introduction of articles of British manufacture to replace those of American manufacture ? But why should they wish to displace the articles of American production ? Is not $100,000 of profit derived from trade with our neighbour to the south just as good as if derived from our trade with the English manufacturers ? But there are other elements which must be considered besides the mere question of dollars and cents. What has been the cause of the decline of British imports and the increase of American imports? Certainly not the lessening of any affection on our part for Great Britain. Not because we have lost the desire of dealing with British merchants or
do not wish to encourage British trade, but because American producers are nearer to us and can give us articles at shorter notice. And there is this element further to be considered, namely, that the Americans have adapted themselves to the requirements of the times, and have taken advantage more promptly of the results of science and the latest achievements and discoveries in arts, and the application of new forces. They make better and lighter implements than the English. The English manufacturers adhere too much to the old style of cumbrous material, and do not consult to the same extent the requirements of consumers. Neither do they take so much pains to secure markets in the colonies and elsewhere as do their German and American competitors. They do not send out travelling agents with cuts of their instruments to solicit trade, as the Americans do. Owing to the rapidity with which his goods are produced and their adaptation to the circumstances of the country, the American manufacturer has to a great extent displaced the British manufacturer. That, however, is not going to continue. John Bull has no desire to see his exports declining. Although he exerts his material force in the acquisition of territory, he is quite as active in extending and securing by the arts of peace, markets for his manufactured products, and depend upon it he is still in the race. What science, skill, labour and capital can do to secure supremacy in the commercial world, he will be sure not to neglect. I have no fear for England.
To come back to a subject which was discussed this afternoon with a considerable decree of novelty and force, I would like to know if the hon. leader of the opposition coincides entirely in the sentiments expressed by the hon. gentleman from East York (Mr. Maclean). Is he prepared to go into a war of retaliation with the United States ? Is he prepared to give his endorsation to that propaganda of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ? I should like to know if the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) estimates, as the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) does, the value of American trade. In the locality from which I come, we attach a great deal of importance to the American trade, and I think the hon. leader of the opposition holds it in similar esteem. There is not merely the dollars and cents view to be considered. That trade has quite another value. We know that Great Britain values highly the friendship of America. We know that Great Britain depends upon the neutrality of the United States in carrying out her schemes of foreign policy. The other nations of Europe are antagonistic and ready to combine in order to limit the power and reduce the prestige of England, and Great Britain depends on the sympathy of our American neighbours. Is there anybody here then who would disturb that mutual good feeling ?

be maintained or increased on the one hand, and that on the other they are going to produce the beets which will keep out the article that constitutes the bulk of our trade with that great nation. Now, there was, about the year 1878, an election to be held in the city of Halifax, and two gentlemen, most excellent representatives of that city were seeking the suffrages of the electors. Both of these gentlemen have since been honoured with the title of lieutenant-governor. I allude to Sir M. B. Daly and the Hon. Mr. Ritchie, who were successively lieutenant-governors of Nova Scotia. I do not see any reason why there should be any fault found in such a succession. If all the members for Halifax have been honoured with high degrees and emoluments, I do not see any reason why the representatives of the city of Halifax should fail in the slightest degree in receiving these honours when their time as representatives in this parliament has passed. I do not object to hon. gentlemen opposite making them lieutenant-governors. But, in that election, in the cards which were sent out by the Liberal-Conservative party inviting support for these candidates who were most eligible and reputable gentlemen. there was the plank set forth that the national policy was to secure the protection and improvement of our languishing West Indian trade. What has become of that ? Where is that in this programme? The hon. member for East York is going to supply the whole consumption of beetroot sugar and reduce the duty on beetroot sugar, that comes from Germany. How does that allow our languishing West Indian trade to be restored ? There is no provision made for it. If the beets come into the consumption and displace the beetroot sugar imported it will also displace the cane sugar imported from the West Indies. The promises which were held out to us under the national policy in that respect have not been verified, because the trade has been diminishing until it has reached a very low point. It may be restored. I cannot say how it will be done, but I leave it to these gentlemen wrho are so much concerned about it to show us some feasible, plan by which these conflicting interests can be reconciled, and by which our unfortunate province and city will receive the benefits promised to us in 1878 from an increase in our trade with the West Indies. I know that in the explanation which was given of the decrease of our trade with the West Indies hon. gentlemen have not taken into account the fact that two of our principal markets have been wrested away from us, that the Islands of Porto Rico and Cuba are in the possession of the United States, while they were formerly possessions of Spain, and the trade which formerly went to them has now to pass through United States chan-Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).
nels. Are we going to antagonize the United States in regard to that trade? Are we going to have that trade shut out from us if we flaunt our tariff in the faces of the people of the United States, and if we do, may they not cut us off from the enjoyment of the trade with their islands ? This is of great importance to the fishermen of Nova Scotia and to the people of New Brunswick, and I would like to ask the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) how he would justify it before his constituents if, as the result of the adoption of his measure favouring such pronounced protection, that valuable trade should be cut off from the province of Nova Scotia, in order to carry out a theory which looks remarkably like a very utopian experiment. The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett), who spoke the other night, gave us similar reasons why our trade is in a very dangerous and languishing state, and why we should recognize the wisdom of calling a halt in our expenditures. He told us, that, in the year 1899, we exported $8,400,000 worth of hams, and that, in 1900, we only exported $2,700,000 worth. As in the case of cheese, I would attribute this to some local circumstances which do not indicate any permanent reduction in the volume of our exports. I think this does not indicate that we have lost any of our markets. It does not indicate that any neglect is chargeable to the government, it does not indicate a failure of transportation facilities, or of any of the conditions which are favourable to the reception of any of these articles in the market. It may be that the farmers have sold their hog products in other markets, or that more have been consumed here, or that they have found it profitable to raise other products. It may be that the decline in the export of cheese has been a decline in the quality of the cheese. It may be that the cheese is not up to the sample which was previously maintained.
I am informed by farmers that some of the producers and shippers of- cheese have been very negligent both as to the quality of the article and as to the way in which the packages have been sent to the old country. I have not derived my information from statistics, I have not taken my information second-hand, but I have inquired of the people who purchase these products in the market. 1 have inquired of the people in various employments about the reception which our cheese and dairy products have been given in England. The sentiment of regard for Canada has had a great effect because, throughout all classes of the population of Great Britain, amongst the merchants, the public men, the artisans, the ship men, the shipping merchants and the carriers, that sentiment is found to exist very strongly. So great is the regard for Canadian products that a great
many of the shop-keepers in England take inferior American products and label them ' Canadian.' But, that sentiment, to some extent, has been destroyed by the fact that some dealers have sent over articles that were not what they ought to be, and the consequence has been that people, who were disposed to favour Canadian products in recognition of the preference which Canada has given to British goods, have found the quality of some Canadian goods not what it should have been, have regarded these goods as being fraudulent, and have rejected them on that account. The hon. member for East Simcoe went on to argue that the policy of this government was defective because a quantity of goods consumed by the poor man was subject to high rates of duty, while the luxuries which are consumed by the rich, come in at reduced rates. He referred to the article of silk, which had come in to the value of $3,000.000, which has now risen to the value of $5,000,000, and he regarded this as a proof that the preferential tariff is injurious to the working classes. I do not think this is a proof at all.
What lady in the land does not wish to have a silk dress ? What sweetheart of any gentleman opposite would think herself ornamented without a silk dress, and so it is that that which was formerly an article of luxury for the rich is now an object of common desire, and even the sweetheart of a workingman would feel herself degraded if her best gown was not of silk. One gentleman on the other side of the House thought the Liberal policy was defective because the importation of diamonds had increased while the import of articles consumed by the poor had decreased. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is married or not, I hope he is ; but if he was going to bring a present to his wife at the close of this arduous session of parliament, and he selected a diamond, would he not be thankful that the duty was so low that he could afford to buy that diamond for the lady whom he loved. Now, Mr. Speaker, we must do something for the women ; we must do something for the ladies of the land ; for the working-women of the land. The diamonds which were formerly the luxury of the rich are now common property to the middle classes, and they try to save up money to buy things of that kind. The articles used by ladies for their ornamentation should be at least equally considered with the Corby's ' I.X.L.' or ' Seagram's White Wheat,' for instance, with which we regale ourselves and reinforce our energies.
Now. Mr. Speaker, I shall say a word about the racial cry. I regret that the racial cry should be raised by either political party. In my province in the amiable contest which took place between the leader of the opposition and myself to determine which was the more popular, because we
had no great difference otherwise, there was no racial cry raised. We never said a disrespectful word of each other so far as I know, and I hope we never will. I esteem the talent of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax). I hope he will render good service to his country and that honours will be bestowed on him in return. I wish him well. I wish every Nova Scotian well because the country is beginning to appreciate the merits of Nova Scotians, and I hope we will all come in for our appreciation in turn. The racial cry did not penetrate the province of Nova Scotia. No party in this country can afford to resurrect it, because it is dead and buried, and there let it rest. Mr. Speaker, I believe in the tariff policy of the government. I believe in the revenue system, and I believe that as a result of the Liberal policy the country is prospering in a steady and uniform way. I have confidence in the men who lead the Liberal party. I like their appearance since I saw them here ; I like their devotion to duty ;
I like the way they grasp the details of their departments. I venerate the esteemed leader of the Liberal party.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Roche: I believe in the Liberal policy and I believe that that policy wisely administered along the lines of the natural resources of our country, will tend to great and lasting prosperity. I believe that our country under Liberal rule will go on in its career of progress and will become a valuable component of the British Empire. I believe that British statesmen and the British people will have confidence in our Canadian statesmen and in their policy, and that united hand in hand we will go forward in our great career of progress, peace and prosperity.


Mr. W. R. BROCK (Centre Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, in entering public life as a representative of the people, I am very fortunate to be allied to a political party who have nothing to be ashamed of in their past, and who have no apologies to make for the present. The Conservative party of Canada do not require to announce their policy, or to say what changes they are going to make. The people of the Dominion know, as they have always known, what the Conservative policy is. The right hon. the leader of the government said in this debate, that in the streets of this city and in the corridors of the House there was great sensation and excitement at the rumour that something extraordinary was going to happen, for the Conservative party was going to spring something new upon the country, but he had found after all-and for my part I am happy he found it-that the policy we had to announce was the policy that had made this country prosperous for a quarter of a centurv. Sir. there was nothing to sneer at in that. The hon. gentleman from Hali-

fax (Mr. Roche) stated that the people of Canada were sick of the national policy. Most extraordinary that. If the people were sick of it why have the present government retained so much of it ? If the Liberals were sick of the national policy why have they made so few changes in it, as they themselves tell us ? If the national policy nauseated the Liberals, why is it that every canvasser for the Reform party found it necessary to go into every factory in this country and to assure every manufacturer that if the Liberals got into power there was going to be no change in that policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Rees Brock: We know that a member of the Conservative party in the North-west took it upon himself to say that if he got into power he would reduce the duty on agricultural implements, and we know what a howl went up from the agricultural implement makers of Ontario, the friends of the present government. Yes, Mr. Speaker, these agricultural implement makers were friendly to the government and they have been rewarded for their friendship. By the appointment of a member of that great agricultural implement firm as a senator, the present government have done this country honour, because the gentleman they have appointed well deserves the office. We know how the Reform party repudiated the idea of adding anything to the burdens of the people of Manitoba and the North-west.
But I wish more particularly to address myself, as a business man, to a subject which I think I know something about, and in which I am largely interested, that is, the development of the industries of this country. I contend that when the right lion, leader of the government did himself so much honour and this country so much credit in representing Canada at the Diamond Jubilee, he made one of the great mistakes of his life, not only for himself, but for this country. An opportunity was then offered such as we never had before for making an arrangement, or approaching an arrangement, with the great empire to which we belong for obtaining a preference in their markets in return for the preference we were willing to give to them. I have noticed a good deal of jocularity on the other side of the House on this subject, and some argument that England would never do anything of the kind. Why, England is doing something of the kind every day. This country and other countries have preferences in the English market.


An hon. MEMBER.: How ?


William Rees Brock: Great Britain bonuses steamship companies to help the postal system and the commercial interests of tins country. In speaking of an alliance with the Conservative party-because that is involved in the resolution which is before


William Rees Brock: the House-I am pleased to be a member of a party which need not be ashamed of its consistency when the history of this country comes to be written. Can hon. gentlemen on the other side say the same ? Are they at one among themselves at the present time ? Did we not hear the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) speak out strongly in favour of complete free trade ? My hon. friend from South Brant (Mr. Heyd) told the government the other day that they had made a great mistake in taking the duty off binder twine ; and another hon. gentleman last night, in addressing the House, turned to the members on his own side and stated that they were not at one-that many of them were too much inclined to favour the national policy. Therefore, it gives me the greatest pleasure to know that we on this side of the House are at one in our policy. VVe are following our leader loyally.
The hon. Minister of Finance, in his admirable address, stated that amongst the items of income was a large increase of duty on manufactured goods coming into this country. The farmers, the manufacturers and every other interest in this country know what that means. It means the displacement to that extent of goods manufactured in this country by Canadian people. The gentlemen on the other side cannot be unaware of this fact. I think the hon. Minister of Finance and ocher members of the government have been waited upon by deputations representing some of the largest industries in Canada, who laid before them in the strongest possible light the serious position in which the government by their policy was placing them. When the government first announced the preference of 12+ per cent, I am free to acknowledge that it was hardly noticed. Many of us were so delighted with the idea of giving a preference to England that for the moment we were carried away largely by sentiment, and I must acknowledge feeling something of that sentiment myself; "for it was the first time that we had any indication from hon. gentlemen opposite that their inclinations did not run with that of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, who would rather be allied commercially with the country to the south of us. Instead of hon. gentlemen opposite being sick of the national policy, I can assure them that the people who are sick in this country at the present time are the manufacturers-not in one line alone, but in manv lines. Take the manufacturers of woollens, one of the largest industries in this country, having millions of dollars invested in plant, machinery and buildings, having educated thousands. I might sav hundreds of thousands, of the most 'respectable mechanics in this country, and having given employment to large numbers of people, women ns well as men. In injuring a large woollen mill in a town, you may say you
are only injuring that woollen mill, and you may care very little for it, but remember, you are injuring every other industry in that town and in the surrounding country. There is a great deal of talk about getting new markets ; but my experience in a business career of fifty years in this country is, that the best market is the market nearest to your door. At the present time we have deputations coming here in regard to clearing a passage down the St. Lawrence, and getting rid of the high rates for freight and insurance. All these things have to be paid for by the farmers of this country, and the way to avoid them is to avoid these enormous imports which the Finance Minister is priding himself on. I was very much surprised when the hon. minister declared plainly and simply, but very strongly, that there would be no change in the tariff. I almost fancied that I detected a smile of gratification on his face at being able to strike back at the manufacturers of this country. What object has the hon. gentleman in striking at any of these great industries ? The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright)-I am sorry he is not here-is well aware that, by the votes and influence of the manufacturers of this country, his party were kept in the cold shades of opposition for nearly twenty years, and they cannot forget it.


An hon. MEMBER.: Is it cold over there'.'


William Rees Brock: Yes, you found it very cold This House knows very well that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has felt very sore at the action of the manufacturers of this country. We have his own express words, and he cannot get rid of them, that he would get back at the manufacturers, that he would do away with every vestige of protection. Is that not getting back at the manufacturers of this country ? The right hon. Prime Minister, in his address the other day, spoke of the manufacturers who were invading this House and this city as tariff tinkers. Well, Sir. I contend that this country should be governed on business principles ; and if it becomes necessary to deal with the tariff in the interest of the country, the tariff should be tinkered with. When gentlemen representing millions of capital and hundreds of thousands of people, come here and explain to the Minister of Finance how their industries are being injured, and when he has letters from the leading bankers of the country supporting their cause, the hon. minister passes them all by with a wave of his hand and sends them back home. I can assure this House that there is a very critical state of affairs in the manufacturing industries of this country. You know what credit means : you know that it requires money to carry on almost any business : and there is no class of business people who require more capital
than the manufacturers of woollen, cotton and other goods.
Once the banks and the financial institutions lose confidence in them, these industries are injured to a greater extent than can be repaired by any tinkering with our tariff. There is surely some way out of the difficulty, hon. gentlemen will say, for I think even the Finance Minister will acknowledge that there is a difficulty. I think these hon. gentlemen have acknowledged that there is at any rate some measure of injustice, and I suppose they would ask a practical man what is the way out of the difficulty. There are several ways out of it. The worst way is to shut up the factories, but it is far better to have a factory shut than to run it at a loss. Another way would be to run the factories on half time, but everybody knows what it means to run on half time a factory fully equipped with machinery. If we cannot compete with the manufacturers of Yorkshire now, we could not compete with them if we adopt that course. There is another way and that is the one which will have to be taken. To begin with, we will have to reduce the wages of every employee, at any rate one-third. There is no escape from that. I have been in communication with some of the keenest manufacturers, some of whom, I am sorry to say, have been, for the last eighteen years, strong supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not know exactly where their political sympathies may be now, but when asked why they supported this government, they replied that it was because the party opposite promised them a market of 70,000,000 people. It was because they were promised unrestricted reciprocity. Support us, said these hon. gentlemen opposite, and you need not care so much for your Canadian market, as we will open to you a market of 70,000,000 people. Therefore many honest Reformers supported the government on this consideration. But I was saying that we will have to reduce the wages of our workingmen, and that is something which a really first-class workingman will not put up with. Botchers may, but first-class workers will not allow their wages to be reduced, and will go to the neighbouring republic, which enjoys the highest protection in the world, and holds out the largest ipducements to workingmen. And I say that this government, in adopting the brutal measure they have, are driving these men out of the country, ruining thousands of manufacturers, and bringing desolation to many homes. I want you to understand, Sir, that in all the factory centres of the country, the leading men have their cottages and houses quite close to the factories. Take the town of Waterloo, there the workingmen have their houses in the town, some partly and some altogether paid for, and they are thus tied to the locality. These men will have to suffer considerably if forced to sell their

property, because in most cases these properties will be absolutely unsaleable. You know what a closed factory means. Take one of these factories that is mortgaged to the extent of one-half its value, should that factory be closed the mortgagee could not realize the amount of his hypothec if he were to sell it.
No one who knows me for the last quarter of a century will say that I am inclined to be pessimistic. My ambition has always been to hold up the best interests of Canada. In all my business I have endeavoured to assent the Interests of Canada in preference to those of any other country, and it is very poor encouragement to those who are trying to build up our manufacturing interests to find the government adopting a policy calculated to nullify all their efforts. What we are trying to do is to make Canada, not a cheap, but a good country to live in. Before 1896, hon. gentlemen on the other side preached the doctrine in every corner of the land that the duty of the government was to make this a cheap country to live in. Well, Mr. Speaker, prosperous countries are not cheap countries to live in. Just as soon as Germany became prosperous, living in it became more expensive, but you could not induce any German to go back to twenty-five years ago when that country was a cheap one to Live in.
I -cannot understand how any one representing a manufacturing constituency, or in fact auy constituency, can justify himself in giving his support to the gentlemen on the other side, if h-e is really a Canadian at heart. The preference which the right hon. leader of this House has given to England in the markets of this country is no preference to Great Britain or the British Empire-it is no Imperial preference at all. As my hon. friend from East York has pointed out, are we not a part of the empire. Why, then, should we give the manufacturers in Yorkshire an advantage over the manufacturers in this country, and it is seriously to the detriment of manufacturers in this country that this preference is given. But it is not only a preference to the Yorkshire manufacturers. I know of cases where hundreds of pieces of goods have been brought into Yorkshire from Germany, partly manufactured. They were then run through a machine, weighted up a few ounces to the yard, finished and sent out to this country, and 75 per cent of the preference went to Germany. In many cases German manufacturers at present are sending many fancy goods to London, Eng., with a small machine -to do a little finishing, after which they are sent out to Canada as British manufactures. It is impossible to get at all the details of the ways in which this thing is being done, but the door is wide open for that sort of practice. I know of one case where a large quantity of granite supposed to have come from Aberdeen, really came from Norway, and was then Mr. BROCK.
sent to Aberdeen, where a little work was done on it, after which it was exported to this country to the detriment of the granite industry of New Brunswick and the eastern townships of the province of Quebec. That is another industry which is being injured, and in which the establishments in many cases will have to be closed and a number of workingmen discharged. And all this is due to this preference for which hon. gentlemen opposite take so much credit.
These hon. gentlemen throw across the House the rather cheva-p question : Why do you not move a vote of want of confidence? Why do you not move to cancel the preference ? Well, if my individual opinion is asked, I would assuredly, inasmuch- as I think it is an injury, consider It my duty to do away with it. You will not get any cheap popularity through Ontario by preaching that you are giving a great preference to England. In Ontario, the people who read and who have made what money they have by hard work and industry, will understand the pettiness of that pretended preference.
The difference, to my mind, between the two sides of this House-for there are really but two panties in this country, and I think everybody who wants to have any influence should belong to either one or the other-the difference seems to be that the Liberal members of this House say that our tariff at present is only a revenue tariff. The Finance Minister knows that that is not the case. If it be only a revenue tariff, why raise millions of revenue over your expenditure ? If these hon. gentlemen are free traders, why do they not practice free trade ? I know that they found great fault with the Conservative government some years ago for having given to every one in Canada a free breakfast table. You may call them free traders in that ; but the Conservative party had consideration for the people, for the manufacturer, for every industry in this country-most of all had they consideration for the farmers of this country. We hear a good deal of the differences of opinion amongst the lumbermen here, and I think that the Finance Minister has had his hands full arguing with all those different people who have come to see him and give him reasons why he should give them a preference tariff. I think the reason for the Finance Minister's position is that hon. gentlemen opposite, after years of inconsistency, are endeavouring now, if possible, at the expense of the manufacturers-as my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) says, making a scapegoat of the manufacturers-to cover themselves with a mantle of consistency. Exit it is too late ; they are too well known. When the history of the last ten or fifteen years comes to be written, and the people judge dispassionately between the parties, I would rather sit on this side of the House for twenty-five years than to
take the place of lion, gentlemen opposite with their record. I would not like to hand down to my successors a reputation for making promises in order to get into power and neglecting to carry them out after attaining power ; a reputation for having advocated any number of principles and discarded every one of them. I say here, as a business man, that these hon. gentlemen sit on the Treasury benches without one particle of principle, except that principle of opportunism, which is the meanest kind of principle.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking up the time of the House except to put before the House, as I have said, my views as a business man ; views, that, I believe, are entertained by many business men whose sympathies in other respects, are with hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. I believe that these hon. gentlemen are going to find a great deal of difficulty in explaining their opposition to the amendment resolutions now before the House, for many of them have supported these principles not only privately but publicly for the last twenty years. But we. know what politics are, we know the influence that is brought to bear when men come to this House. I can respect a man who comes here stating: I have been a supporter of the national policy as it was; I shall be a supporter of the national policy as it is. In taking that position, a man will have the respect of his own constituents, even if he has been elected as a Reformer.


Mr. HEYD.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) allow me to ask him a question ?


William Rees Brock: Certainly.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: How would a preference in Britain on certain Canadian products lessen the competition that the manufacturers are now subjected to in consequence of the British preference ?


William Rees Brock: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) just consider the matter for a moment ? I have contended that the best market in any country, not only in Canada, a country, of immense extent, but even in a section of a country-is the market immediately at one's own doors. If we have fair competition to deal with, the Canadian manufacturers are not afraid of it. Put us on a level with the British manufacturers. The class of people they employ is different from ours, and the wages are about half what we pay. They have other great advantages. Take, for instance, the article of coal-they get coal more cheaply than we can get it, which is most important	considering the great
quantity that a factory uses. and. owing to the coldness of our climate we require more than they do.	The manufacturers in
Yorkshire-and any one who has lived there knows that I am stating the case accurate-59
ly- pays for his money very seldom more than 2i per cent-they get it at even less than the bank rate. I am happy to say that the paper of the merchants of this country is so good that the manufacturers can take it to London and have it discounted at one per cent below the market rate. Take the manufacturer here, particularly if he is hard up and wants the money, what will money cost him ? I suppose that the cheapest he can get it will be 8 per cent. If he does not want it very badly, I suppose he can get it a little cheaper. So, you will see that in advocating the case of the manufacturers I am doing it upon grounds of absolute justice apart from politics. And I do appeal to the Minister of Finance, who, according to the feeling throughout the country is himself the chief stumbling-block in the way. I do not know whether it is parliamentary to make an assertion of that kind, but that is the situation. The look on the hon. gentleman's face when he turned to this side of the House and said there would be no change in the duties, made me feel that he was the power in the cabinet that fought against the poor manufacturers. I would appeal to him to remember that they are Canadians and his fellow-countrymen, that he should represent them here and in every way endeavour to prevent injury coming to them. Even yet it may not be too late, even yet he may give us some measure of relief ; and I think I may appeal to him, not as from this side of the House, because the strongest appeal comes from hon. gentlemen on the other side-to forget his free trade theories for a time and practice a little of that protection which the leader of the opposition has put into these resolutions.


Mr. WM. ROSS (South Ontario).: Mr. Speaker, I know that I have no apology to make for standing here, but I crave your consideration and the indulgence of hon. members while, for a few minutes, I discuss the questions which are so vital to the interests of us all. I am extremely sorry that I cannot agree with the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). We do agree on everything else but politics. I have the pleasure of buying his dry goods, and he sells good dry goods ; I have the pleasure of knowing him as a gentleman and a friend, and he is a good friend and a gentleman. But I must confess that I do not admire his politics, and in that we agree to disagree. When he says that this government have been faithless, that they have not kept their promises, that the party they represent is not worthy the consideration of this country, I disagree from him entirely. He tells about the Conservative party having the same old policy. It is the same old policy-and considering the wonderful development of the country for the last four years, that party is likely to



have the same old policy for many years to come. The hon. gentleman tells about the methods adopted in the last election in canvassing for votes in Ontario-that we went to the factories and promised that if the Liberal party was returned to power, there would be Increased protection, or something of that kind.


William Rees Brock: A continuation of the old tariff.


William Ross: Very well, I am glad to be corrected. During the election 1 went into several factories in my constituency. I had the pleasure of going through the largest carriage factory in Canada, and one of the largest in the world. I had the pleasure of being permitted to speak to those workingmen and to ask them for their votes, and I am sure the question of a tariff change never came up at all. I addressed those men in that town and talked upon the public questions of the day, and in doing so the question of preferential trade came up. I supported preferential trade with all my might and main, conscientiously believing that it has been a good thing for this country, and that what was good for the Reformers was good ror the Conservatives as well. Now, I know the hon. member for Centre Toronto is largely interested in manufactures. I know that he feels keenly upon this question, and I imagine that in his utterances with regard to it the instinct of self-preservation has, perhaps, come to the top. Are there no other classes in this country besides manufacturers ? Are there no farmers ? Are there no merchants ? Are there no labourers ? Are there no consumers in this country ? I say there are, and I mean to say that those classes of people need protection just as well as the manufacturers, and a great deal more. The member for Centre Toronto must have been thinking of his factories while he was advocating the principle of protection. I am sure he would be quite right looking at it from his view-point, but there are other view-points from which we may look at these matters.
He referred also to the presence of the Prime Minister at the Diamond Jubilee. We all know what took place there. We know that the first great advertisement that Canada ever received came from the visit of our premier to the Diamond Jubilee in London. We were proud of him. everybody was proud of him. The premier of Canada at that time stood foremost of all the foreign visitors at that jubilee-so we read in the newspapers. The hon. gentleman asked the question : Are gentlemen on the other side proud of the government and proud of their party ? 1 answer : We are proud of the government, we are proud of the party, and I propose shortly to give you some figures showing why we can stand up and face anybody, and say we are proud of our party, proud of our government, and proud Mr. ROSS (South Ontario).
of our policy. The preference, he says, means the displacement of a corresponding amount of goods in Canada. Now, that need not necessarily follow. It may follow to some extent, but not of necessity. He speaks of woollen goods. So far as I can understand, the objections to the tariff refer mainly to two or three items ; one is woollen goods, and the other is the item of oatmeal, and there are one or two other items in connection with the tariff which seem to be a little out of joint. Now, I do not think this whole country should be taxed in order that two or three trades should be benefited. That is not a fair policy to lay down. He says that If it becomes necessary to tinker the tariff it should be tinkered. We all know how the tariff was tinkered in days gone by. We know how, under the old policy of protection, manufacturers were here every session. Talk about railway promoters coming here ! I am told, and have read in the public journals, that scores and scores of manufacturers used to be down here every session asking the Finance Minister to tinker with the tariff. W'e know how uncertain the public was. One of the difficulties we had in buying goods was that we were never sure whether the duty was going on or off sugar, whether it was going on or off tea. whether it was going on or off tobacco, and all the leading staples. The tariff was not permanent. This constant tinkering is a menace to trade, and if by any means a staple tariff can be had in this country, it is an eminently desirable thing. The hon. gentleman says there is a critical state of affairs in the manufacturing interests of this country. Now, I do not understand it so. I have yet to learn that there is a general complaint by the manufacturers of this country. We have witnessed during the past four years probably the most wonderful development that any country has ever witnessed under similar circumstances. This development is still going on, we hope it will continue, and we expect it will continue for a long time.
The hon. member for Centre Toronto tells us that goods partially made in Germany are taken into England, and that 75 per cent of those goods are German and 25 per cent of thorn are English. Now, I think that is a matter that might be looked into. I understood the Finance Minister to say that the intention was to benefit British goods only. If it can be proved that these goods are coming in as the member for Centre Toronto says they are. that is a matter that ought to be inquired into, it is a matter in which we are all interested, it is a matter which I am sure should be attended to. I am sorry that the member for Centre Toronto takes such a gloomy view of affairs-ruined factories, towns ail cone, workingmen's families ruined, and all that sort of thing. I apprehend such a state of things may come, because we know that
there are cycles in commerce ancl industry, that good times are often followed by hard times. We know that these changes take place independently of tariffs, but let us remember the old adage : Never cross the bridge till you come to it. And I am prepared to-day to uphold the preferential tariff so far as we are yet acquainted with its results.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House about six weeks, and I have had the pleasure of sitting alongside of hon. members of the opposition. I have had the pleasure of making the personal acquaintance of most of them, and X assure you that they are a genial, fine lot of gentlemen. During these six weeks I have had occasion to admire the freedom which these hon. gentlemen enjoy. They put numberless questions, they are constantly rising in their seats and do most of the talking, and do not seem to have any trouble. None of their constituents are bothering them, and asking them to secure patronage-although I call this a trouble it may oftentimes be a pleasure. In fact, I was almost feeling a little jealous of their freedom from care. But, Mr. Speaker, from the day I heard the Finance Minister make his budget speech, when I realized the import of that budget, when I realized how this country had been going forward by leaps and bounds, I began to feel more satisfied, and even proud of my position. I was proud that the Finance Minister was able to make such a state-< rnent, I was proud of the government which could give such an account of their administration, I was proud of our party, and the result is that all the envy and jealousy has departed from me.
Mr. Speaker, X represent a county which has some manufactures, notwithstanding that the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) says that we have a summer resort. So we have, at Whitby. The county town of Whitby is beautifully situated, as the hon. member for East Simcoe knows well. We have a salubrious climate, an excellent position, a fine water coast, where some of the people from the neighbouring city of Toronto come down and build residences. Whitby is destined to be one of the greatest summer resorts on that whole coast.
I presume that I may speak for one of the towns in my native county, the same as the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) spoke for the town of Midland, the great gateway to the wonderful summer resort of this country. I have the honour of representing a county that has some important manufacturing industries, though it is largely of a rural character. The district which I represent is composed of four townships and three towns. One of these towns is the town in which I live, and there is fio better town in the world, and that is spying a great deal. Another is the one jyhjch I have just mentioned, a large summer re-594
sort, and destined to be a still greater summer resort. The third town is the town of Oshawa, which we call Little Birmingham. It is one of the finest and smartest towns between Toronto and Montreal. I say this honestly, not jokingly, and I mean exactly what I say. There are manufacturing industries in Oshawa of which we are justly proud. I have spoken of the McLaughlin works, which employ 300 men, which cover a floor space of four or five acres and which expect to manufacture this year 10,000 buggies. That does not look much like as if the country were going to ruin. We have the malleable iron works at Oshawa, owned by the Malleable Iron Company. This industry is as busy as it can be and employs between 400 and 500 men. We have, besides that, the knitting factory, which, at the time of the election, was running night and day, and which could not turn out the knitted goods fast enough. We have the agricultural implement factory, the manager of which is an old school-mate of mine. During last summer he told me that business had never been so good. We have the canning factory, which turns out goods of an excellent quality and which is a most successful industry. We have numerous other factories which are incidental to these large enterprises. I might go on and mention them all, but I have mentioned the ones which I have named to show that the town of Oshawa was prosperous at the time of the election, that it is prosperous at the present moment and I hope that this prosperity will continue for years to come. In my riding we have a large farming community, and I want to tell the House that South Ontario turns out the best Shorthorn Durkams in Canada. I want to tell hon. gentlemen that I am going to boast a little now about my native place. If I cannot boast about that it seems to me a strange thing. Last fall at the Fat Stock show at Guelph our county carried off a great many prizes and won the sweepstakes for fat animals. I represent my county, I speak for it, and in speaking for it I think I voice the sentiment of a majority of my constituents when I say that the British preference is all right. I must confess that there may be occasions when the tariff should be changed. The hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) declared that he was a born protectionist. On the contrary, I was born a free trader ; I was reared a free trader, but I do not know that I am what you would call an out-and-out free trader myself. I have not departed from the principles of free trade, but, as I engage in the business of the country, I try to find out the necessities of the country and see what is best for the country, and, under the circumstances, I have come to the conclusion, that, if this tariff should be changed at all, it should be changed in the direction of lowering the duties. Now, the tax which each Individual

is bound to pay should be certain and it should not be arbitrary. A man should know exactly what he has to pay upon commodities which he consumes and these rates should run along for a series of years, it may be for three, four or five years. The tariff should be able to accommodate itself to the conditions as they exist. I do not mean by that altogether, a changing policy. That seems to be a contradiction, but, it seems to me, that, in looking at the tariff and in studying it, the English tariff is the ideal one. It is a certain tariff, continuing for several years, and it is only for revenue. A tariff should be productive and economical, and if these two considerations are kept in view, I think we would have an ideal tariff for the times in conjunction with the preferential tariff. I do not say that the preferential tariff is perfect. Far from it. In my1 own constituency my attention was called lately to one matter which seems to indicate that there is something wrong about it, but I think that can be arranged by the readjustment of the duties on the raw material and the finished product. A rearrangement of that kind might be very well effected, the country would derive a revenue and there would be some permanence and stability about the tariff. Now, it is claimed that the preference is one-sided and unjust. I think we can safely say that such is not the case. There are some complaints which have been mentioned, amongst them that of the woollen men which was brought to our attention by the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). I do not propose to prolong my speech, this being my first one in the House, but, I would like to call attention to the imports into this country, especially to the imports from Great Britain. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) referred to the imports from Great Britain. He said :
In view of the discussions which have occasionally taken place in the House with regard to the increase of imports from Great Britain for home consumption, I have placed together the figures for a series of years :
1895		 $31,131,737
1896		 32,979,742
1897		 29,412,188
1898		   32,500,917
1899		 37,060,123
1900	  44,789,730
There is no doubt that there has been a large increase in our trade with the old country under the preferential tariff, which, I think, is a desirable thing. Hon. members will say that it is all very well to bring articles into the country and to displace goods which are produced in the country, but, I say, that,, if there is any country under -the ysum with which we should trade, that country is Great Britain, Great. Britain; which? has fostered our trade, which has cared for; us, and does care for us now. which' cop- [DOT] tributes to our safety ibjr her navy and her) Mr. ROSS (South Ontario).
armies. We should be grateful to her and if in any way we can bind ourselves to her we should do so.
Now, take the question of exports from this country. A striking feature of the development of Canadian commerce is the growth of our export trade. The bearing of the tariff of 1897 upon the general promotion of trade has been in great measure for the common good. Let us look at some of the figures. In 1896 we exported products of the mines to the value of $8,059,050, and in 1900 to the value of $24,580,286, showing a total increase of $16,520,016. There are two very important items which contributed to that increase. The first important item is that of coal. In 1896 we exported $3,249,069 worth of coal, and in 1900, $4,599,002 worth, showing an increase in four years of $1,350,533.


Mr. KENDALL.: There will be another clear million next year.


William Ross: The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) says there will be another million next year, and I presume he speaks only for his own county. In addition to that you know the untold wealth we possess in the Crow's Nest Pass, aud we learn from the literature that is sent us day by day that the possibilities of coal production in that region are not equalled in any place on the face of the globe. We may therefore expect the coal trade to increase enormously in the near future. In conversation with Mr. Rogers, who is the manager of the company, he told me how his company had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the pursuit of that industry. Some people may wonder how the coal industry in British Columbia would benefit eastern Canada, but there is no doubt that it helps to distribute wealth, because thousands of dollars are expended for the purchase of supplies in this part of Canada, and the wages paid the workingmen goes into circulation all over the Dominion. Again let us take our export of gold. In 1890 Wd exported $1,099,053 worth of gold, and in 1900 we exported $14,14S,-543 worth, showing an increase of $13,049,490. This is largely due, of course, to the opening up of the Yukon, and the government can well take a great deal of credit for the manner in which law and order has beefi maintained in that country, as well as for a good deal of the development and progress which has been made there. The government, of course, does not take credit for all this production of gold, but they can safely say that the manner in which they have preserved thd" peace of the country has en-aldW' thiiT large quantity of gold to be mimMl. arid further, that they have ached fRfJiifeh'ed all this without a cent of cost :to dhri older provinces. The tariff as applied there was that all the gold that came
out of the country was assessed 10 per cent, and now that the country is becoming more self-sustaining and the output larger, that royalty is to be reduced to 5 per cent. That is the principle of the tariff we advocate ; a tariff that will some day, I hope, become exactly a revenue tariff ; a tariff that will not bear harshly on any particular section of the community, while being a benefit to all. The product of our fisheries during these five years I have mentioned have increased only by $391,318, and the hon. gentleman from Halifax (Mr. Roche) has told us the reason of that. Take the products of the forest. The total exports of the products of the forest in 1890 amounted to $27,177,686, and in 1900 to $29,663,668, showing an increase of $2,487,982. That is not a very great increase. It is not so marked as in the products of the mines and some others of our exports, but it is large enough to show that the trade is in excellent condition, and that the exports are at a very high water mark. The next item, the export of animals and their products, affects the largest part of our community, and its condition is quite gratifying. In 1896 we exported live animals to the value of $11,426,667, and in 1900 to the value of $12,201,595, showing an increase of $774,928, notwithstanding the embargo which was placed against the shipment of our live cattle to England. The total export of provisions or products of animals in 1896 was $21,200,808 worth, and in 1900. $40,063,218, being an increase of $18,852,410. This increase was largely in our cheese, our bacon, and our pork products, and notwithstanding the fact that during the last year the quantity of cheese exported had decreased the value of it to us has been greater. Take agricultural products in grain. In 1896 we exported $14,083,361 worth, and in 1900 that had risen to $27,516,609, showing an increase during the five years of $13,433,248. This increase has been largely in wheat and coarse grains, and we hope soon to see our vast prairies of the west growing a still greater quantity of beautiful wheat, for which they are so justly celebrated, and which will be transported to the seaports by our Canadian national railways, and shipped to the old land, there to be made into the best bread the world can produce. Notwithstanding this wonderful development in our agricultural and natural products, which after all, are the main source of our wealth, the manufacturers of Canada during this time have not ceased to be active. The export of manufactured goods in 1896 amounted to $9,365,384 worth, and in 1900 it had increased to $14,224,287, being an increase during. the five years of $4,858,903, or nearly a million dollars a year. That, Sir, is very creditable for a young country like ours. There are many lines of manufactures in Canada which are
capable of extension for export purposes. Do we not	see that every
country under the sun, having its own home market, is reaching out to the markets of other countries and endeavouring to increase their export trade. They want an oulet for the productions of the country ; and so we will help the manufacturers. Have we not the lumber, the' ore, the agricultural products ? Can we not turn our cattle into dressed beef ? Do we not grow wheat, and can we not turn it into flour ? These things can be exported either in the finished form or in the raw state. Of miscellaneous articles we exported in 1896 $109,265 worth, and in 1900, $208,070 worth, showing an increase of only $98,805. We come to the grand total of exports of the produce of Canada, and we find that they amounted in 1S96 to $109,915,337, and in 1900 to $170,642,369, showing in the five years during the reign of the party to which I am proud to belong an increase in our exports of $60,727,032. This is a record of which we ought to be proud ; and if I had no other justification, these figures are sufficient to justify me in asserting that the tariff which has been in force for the past four years has been for the benefit of our country.


Mr. A. E. VROOMAN (South Victoria).: Mr. Speaker, I claim the indulgence of the House while I speak for a few minutes on some features of the budget which interest in a special manner a large, intelligent and important class of the people of this country ; I speak of the agriculturists.
But first I desire to do-as many of the speakers who have already addressed the House have done-congratulate the House and the country upon the present prosperity of the people of Canada ; and I am glad that I belong to a party who can rejoice in the prosperity of the people whether they sit on this side of the House or on the other side. Mr. Speaker, this was not always the case. It is hard to calculate the immense amount of injury which was done to this country by the propaganda of blue ruin which was carried on during the time the Diberal party sat on this side of the House. The exodus has been mentioned two or three times in this debate. It occurred to me, when I beard it mentioned, that those blue ruin speeches which were made on public platforms throughout the country and on the floor of this House, and were printed in the Reform press of the country, and thus found their way to the homes of the people, especially the farmers, had bred discontent in the hearts of the people and made them 'desirous of a change ; and as the migration of the people of Ontario and Quebec set in, and they began to trek towards the west, we found this curious fact-and I was an interested spectator, because it occurred in a very 'forcible and prominent way in the part of


Adam Edward Vrooman: I was not aware that they formed so large a proportion ; but that makes my argument all the stronger. And when they come to this House and petition the government by delegation or otherwise, I think they should receive the greatest consideration. While this is essentially an agricultural country, the province from which I come is par excellence the farming province of the Dominion, followed closely by the province of Manitoba. I represent a rural constituency composed to a great extent of farmers. We have one town of considerable size, with perhaps 7,000 people, where I live, and we have two or three incorporated villages. The farmers of that constituency as a class are well-to-do and intelligent people, who regularly read the paper's, and are keenly alive to what takes place on the floor of this House.
As the province of Ontario is largely composed of farmers, we have had a number of reasons advanced by hon. gentlemen opposite to account for the way in which the government was turned down in that province. The hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) said it was because it was not properly organized, and that he was going up there to organize it. Well, that hon. gentleman has been absent some days, and it has occurred to me that perhaps he was up organizing in North Bruce. But judging by the result, I can assure him that he would do better to leave the organization of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario in the hands of the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), who will do the work much better, because the people of Ontario do not want the Minister of Public Works up there. Another bon. gentleman said that if the bon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) would look up the records, he would discover that there had been a gerrymander in 1881 and another in 1891. That seems to me to have been going a long way back to find a cause for the defeat of the Liberals in Ontario in the year 1900, especially when we consider the facts that in 189(5 the Liberal party had been returned in that province by a considerable majority, and that the same constituencies which returned Liberals in 189G, rejected them in 1900.
I do not think that any of the reasons given by the other side to account for the defeat of the Liberal party in Ontario are the true reasons. In my opinion if there

had been no Liberal campaign in that province in 1900, and the election had taken place without any excitement and without any of the influences which a powerful government is able to exercise, there would have been no government candidate returned at all. How can we account for the fact that so many government candidates, who had been elected in 1896, were defeated in 1900 ? Most of these were men who had sat in this House during a whole parliament, and they had been elected on a special contract between them and their electors. They promised to do certain things. They promised to give the electors free trade, free barley ; they promised to reduce the expenditure and the public debt; they promised to do away with railway subsidies and give us free markets in the United States. And after making all these promises, they came down here and became political acrobats and swallowed all their pledges without a wry face. When they returned to their constituencies for reelection, their constituents replied: Not for Joe. You may fool all the people some of the time, you may fool some people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
I do not intend to detain the House longer, but I see members coming in who have been absent several days, and they might possibly be able to give us some report from the west.


Some hon. MEMBERS: How would the east do ?
its favour, the people said : No, we do not want you any more. And they elected Mr. Thornton by a considerable majority. Why is Mr. Thornton not here to-day ? Simply because a partisan returning officer stepped in and said that the Conservative party should not be represented in this House if he could help it. The first thing the government should have done this session was to pass a Bill giving Mr. Thornton the seat. More than that, they should have applied the Criminal Act to the returning officer and had him fined $1,000 and put in jail as a warning to other officials not to tamper with their official duties. To the east of my county, there is the riding of W est Peterboro. which sent a Conservative here in 1896 and again in 1900. Then there is North Victoria, which has the same representative to-day, supporting the opposition, as it had in 1896, so that all around me are counties formerly represented by Liberals which are now represented by Conservatives, and those which elected Conservatives in 1896 re-elected them in 1900. In my riding Senator McHugh was elected in 1896. He was a very popular and estimable gentleman, and he has since lost none of his popularity, but like the rest he made pledges which he did not carry out, and the people turned him down. All he had to say to them, when confronted with his broken pledges, was : Look at the good times. But the people refused to reelect him, and the result was that he was left at home.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: No, he is in the Senate.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Compare the majorities in the two places.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much did it cost the country.


Adam Edward Vrooman: Let me take the constituencies that lie next to mine to illustrate my contention that it was not any mere question of sentiment which defeated the Liberal candidates in the last election in the province of Ontario. Take the constituency of North Ontario, in 1896 that constituency was represented in this House by Mr. Graham, who ran against the present member in 1900. Mr. Graham represented the Patrons and the Independents and the Liberals. He was a sort of trinity in unity, and had been returned to the late parliament by a goodly majority. He came down here and was a good party man, and when the government said : * Thumbs up,' he promptly complied. But when he came back, he had to meet again his old opponent and was defeated by a majority of 500. The next constituency bordering on my own is West Durham, which Mr. Beith had represented for years. No doubt Mr. Beith was a very fine gentleman or his constituency would not have sent him here. But in 1900, when he again courted


Adam Edward Vrooman: Yes, and I may pause here to congratulate the government on having made that appointment. Senator McHugh was my opponent and is my personal friend. He is a gentleman whom I esteem, and I know he will make a good senator, and the people were pleased with his appointment. But I have no doubt he will be as good a partisan on the floor of the Senate as he was in this House.
In my election, the hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) and the hon. the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Muloek) came in and took a hand. They paid a great deal of attention to the down-trodden farmer, and I was very much pleased to listen to the Minister of Customs, as with his persuasive tone and his patriarchial appearance, he declaimed to the unsophisticated farmer, who could hardly help believing him as he said : Gentlemen, when we came into power what did we find? We found the great Department of Agriculture at Ottawa, which presides over your interests, controlled by a professional man, a doctor. And what did we do ? We brought in a practical farmer, like yourselves, a man who is used to toil with his hands ; he knows how to sympathize with you. I was a little curious when I came down here to see the Minister

of Agriculture. As the ministers came in at the door, I asked wliicli was the Minister of Agriculture. And when he was pointed out to me, I smiled. I would suggest a reorganization of that cabinet, and I would give the portfolio of Agriculture to such a man as my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Robinson). If that were done, you could go to the country and say to the farmers : We have for Minister of Agriculture a practical farmer, a man like yourselves. It was stated, I think by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie.) that when this government came into power in 1896, they introduced a new tariff, and that tariff was criticised-it was fought tooth and nail, as he said-by the Conservatives, who said that if it was brought into force it would ruin this country. They did oppose that tariff, and they did say that it would ruin this country. And, after the government had listened to the criticism, they withdrew that tariff in order to revise it. And they sought the help in revising it of a very estimable gentleman, a clearheaded man. the late lamented member for Centre Toronto. Mr. Geo. Bertram, a man I knew well and respected highly, a former resident of the town in which I now live. He changed that tariff for them and saved the government. Was it not a peculiar thing that the government should call in one of these * scoundrels great and scoundrels small ' to assist them in revising their tariff ? We know that when the Conservatives were on that side of the House, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) used to say that if his party got into power the tariff would be revised in the interests of the farmer. The farmers of Manitoba were told that agricultural implements would be put on the free list. But the tariff on agricultural implements remained just what it was before. But, the government said : We will have to do something for the farmers, for there are a great many of them, and some of them may vote against us. We must give them a sop of some kind. And so they put Indian corn on the free list. It has been a question among farmers themselves whether that was a good thing or not. If a farmer is a Reformer he is apt to say that it was a good thing, and if he is a Conservative he may argue the other way. But there is one thing I noticed -that the pork buyers have been advising their buyers to keep clear of the districts where this Indian corn is ted to make pork, because it destroys the pork for the British market. When this business government knew that the farmers had been seeking for years a market for their barley in the United States, why did they not, instead of taking the duty off corn at once, say to the United States : We will give you a market for your corn if you will give us a market for our barley. But that was not done. The interest of the farmers was lost sight o1'. i Mr. VROOMAN
Our farmers, particularly those of Ontario, have been for years and years looking for a market in the United States for their barley. That market was a great thing for them before the duty of 30 cents a bushel was imposed by the Americans. The government put another thing on the free list -binder twine ; and we hear on the floor of the House that some of the supporters of the government are not satisfied. One thing we know, and that is that when binder twine was put on the free list, the price of it went up. And when barbed wire was put on the free list, the price of it went up also. Some other things were put on the free list-mushroom spawn, for instance.


Some hon. MEMBERS: And ice.


Adam Edward Vrooman: Was ice put on the free list ? I am glad to hear that. But I would like to ask how the farmer was helped by putting the duty on sugar ? There is a question which touches every man. A little additional duty was put on cottons also, and on tobacco. The labouring man likes to take a smoke at the end of his hard day's work. But when he sends out his little boy with a five-eent piece for a plug of tobacco, the boy comes back and says : I want another cent. It is true that to meet that, the manufacturers have cut the size of the plug down to fit the charge so as to leave it five cents. We have delegations coming to this government, and it is right that they should come. But when a delegation comes in the interest of the farmers, how are they received ? Farmers are not millionaires, but men of moderate means. There was a delegation came here the other day in the interests of the beetroot sugar industry, and this government gave them the go-by. But, I would refer the Minister of Agriculture to what the Minister of Agriculture in Ontario has done. Of course, I understand very well that the Ontario minister expects an election soon. Still, it is a wonderful statement he makes. He says that Ontario can grow 109.000,000 pounds of sugar annually. I think he knows what he is talking about, because he has been an efficient minister there for many years. This would employ a million and a half of people. It has been proven that the farmers can clear a profit of $43.50 per acre in raising beet root. And the Ontario government have agreed to give to that industry $75,000 annually for three years. But when the farmers came down here they got no help. Yet. the government could make concessions to a lot of Standard Oil magnates when they came here-millionaires from the United States. It was stated here the other night that when this government came in they reduced the duty on coal oil from 7 cents to 5 cents a gallon. Of course, that was a mistake-what was meant was that they reduced it from 6 cents to o cents a gallon. But concessions
have been made to the Standard Oil Company, and the result is that oil was never so dear in Ontario as it has been since. The condition of things is this-if you go into a store with your can and ask the dealer for a gallon of American oil, he will give you what he calls American oil, but you never know whether it is American oil or not. I understand that the oil inspection of this country is practically no inspection at all. The Standard Oil Company has a monopoly of the oil business in this country. I would ask the government why they have not reduced the duty on coal oil so as to make oil cheaper. There was a time when it was necessary to protect the oil industry in the interest of the country. But now that it is in the hands of foreigners, why should we protect it ?
Now, as to this preference, I have looked at it, read about it, and considered it; and, so far as the farmer is concerned, I cannot see that it is of any use to him at all. If it is true that many of his products were imported into England last year, but that would have been so in any case. There was an increase, because there was an increase in all branches of that kind of business. But the preference had nothing to do with it. If the farmers receive no benefit from the preference as it is to-day, they are on the other hand directly injured in the German market.
Now, when this government undertook to give a preference to England in our markets why did they not ask the English government to remove the embargo on our cattle? Before this embargo was placed on our cattle they had a preference in the English market, as there was at that time an embargo on American cattle. Every head of cattle taken into England from Canada was worth $10 or $15 more than a like animal from the United States. That embargo was put on our cattle ostensibly because there was pleuro-pneumonia among them, when in reality there was not. Before the embargo our cattle, after landing in England, were taken into the country and fed for two or three weeks on the rich grasses of England, until the beef attained a flavour like that of English beef, and became more toothsome to the fastidious palate of John Bull. Now, when our government gave a preference to English goods, they should have said to the English gov-erment: We have given you this preference in our market, now we want you to take the embargo off our cattle. But the Prime Minister says we did not want to ask anything in return from the English government, that what we were giving them was out of pure gratitude for the many favours we had received from them in the past and were still receiving.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the policy of mutual preferential trade, I think that nothing would be of greater benefit to the farmers of this country if we could obtain
it. The moment that we get a preference in the markets of England every foot of land in this country would increase in value, all the products of the land would increase in value, wages would immediately go up. You could call in all your immigration agents, because all the best immigrants from the British Isles would come to this country. The volume of production would immediately increase, and in a short time the colonies themselves would be able to supply all the food products required in England.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have reminded us that the Minister of Finance did not claim direct credit for the good times. It is true he did not in so many words, but there was running through his speech an assumption that the good times were due, in part at least, to the legislation which this government had enacted. The First Minister, in a speech made, I think, at Bowmanville, touched upon this question in a very ingenious manner. He said that if Providence had blessed the people because the people elected a good government, no one need complain. Well, that was another way of assuming that the good times were due to the government. It is true, Mr. Speaker, that Providence has blessed this country, and it would seem as if Providence, knowing that the hon. gentlemen opposite had made pledges which they could not fulfil, had taken pity on them and had prospered the country so as to enable them to carry out their promises. But although Providence has showered all this wealth upon us, the government still refuse to take the hint, and therefore we are justified in expecting that Providence will punish them for their ingratitude. The Finance Minister in his speech the other day told us that he could see a little cloud arising no bigger than a man's hand. Well, you would suppose that if he was a judicious man, seeing this little cloud arising, he would begin to take in sail and trim for the approaching storm. But he does nothing of the kind ; and I believe that when he next looks up he will see the handwriting on the wall which will seal the doom of his government.


Mr. GEO. A. CLARE (South Waterloo).: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with a great deal of interest to this debate, which has been proceeding for the last three or four days, and I desire to address the House for a short time on some of the Questions that are before us. In the first place, I wish, as a member of the Conservative party, to congratulate the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Ross) on being able to tell us that the town of Oshawa is very prosperous, and that the manufacturers in that town are in a prosperous condition. The Conservative party are always happy to know that any section or any town in this country is in a prosperous condition. I would like to say to that hon. gentleman,

1S76-
who I see has left the House, that if there had been a town in his constituency which was injured by this preferential tariff, it is likely that he would not be in the House to-day to represent that constituency. But fortunately for him and fortunately for his county, the carriage industry is not affected by the preferential duties, because there are no carriages imported into this country from England. He also stated that this government does not tinker with the tariff. But I would like to remind him that this government has already tinkered with the tariff in respect to this very industry, and has raised the duty 5 per cent in its favour. We are pleased to know that the malleable iron works in his constituency are in a flourishing condition, and why should they not be, when they get a rebate of duty on iron and steel used in the manufacture of goods for export ? Sir, I have been trying to understand the position of the government on the tariff question, and I have to say honestly that so far I have been unable to do so. The right lion, the Prime Minister says that this is a revenue tariff; but the Finance Minister told us the other day that we have n large surplus, and are likely to have a large surplus next year. Now, I would like to ask him to explain how it happens that he has a large surplus under a revenue tariff. If it is only a revenue tariff, how does it come about that he is taking so many millions out of the pockets of the taxpayers ?
Now, I would like to call the attention of the House for a few moments to what took place when we had a revenue tariff in this country, and when the Liberal party was in power. At that time everybody in this country, Conservative and Reformer, acknowledged that we had a revenue tariff.
I remember when the artisans of this coun- J try, the agriculturists and the manufacturers all came to the government of which the Minister of Trade and Commerce was then Finance Minister, and asked for some measure of protection. The government refused to do anything, because they believed, and. I suppose, believed conscientiously, that their policy was the best for the country. Well, let us look at the trade during the few years that they were in power. In 1S73 the imports to this country were $127,514.974, and the exports were $76,538,000. The aggregate trade in 1,873 was $204.000.000 in round numbers. In 1878 the imports were $91,000,000. the exports $67,oo0,-000, and the aggregate trade $159,000,000, or a falling off of $45,000,000. During that time deficits were the order of the day. 'Business was decreasing in every channel, manufactories were closed down, artisans and labourers were leaving this country for 'other countries looking for work, the grain and flour of the United States were competing with the natural products of the farmers of Canada, but, still, the party that were in power believed that a *was the best for the country.


George Adam Clare: party at that time declared that they would 'sooner fall than stand for the policy that 'we believed to be in the best interests of the country- At that time the county; "which I have the honour to represent was almost purely an agricultural county. The people there felt the hard times, North and South Waterloo were the two banner Reform constituencies in the Dominion of Canada up to that time. But the people believed that the government were not carrying out the policy which would best promote the interests of the country, and,, for the first time in its history, the riding of North Waterloo, in 1878, sent a Conservative to represent it in this House, and the south riding of Waterloo elected a Reform supporter of the national policy. These gentlemen were elected to assist the Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald to carry out the policy of protection. They came here, Sir John Macdonald and his government brought down their tariff and almost immediately the times became better. I remember well, that, in the campaign of 1S78, the Conservative party said in their arguments before the people that if you put us 'into power we will protect the interests of the country, with the result that factories will be built all over the country and you will see the tall chimneys grow. The Reform party used to take great pleasure in twitting the Conservative party and in asking where those chimneys were. Mi-. Krantz, the member for North Waterloo, replied, and I remember the speech very well in which he showed that in the county of Waterloo, at any rate, the towns were growing, factories were being built up, and a home market was provided for the farmers on account of the growth of the towns. In that county the village of Hespeler had a population of about 1.000. I am pleased to say, that, to-day, that village is a town and lias a population of close upon 3.000. The village of Preston at that time had a population of some 1,400 people. It is my native town, the home in which I take a great deal of pride, and I am glad to say that there are to-day about 3,000 people in that town. The town of Galt lias more than doubled in population ; Berlin has more than doubled in population, and I claim here that this is entirely due to the national policy. It is true that prosperity has kept up for the last four or five years since hon. gentlemen opposite have been in power, but, during the time that these hon. gentlemen were in opposition they attacked the national policy most bitterly. They advocated every conceivable policy, they advocated a revenue tariff, commercial union, unrestricted reciprocity, free trade as they have it in England, and, in 1896, on a side issue, they got into power. Would you not have supposed, Mr. Speaker, that
when these hon. gentlemen got into power, revenue tariff they would have carried out some one of The Reform the policies they had advocated ? But, not
so. They appointed a coni mission. You would think that after eighteen years in opposition they would know the requirements of the country, bu/t they appointed a commission for the purpose of finding out whether they could carry out free trade as they have it in England or not. I believe that these lion, gentlemen thought it was impossible to carry out that policy and they appointed a commission so that they could fall easy. I remember well the consternation that the Reform manufacturers "were in immediately after the election. I remember that they came to me as a manufacturer and asked me to go with them to Ottawa to show the Reform party the policy they should adopt. I remember the furniture men, during the election, signing a 'letter, published in the Globe newspaper, 'stating that they could compete with the World, yet, Mr. Speaker, these very same 'gentlemen were down at Ottawa, during the first two weeks after lion, gentlemen 'opposite were elected. When the commissioners got through with their work, and *when delegates from all over the country had interviewed the government, lion, gentlemen opposite brought down a tariff, and, lo and behold, to the great surprise and relief of the people of the country, we had a protective tariff as we had before. They swallowed themselves and all their policies, and brought .down a policy of protection. They have broken every promise they have 'made to the electors. Instead of decreasing the expenditure by $3,000,000, or $4,000,000, they have increased it by over $10,000,000 ; instead of giving us the trade policy that they promised, we have protection. Of this policy I certainly do not complain, nor do the Conservative party, but it seems to me very laughable to see the right hon. Prime Minister of this country and the hon. Minister of Finance, all the members of the government, and all the members on the 'other side of the House, trying to explain to the country that this is not a protective tariff, but that it is a revenue tariff. I 'should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he believes the giving of a bounty of '$3 a ton to the manufacturers of pig iron was a protective policy or whether it was a revenue tariff policy ? In regard to that matter I wish to say that, while it was promised to the agricultural community that they 'would have agricultural Implements free of duty, instead of doing that, a dollar a ton has been added to the bounty wrhich is taken directly out of the pockets of the people and is no benefit to them, although 'they have to pay it. In 1896, when the Prime Minister was in opposition, he spoke In the town of Galt, and there being mostly iron manufacturers in that town he tried to explain his free trade speeches. He told the Galt manufacturers that he would take the duty off pig Iron so that they could 'buy that iron $3 a ton cheaper and thus be 'able to compote with the American manufacturers. In the town of Berlin the very
'next evening the Reform candidate, Mr. 'Snider, delivered a protectionist speech, and' 'the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier offered to 'adopt Mr. Snider and take him into his 'fold whether he was a protectionist or a free trader. To make this perfectly plain I will give the language which wras used on this occasion. Mr. Snider, speaking at Elmira, said :
It is true that in our constituency some of our manufacturers have been doing well. I believe that some of our industries, in Berlin and Waterloo in particular, have sprung up owing to the national policy. I believe that a few of the industries might not have been there if it had not been for the protection they have had. So far as protection is concerned, my views on the tariff question are these: I should not venture to support any government, if I should happen to be the choice of the electors of North Waterloo, and I should not want to go down and represent you with the idea in your minds that I would endeavour to help free trade, that is entire free trade, for I don't think we could possibly have it. I don't think our party, as a party, would think of introducing *t at the present time.
And, Mr. Laurier speaking at Berlin the next day, said :
I understand that some of my fellow-countrymen in this town of old protectionist views say that my friend Mr. Snider made a protectionist speech at Elmira yesterday. So far so good. If the protectionists of the towns of Berlin and Waterloo are satisfied with the declaration of Mr. Snider, if they claim he is a protectionist, let them send to Ottawa such a protectionist as Mr. Snider. 'What's in a name?' A rose by any other name smells Just as sweet. I do not care what you call him. For my part, I am ready to admit him to the ranks of the Liberal party Just as he is and will be, and he, will be a good supporter, I am sure, of the Liberal cause.


Samuel Hughes: Did he get there ?


George Adam Clare: He was left by 300 majority. This shows conclusively that the great object of the right hon. gentleman was to get into power no matter how, and no matter what policy was to be carried out. However, Sir, it is very fortunate for the people of Canada that these gentlemen did not carry out. the policy, or any of the many policies they advocated while in opposition. It does not matter to me at any rate which party is In power, so long as the affairs of the country are carried on economically and well, and so long as in the interests of the people the policy of protection is maintained to the strict letter of the law. In the matter of their preferential tariff the Liberal government has adopted a policy of their own, which will in time hurl them from power. The preference they have given to Great Britain, of 334 per cent, is ruining the second largest industry in Canada, because next to the raising of foodstuffs the clothing of the people is the most Important. The riding I have the honour to represent has five or six woollen mills, and if this policy of the

government is continued it will entail great loss to the people of that constituency. The same remark applies to almost every other constituency in Canada, because most of them have a woollen mill or two within their limits. This policy will reduce the wages of the mechanics and workingmen in these factories, or else it will close them up entirely. I appeal to the government to reconsider their determination not to give more protection to these large manufacturing concerns. The right hon. the Prime Minister has told us that he gives this preference to the English people in order to show our loyalty and good-will towards them, and in the same breath he tells us that the workingmen of England will not pay one cent more for their flour and bread which can be shipped from this country. And so, the right hon. gentleman, just in order to obtain the good-will of England wants to have the wages of Canadian workingmen reduced, and our factories closed. That is the only logical way of looking at his argument. Mr. Speaker, we have been loyal to the British Crown ; we have been loyal to the British Empire ; we sent our soldiers to South Africa to fight the battles of the British Empire. We showed them that the soldiers of Canada are equal to any soldiers on the face of the globe, and these soldiers came out of the factories of Canada which were built up by the national policy. X remember when I was collecting for the Patriotic Fund in my constituency, the workingmen in the woollen mills were the most liberal in subscribing to that fund. I again appeal to this government to reconsider the position they have taken and to treat these workingmen as they deserve to be treated. Now, in reference to the increased quantity of woollen goods which have been imported into this country since the preferential tariff, I find that that increase is close on to #3,000,000, and every cent's worth of these goods should have been manufactured in Canada, and would have been manufactured In Canada had it not been for the preference given to England. In conclusion I call the attention of the government to the following fact. The correspondent of the Galt Reformer, writing on March 12 from Hespeler. a town which is entirely dependent on the woollen industry, makes the following statement:
Another grist of our people are pulling out eastward towards New York state, part of them having gone to-day. The spring exodus bids fair to he a record-breaker.
I shall vote, Mr. Speaker, for the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition.
Mr. OLIVER moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
George Adam Clare: Friday, March 22, 1901.