1901-03-28

Mr.  E. F.@: CLARKE (West Toronto) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 101) respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: Explain.


Mr. CLARKE.: Mr. Speaker, when the company obtained legislation in 1892 empowering it to increase its capital stock, a provision was inserted in the Bill that the rates then existing should not be increased without the consent of the Governor in Council. The intention of the Bill which has just been presented is to amend clause 3 of that Act, to compel the company to provide telephonic service on lines or streets where it has already established its system, to enable municipalities or individuals who have been charged rates higher than those ih existence at the time of the passage of that Act, to recover any sums in excess that have been paid the company, and to reaffirm the provision that the existing rates shall not be increased without the consent of the Governor in Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
I. C. R.-SALE OP STEEL RAILS, &c.

Mr. BELL (Pictou) asked :: 1.	Was a canal excavated at Round Bay Shelburne county, N.S., during the year 1900?	*
2.	Were tenders asked for the work or for materials or transport of materials?
3.	Prom whom was material purchased?
4.	What price was paid for timber?
5.	What freight was paid on timber?
6.	Is the canal now completed?
7.	For what purpose was it intended?
8.	Has it been found suited to that purpose?
9.	Did any government engineer recommend the construction of the work?
10.	If so, what was the name of such engineer?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Stand, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: I would like to ask my hon. friend what that question refers to. The Minister of Public Works has no knowledge of it. There was a small expenditure of $75 in my department Sir LOUIS DAVIES.
for cutting what I suppose you might call a canal, a passage through the sand bank into a pond. If that is the matter I can answer it.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stand.


SOUTH AFRICAN WAR-RECRUITING FOR CONSTABULARY.
Mr. FOWLER asked :: 1.	How many men from New Brunswick were accepted for service with the South African Constabulary?
2.	Have any, and if so, how many, officers been appointed to said force from New Brunswick?
3.	Were any applications made by militia officers of New Brunswick, or members of the first or second contingents from New Brunswick, to the Department of Militia and Defence for commissions in said constabulary? If so, by whom made, and if not granted, why not?


The MINISTER OP MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. P. W. Borden).: All the work in connection with recruiting for the South African Constabulary has been and is directly under the control of the Imperial authorities, who sent several officers to Canada for the purpose. The government, including the Militia Department, is not responsible in any way for the recruiting or the selection of officers. The machinery of the Militia Department has been utilized by the Imperial authorities to expedite the work of organizing the force and of their transportation. I am informed that about 125 men were recruited in New Brunswick by C. W. W. McLean, an Imperial officer detailed for the purpose, and only about eleven others offered: 'their services in that province. One hundred and sixty-two applications for commissions passed through the Militia Department, seven of which were from New Brunswick.


JOSEPH PAQUET, PILOT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Monk-asked :
1.	Was Mr. Joseph Paquet, pilot, of St. Jean, Island of Orleans, appointed by the government to any position in connection with the census?
2.	If so, to what position, on what date, and what was to be his salary?
3.	-Has the said Mr. Joseph Paquet been dismissed from said position?
4.	If so, on what date, and for what reasons?
5.	On whose recommendation had Mr. Joseph Paquet been so appointed?
6.	Who recommended his dismissal?
The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: Mr. Joseph Paquet, pilot, of St. Jean, Island of Orleans, has not been appointed to any position in connection with the census.


MANHOOD SUFFRAGE REGISTRATION.
Mr. LANCASTER asked :: Is it the intention of the government to reimburse the municipalities in Ontario the cost incurred in the registration of the manhood
franchise voters for the general elections held in October and November last?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The accounts received up to the present date for the manhood suffrage registration have been paid in accordance with the order in council of October 8th, 1900, which allows the same compensation as is payable for like services under the statutes of the province. If there are any accounts which have not yet been sent in, they will be dealt with on the same basis when received.


DRILL HALL AT BROCKVILLE.
Mr. LANCASTER asked :: 1.	To whom was the contract let for building the drill hall at the town of Brockville?
2.	Were tenders advertised for?
3.	Was the lowest tender accepted?
4.	Who were the successful tenderers, and what were the amounts of their tenders respectively ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	D. S. Booth.
2.	Yes.
3 Yes.
4. D. S. Booth, $42,290.00.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to ask the government if I may expect soon the report that I moved for in the early part of the session with regard to the sale of school lands in Manitoba. The Prime Minister stated at the time that the report of the investigation that was being held would be soon put before the House. I understand the investigation is now closed.
The PRIME MINISTER.: Will the hon. gentleman send me a memorandum of this ?


THE $4-BILL ISSUE.
Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to call the attention of the government to a matter that is exciting considerable comment in the Toronto and other papers, and in order to put myself in order, if you consider it necessary, I will, before I siit down, move the adjournment of the House. It can hardly be said that the present administration have at any time evinced considerable sympathy for Canadian manufacturing concerns. With the advent of the government they took away from what was known as the British Canadian Bank Note Company, the business of printing postage stamps, and also $1 and $2 notes, as well as the $4 notes, and I may also add the printing of revenue stamps. It was pointed out at that time that the government discriminated very unfairly towards the British American Bank Note Company ; but it
has remained for the government to issue through this American Bank Note Company, * which is controlled by American interests, a new $4-note, which bears upon its face an imprint of the celebrated American Soo canal lock. Now, Sir, this government has spent some $4,000,000 in the construction of a large lock on the canal between Lake Huron and Lake Superior. I have been in Sault Ste. Marie, and as a Canadian I felt a little pride in the fact that this government had there such a magnificent lock. From time to time I have seen that the American people, through their magazines, and notably through the Cosmopolitan, publishing whole pages on the greatness of the American people as exemplified in the fact that they had constructed this immense lock at Sault Ste. Marie. Now, I contend that when we have any great works our own we should not endeavour to hide our light under a bushel, and having expended that large amount, and having constructed a lock that, in my estimation, can be fairly compared with the American canal lock, I think we should not try to suppress that fact, that we should give it all the publicity we possibly can. When I appeal to the government to withdraw this issue of $4 bills, that they have sent out, I fear I shall be appealing to deaf ears, because those hon. gentlemen from time to time show an inclination, go where they will, to patronize American concerns rather than Canadian ones. I recall the fact that last year I saw standing in the Central Railway station a whole train of cars, and instead of being able to boast that they were Canadian productions, made from our Canadian hardwoods and by Canadian labour, we were humiliated by the knowledge of the fact that these had been imported from the United States ; and it was only yesterday that the Minister of Railways and Canals, in answer to a question, made the announcement of the fact that nearly $200,000 worth of cars had recently been purchased in the United States. Now, we have to stand here and appeal to the hon. gentlemen to patronize Canadian industries. For myself, I hope and trust that they will have some Canadian pride among them, that they will endeavour to patronize Canadian concerns. It is a matter of fact to-day that while we have in Ontario first-class mechanics and first-class manufacturing concerns, the Minister of Railways and Canals turns his back on these and goes over to the other side to purchase that which we require. And it remains for this American Note Company, this importation from the United States, a company that has also imported its employees to come here to take the place of so many Canadians, a company which takes out of the pockets of Canadians so much money, and takes that back to their stockholders on the American side-it remains for this great concern to rub it into the Canadian people and to be able to advertise

from one end of the country to the other that the Canadians are such an insignificant body of people that they are actually paying for the privilege of advertising this great American lock on the face of these Canadian bills. Now, I do not know how this happened. Surely it could not have been through the cognizance of the Minister of Railways and Canals himself that the new American lock and not the Canadian lock should be presented on the picture. Surely, if that hon. gentleman was consulted, why did he not insist, if a lock was to be shown on this bill, that it should be the Canadian and not the American lock ? But the Minister of Railways and Canals sits by unconcernedly and does not care which lock is represented. But it may have been a spirit of envy that prompted him in this matter, because the Canadian lock had been constructed under the rule of his predecessor, and probably for that reason he did not wish to see so magnificent a work pictured on a Canadian bill.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: Would it make any difference in the hon. gentleman's view if he were to be made aware of the fact that, except from reading the reports in the newspapers, I never knew that any such bank bill had been issued bearing any such representation ? That does not come within my department.


William Humphrey Bennett: I did think that the Minister of Railways and Canals would have taken sufficient interest in the matter that came before the council, such as the issue of a new series of bills, that he would have insisted on some great work connected with this department being depicted on that bill. He might have had, for instance, a picture of the new Victoria bridge printed on it, leading the trade of Canada to Portland, and assisted by this government to the extent of half a million dollars. But perhaps a spirit of jealousy also prevented his doing this, since it was the Minister of Public Works who led off in that matter. If this occurred through mistake or inadvertence, I am afraid all the blame must fall upon the Minister of Finance, and if he will promise thait these four dollar bills will be at once withdrawn from the public gaze and be replaced by bills that will bear the imprint of the Canadian lock, he will be doing the country a service. But before the bills are withdrawn, I would ask the Finance Minister not to treat them in the same way as our postage stamps have been, because it is disgraceful to know that postage stamps are lying all over this Dominion, and in foreign countries as well, unused, and yet such stamps of denominations larger than a dollar will not be exchanged by the government for ordinary stamps in current issue, nor will they be redeemed. We have thus some reason to fear that with the view of making the surplus larger, the Mr. BENNETT.
hon. gentleman may at once declare these bills non-redeemable. He may also rely on the American public, pardonably proud of the fact that the Canadian government have the picture of an American lock adorning their paper money issue, buying them up as souvenirs and keeping them for all time to come as an example of the gullibility, if it be gullibility, or the ignorance, if it be ignorance, or the kindness, if it be kindness, of the Canadian government in advertising the American lock at Sault Ste. Marie at the expense of the Canadian lock, although the latter is equally as good, if not a great deal better. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Hon. gentlemen opposite are so much in the habit of talking economy and practicing extravagance that I am not surprised at them complaining of the action of this government in awarding the contract for the engraving of our Dominion notes to the party who put in the lowest and most substantial tender. It would have been much more in accord with the practice of hon. gentlemen opposite to award contracts to some party favourite at the cost of vast sums to the public. In this particular transaction, it was unfortunate for the hon. gentleman's friends that it was impossible to award them the contract, because, although given every opportunity to tender, they declined to supply the notes on fair and reasonable terms, and we made the contract with other people who have a great reputation for doing the best class of work. These people have built an establishment in Ottawa which is employing Canadian workmen and adding to the wealth of Ottawa and the Dominion, and giving the highest class of work.
As to the picture on the bills. I regret that my hon. friend has allowed himself to be imposed upon. This is a very large country, and I must confess that I have not had the opportunity of visiting that very enterprising portion of Canada known as the ' Soo,' and therefore cannot speak from personal knowledge. There would be some excuse, therefore, if I were imposed upon, but my hon. friend who comes fr.om that portion of Canada has no excuse. He says that this is a picture of an American lock.


William Humphrey Bennett: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I want to tell the hon. gentleman that it is not, and I will give him evidence he cannot gainsay. The picture on the four dollar note is the picture of the Canadian Pacific Railway steamer Athabasca coming through the lock, and we know that the Canadian Pacific Railway is too patriotic an institution to patronize any other than a Canadian lock. We know that the financial critic of the opposition is himself a director of the

Canadian Pacific Railway, and are we to tie told by one of his supporters that such an eminent member of the party opposite would dream of permitting his steamer, the Athabasca, to use the American lock ?


William Humphrey Bennett: It went over there to coal up.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no need to go there to coal. There is a magnificent lock on the Canadian side, and when the picture was submitted to me of a Canadian Pacific Railway steamer passing through the lock, I knew that the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) was too patriotic to allow a steamer belonging to the company of which he is a director to go through the American lock, and accepted the picture. My hon. friend, I am afraid, has too easily allowed himself to be imposed upon.


Hon. DAVID TISDALE (South Norfolk).: I had not intended to say anything on the subject, but I do know the American ' Soo ' canal and the Canadian canal, and here is one of the bills, and there is no doubt that the picture on this bill is that of the American canal.


Mr. LOGAN.: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is referring to a document, and the rule of the House is that all documents referred to should be laid on the Table.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not think it is necessary for a private member to lay on the Table a document to which he refers.


David Tisdale: I do not understand the Finance Minister to have affirmed that the picture on this bill is that of the Canadian lock.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I gave my authority.


David Tisdale: The only authority the hon. gentleman has is that he sees in the lock on the bill what he believes to be one of the Canadian Pacific steamboats.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: A Canadian Pacific Railway steamboat.


David Tisdale: Though this may appear a laughable matter to hon. gentlemen opposite it is more serious than they imagine. For my part, if my party were in power, and the government which I supported issued a national bill of the Dominion of Canada, and on that bill deliberately put the picture of a public work of the United States, and not of Canada, unless they would withdraw that bill from circulation, I would cease to support them.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


David Tisdale: I am surprised that there should be hon. gentlemen on the other 70
side who should treat a statement of that sort in that manner. That is all I have to say. Hon. gentlemen on that side have a perfect right to treat any matter as they choose, and to treat as a subject only worthy of ridicule the fact that on the national money of the country, the government have put the public work of a foreign country. Why do they not make the thing complete ? I see here Their Excellencies the Earl and Countess of Minto. Why do you not put on President and Mrs. McKinley ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


David Tisdale: I see on the back of *this bill this parliament building, the pyide of Canada. Why don't you put on the capitol at Washington ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


David Tisdale: Put them all on. You have as much right to laugh at that as you have to laugh at this thing. I am not posing on this question. I saw it mentioned in the paper last night, that being the first I had known of it. I protest against the question being treated with such levity as is shown by hon. gentlemen opposite. When hon. gentlemen care so little for the emblems of their country, the public works and the institutions of their country, I have not much confidence that they have the same feeling towards the country itself that, I thank heaven, my bringing up and my nationality, that I have.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


David Tisdale: Hon. gentlemen are welcome to shout. It may be that I am sentimental. I have got past the time of life, perhaps, when sentiment should be exhibited ; but I hope that I shall cease to live when these sentiments that I now declare cease to pervade my heart and my life and my conduct.


Mr. MACLEAN.: In view of what has been said, it is evident that a mistake has been made. That being the case, is it not the intention of the leader of the government and of this House to tell us that it is their intention to withdraw this note from circulation ?


Mr. BOURASSA.: I would like to put a question to the patriotic member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale). What were the loyal feelings of these gentlemen, who would not support the government in having a picture of an American canal on a Canadian bill, when the government that they supported voted a great deal of Canadian money to build a railway in the state of Maine.


David Tisdale: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) evidently has information that I have not gained from the study of the public accounts. If he will show me



reasons to believe that his information is correct, I shall be glad to give him an answer.


Mr. N. CLARKE WALLACE (West York).: If one were to judge from the speech of the Minister of Finance he would come to the conclusion that the statement made by the hon. member for East Simeoe (Mr. Bennett) was incorrect, and that there was no picture of the United States Soo canal on the Canadian four-dollar bill. But he cannot deny that such is the case. He says that there is -a Canadian steamer going through the canal, therefore he is justified in supposing it to be a Canadian canal. But if he went down to Portland and saw the Grand Trunk Railway unloading their thousands of cars at the wharfs of that city, would he conclude that he was in the city of Montreal ? That would be just as reasonable as to suppose that a picture _ of the American Soo canal is a representation of the Canadian Soo canal. The answer of the Minister of Finance was unworthy of him, because he is endeavouring to leave an impression on the minds of hon. members that is not true. I would ask the minister squarely : Is the picture of the canal on the four-dollar bill a picture of the Canadian canal or of the United States canal ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I never had the pleasure of seeing the two and cannot give personal testimony.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is no answer at all. Nobody requires the hon. minister to see the canal-that is not the question. The question is whether, now that the matter has been called to his attention by the public press and by the hon. member for East Simeoe, he is going to rise in his place and attempt to mislead the House and the country with the statement that, as it is a Canadian vessel that is going through, it is presumably a Canadian canal that it is traversing! He has heard the statement of the hon. member for South Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) who, holding the bill in his hand and knowing the place represented in this engraving, tells him that it is a picture of the American canal. The hon. minister now has the information and does not need to go to the spot to verify the statement. Having the information, what is he going to do about it ? Is he going to withdraw the bill ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will consider that.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I think they had better consider it and pretty quickly too, and come to a conclusion quickly. And the only conclusion that will suit the people of Canada is that the bill be withdrawn from circulation. It is true that the Canadian people will lose some money by the printing of a bill that cannot be used, but this is Mr. TISDALE.
only another evidence of the reckless disregard of the interests of the people shown by this government else their subserviency to the people of the United States. In either case it is to be condemned.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance if these bills were not submitted to some person for examination and approval before they were allowed to be printed ; and, if so, to whom ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Of course, the whole thing is submitted to me for approval before it is printed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Of course, the hon. minister may have been innocently deceived -that may happen to any person. But, now that the matter has been brought to his attention, is he still going to allow our money to be made an advertising medium for the United States ? I do not think he should do so.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The plan has been adopted of printing upon our notes scenes illustrating our various industries. One scene shows a wheat field. I am not prepared to guarantee that it is a Canadian wheat field. Another gives an illustration of the lumber industry. An American log, does not differ very much, I fancy, from a Canadian log, and I am not prepared to speak as to the log in that picture. And so on through the whole range of our industries. I desired that the great canal works of Canada should be represented, and that, for that purpose, a canal scene should be obtained. One lock is so much like another that hon. gentlemen may have discovered in this picture some likeness to a lock on the American side.


An hon. MEMBER.: Why not take the Trent canal ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: One hon. gentleman suggests that we might takej the Trent canal. I think the Tay canal would suit hon. gentlemen better. But if, to please hon. gentlemen opposite, we were to withdraw the bill and substitute one with a scene on the Tay canal, after it was issued, perhaps there might be difficulty in proving that it was not a representation of some other canal.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: The Minister of Finance is very kind in offering- to alter the vignette on his bill to one of the Tay canal. A picture of that canal might have been published long before that hon. gentleman was born. He seems to think that he can raise some imputation by merely mentioning this canal. I have heard the same thing throughout the country, as if there was something wonderful or wrong about it, or something to be laughed at or sneered at about it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not charge anything.


John Graham Haggart: The Tay canal is a work that was undertaken by a private company and built before the bon. gentleman was born. The charter contained a condition that the government could take the work over at any time. The government did take it over before I was a minister of the Crown and finished it, and it is one of the most important works ever built in Canada. It will compare favourably with 'thirteen or foointeen schemes we voted for last session in the shape of wharfs and buildings for the county of Shelburne. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) who ought to be the watch dog of this administration asked us last session to grant money for fifteen or-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


John Graham Haggart: Yes; last session-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order. The hon. member must not forget that we are now discussing simply the question which has been brought before the House by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett). The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is discussing some other question. The subject under discussion by the House is the printing of the four dollar Dominion bills.


John Graham Haggart: If the Speaker had allowed me, before giving his ruling, I would have put myself perfectly in order. I was going to point out that instead of putting the Tay canal or the Soo canal on these bills, there are fourteen or fifteen public works which are being constructed in the constituency of the Minister of Finance, which could have been selected for the honour, better than either the Tay canal or the Soo canal. If you rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, I have simply to say that with all due deference to your ruling, I was as much in order as was the Minister of Finance. I could proceed to show the reasons why these works in Shelburne county should be used as a vignette on the four dollar bills and circulated from one end of the country to the other. The Minister of Finance talked about the letting of contracts. He is the last man in the House who should refer to that matter. He is the spokesman of a government whose administration of the affairs of this country has been notorious; a government that does not pay the slightest attention either to the law or to their own orders in council in the letting of contracts. He is the last man who should rise in this House to taunt us in reference to contract letting. What has he to say to any contract that has been let in this country by the Conservative government ? They were always let above broad


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
70 J


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, they were
always given to the lowest tenderer, and there was none of that manipulating about them that we see every day under this government, and which is a disgrace to the name of the public men of this country. We see hundreds of thousands of dollars given to favourites-


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Question.


John Graham Haggart: Not even certificates required-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


John Graham Haggart: If I happen to
be out of order, I am merely replying to the remarks of the hon. Minister of Finance. In deference to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, which I believe to be right, I shall say no more.


William Humphrey Bennett: As ten thousand dollars is the standard amount now in vogue with this government, I hope and trust that this issue of four dollar bills will not exceed that amount. And as the Minister of Finance is like the burglar, that all locks look alike to him I suppose it makes little difference so far as he is concerned which lock is on the bill. I trust thait the minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) will immediately withdraw the circulation of these bills, and that he will see the last of his advertisement of the American locks on Dominion notes. After the explanation of the Minister of Finance, I shall withdraw the motion to adjourn the House.
Motion withdrawn.



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. ONESIPHORE TURGEON (Gloucester, N.B.) Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence, and the indulgence of this House, in my attempt, in the discharge of my duty to my constituents, to raise my feeble voice, after the eloquent addresses, strong in argument and lofty in sentiments, which have on different occasions, been delivered in this sanctuary of the people. Truly, from the very opening of this parliament, we have been brought under the influence of noble thoughts, reaching our mind and our heart with a magnetism, as though the great orators of the nineteenth century of Christian civilization, which have come and gone, had told us nothing of the noble virtues which have elevated mankind in the differ-
22 i;j
[Stage Direction]
ent portions of the globe, in which great nations have founded their existence for the expansion of the sentiments of equality, fraternity, justice and charity; sentiments which are above the wealth of trade, above the ambition of commerce, and without Which, commerce, trade and industry can never reach the greatness, can never possess the stability they require for the true, and permanent happiness of the people.
We admired the hon. gentleman who moved the address (Mr. Guthrie) and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Marcil), the seconder; the former in his able statement of the true position of the country under a beneficent prosperity which has settled steadfast in our midst, opening new industries, new avenues of trade, and in the sequel of gigantic financial and commercial operations, procuring the comfort required for domestic happiness in steady employment and increase of wages to our industrial classes. We admired the hon. gentleman for Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil) in his honest declaration of the true feelings of his people, nursing a sincere patriotism, permeated with generous loyalty to all races who, inspired by the sense of gratitude, cherish the one common ambition to live in harmony with other people, for the glory and the expansion of the British nation and of British liberty. That hon. gentleman has, no doubt, heard in his travels on the opposite shores of the bay which separates us, the Acadian fisherman, when the storm has abated, and he feels that he will once more reach his harbour and his fireside, after having sung his cherished hymn, ' Ave Maris Stella,' sing also, in the strain of the same emotion ' God Save the Queen.' We were then, with scarcely any notice, brought to witness the most gratifying spectacle of men of different creeds from all parts of the country, rising from their seats on both sides of this House, rising above party lines, solemnly to express their urgent desire that the only vestige of the bitterness of centuries gone by, should be eliminated from British statutes.
It was then that we admired the bright, generous leader of the opposition who followed the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall), both gentlemen from that happy province where harmony, restored in past centuries, has ever since reigned undisturbed. Their common sentiments, generous feelings are a glorious effect of a long-lived peace and harmony; their mingled aspirations the guarantee of the future. The rich and noble sentiments expressed on that occasion, recalled the days of a great epoch when the appeals, the pathetic appeals to liberty and justice, of Grattan and Curran, of Burke and Pitt, had already softened the heart of the British nation, which was only awaiting the showers of the powerful eloquence of Daniel O'Connell, to melt in a wealthy fusion of the noble sentiments of fraternity, equality, justice, liberty
['At this hour of the night, I presume there will he no desire to proceed with the business in committee, and I beg to move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.']
Mr. TURGEON.: and charity-to the honour of the British nation, and the comfort of the rest of the Christian world, and of Canada in particular.
Mr. Speaker, it seems that I should have ere this made special mention of the eulogy of our moist beloved and regretted Queen Victoria, by the right hon. leader of the government. My reticence, Mr. Speaker, is owing to the fact that dit is a monument which, in the depth of my admiration, a sense of delicacy forbids me to touch. It is a monument which we are better able to contemplate than to describe. Nevertheless, one particular popular passion is stimulated by the consideration of that great speech.
It is the jealousy of the Canadian people, in the depth of their affection, of their admiration of the great sovereign who has been called away, a jealousy which forbids one to believe that another loved her more, admired her more than he did; that one can be more grateful than he for the immense benefactions she has been pleased to pour upon Canada during the happy days of her long and glorious reign. Upon him-the orator of the Canadian people- upon him alone was bestowed the providential gift of a language adequate to his feelings of appreciation of her great Virtues and noble deeds. To each and every one of us belongs the just, undeniable claim to nurse in silence and modesty, the same sentiments of love, of loyalty, of gratitude- the same wishes for the welfare of her empire under the sovereignty of her worthy son and his successors. Oh, Victoria ! you have prayed for your subjects on the day of your coronation, and your prayers have complacently brought down divine blessings upon your territories. Pray yet further from a higher throne, and from this continent of America, from this soil of Canada, the prayers of your French Catholic subjects will meet yours in heaven.
It was under such favourable conditions of peace, harmony, and prosperity, with opening industries, and with trade extending with gigantic strides, that the hon. Minister of Finance was called upon the other day to reveal to the Canadian people the true state of their public affairs. Great things had already been achieved by the hon. gentleman upon whom the duty devolved of looking after our home requirements, and our fiscal and trade relations with other countries. He had reached unprecedented results by his inspired combination of loyalty with figures, by his mingled gratitude and generosity in his compounding of dollars and cents, of pounds, shillings and pence, which was to establish our commercial and trade relations with the mother country.
It has been the good fortune of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when the voice of the people placed in his hands the care of our destinies, realizing his situation, and the expectations of our mingled community, finding that he had
to form a government strong in upright and honest diplomacy, able to cope with the exigencies of the hour, and the requirements of the country, to have called to his assistance men whose well-known talent and ability were already a guarantee to the people, and to have been in a position to distribute to each of them the branch of the administration for which he was particularly well qualified.
It is owing to his intelligent distribution of offices to his colleagues that the country has been in,1 the happy position of contemplating during the last three or four years, a series of eloquent surpluses of revenue over expenditure. I say eloquent surpluses, because they do not give us a mere mathematical subtraction of the amount of expenditure from the larger amount of revenue, but because his figures give us also, in their infallible language, the story of the great prosperity of the country, coupled with an unprecedented increase of trade.
In his budget speech, delivered on the 14th of the month, the hon. Minister of Finance was able to show a surplus of $8,054,714.51. which, added to the two previous surpluses of 1898 and 1899, form a total of surpluses since 1896 of $14,615,075. Deducting from this amount a deficit of $519,981 for the year 1896, partly due to the Conservative administration, we have a net amount of surpluses of $14,095,144 over the ordinary expenditure of the government.
During the last year the government have had to meet large expenses on capital account. They have had to provide for an amount of $7,468,843 for public works, government railways, railway subsidies, subsidy to the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. Notwithstanding all this expenditure, the public debt, instead of being increased, has been decreased by $779,639. The net debt of Canada on June 39, 1899, was $286,273,440, while the net debt on .Tune 30, 1900, was $265,493,S06.
Besides this extraordinary state of affairs for the past years during the administration of the present government, the Minister of Finance also declares to us that in his calculations for the current year, he expects a revenue of $52,750,000. and a probable expenditure of $46,400,000. He is, therefore, in a position to expect, at the end of the current exercise, another surplus of $6,350,000. His happy calculations of the past are a guarantee for his future expectations.
Now, having considered the history of the revenues and the expenditures during the term of the administration, the intelligent citizen of Canada naturally turns his attention to the state of the public debt under the same administration. This administration has only been in existence for four fiscal years, and bere is w'hait the intelligent citizen finds. He finds that the increase of the national debt has been :
In 1896-7	 $3,041,163
" 1897-8	 2,417,802
" 1898-9	 2,317,047
In 1899-1900, the public debt lias been reduced by $779,000. So, the total increase during the four years has been $S,9S6,373, which is an average yearly increase of $1,749,000 for the four years.
Our intelligent citizen will then turn his attention to the trade of the country, to the growth of this trade, and the increase which he anticipates to a certain extent by the happy methods of our farmers, the happy turn of our mechanics, the jubilant feelings of our traders. He looks at the amount of the trade in 1897, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier established his tariff for revenue, after having lowered the tariff on 157 articles of importation. He finds that the volume of our trade in 1896 was $239,000.000, and he finds that four years later, at the end of the last fiscal year, it had reached the amount of $381,000,000, an increase of $142,000,000 in four years only, or an average yearly increase of $35,500,000.
He finds that our farmers are doing more business and making more money. For he finds also by the budget speech that during the last three years the exportations of the products of our farms to foreign markets have increased by $54,000,000.
The intelligent Canadian citizen will go further in his investigations, and he will inquire into the rate of taxation. The Hon. Minister of Finance by his budget speech shows that, taking as a basis the importations for consumption and duties imposed upon them, the proportion of duties *collected in 1896 was 19 "28 per cent, while the proportion of duties collected in 1900, was only 15U8 per cent, or a difference of 2-30 per cent, or one-eighth of all taxes.
But, Mr. Speaker, our opponents claim that if we have surpluses, we also have increased the public debt, and that the Conservative party, in the first years of their administration, likewise had surpluses. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), speaking on this subject the other night, referred in eulogistic terms, to the Conservative administration under the late Sir Leonard Tilley. Sir Leonard Tilley, he said, had in 1883 a surplus of $6,316,000, and in 1884 had come before parliament with another surplus of $7,064,492, or, as the hon. member for Pictou makes it, a total of $8,073,492. That achievement, said the hon. gentleman, had eclipsed the brilliant record which our present Finance Minister was able to lay before parliament on the 14th instant.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not behind the hon. gentleman in my admiration of the late Sir Leonard Tilley, for I know well the patriotic sentiments and tender feelings of this distinguished statesman, of whom the province of New Brunswick is proud. But for all that, I can hardly believe that had

Sir Leonard Tilley continued in office he would have been able to repeat these surpluses. On the contrary, I do not believe that he could have avoided the deficits which his successors had to face, unless perhaps he could have shown himself possessed of a stronger power of resistance to the clamours and pressure of the manufacturers.
But, Mr. Speaker, surpluses of similar amounts may have been produced under dissimilar circumstances. Surpluses may be produced by different causes, and with different effects.
We have seen the circumstances under which the surpluses of our present Minister of Finance have been arrived at. Under a state of unexampled prosperity, and unexampled increase of trade, an increase of trade which has leaped in four years from $239,000,000 to $381,000,000. Our present surpluses have been brought about by an immense increase of trade following a general decrease" of tariff. Our present tariff is so framed as to open new markets, foreign markets to the products of the country, and above all to the products of the farmer which have proved an increase in the foreign markets only of $54,000,000 during the last four years. In a state of prosperity, and with plenty of money, our people have imported more largely. An immense amount of importation of goods has followed, producing a corresponding increase of revenue, while the percentage of taxation has been decreased by one-eighth, or more, as I have already stated.
But, Mr. Speaker, under what circumstances did the Conservative party raise their surpluses ? Were their surpluses the sequel of a large increase of trade in the country ? Decidedly no. For we find that during the eighteen years of Conservative administration the volume of our trade, which was $203,000,000 in 1880, had only reached $239,000,000 in 1896, a total increase in sixteen years of thirty-six millions, or an average yearly increase of $2,250,000. Whereas our trade increased by $142,000,000 in four years, their trade increased by thirty-six millions in sixteen years.
What then was the cause of their surpluses ? Their surpluses were due, therefore, to an increase of taxation upon the same amount of trade. They were due to an increase of tariff upon the same amount of imports. The taxable power [DOT] of the country was drained, and the surpluses of the first few years were necessarily followed by a series of deficits, which their financiers were impotent to redeem or to stop.
But our adversaries will tell us again : ' You have increased the public debt.' Our reply is simple. The public debt during the four years of the administration of our friends has received a total increase of $6,986,373, or an average yearly increase of Mr. TURGEON.
$1,746,593, while the returns of the Conservative administration show an average yearly increase of over $6,500,000 during the sixteen years of their administration.
Our hon. friends opposite lay considerable stress on the government continuing, instead of decreasing expenditure, and reducing the public debt. Well, we all know that while there is no desire on the part of our people to see the public debt increase, they are too intelligent not to understand that we must first see that the commerce of the country, our avenues of commerce, and our facilities for expansion, are improved as much as possible. I have the honour to represent the constituency of Gloucester in which there is a mixed population. In 1896 the people of that county had not yet gained confidence in the Liberal party, but after four years experience of the administration of this government, they gave expression to their confidence in the present policy and administration, by returning me by a majority of 1,000 votes but four, although I had been defeated in 1898. This is proof positive of the satisfaction of the people of that county, at any rate, with the present order of things, and I am convinced that it is not their desire that the government should neglect the wants of the country in order to reduce the public debt. We believe in a policy of opening up new avenues of trade, of improving our facilities for the transportation of grain from the west, and I have seen with pleasure, during the last few days, hon. members opposite, joining with the supporters of the government in voting millions of dollars for the improvements of the .great harbours and lakes and seaports of this country. We have voted and are prepared to vote liberally for such improvements.
The Department of Fisheries is one which has also been well looked after by the present government. I say it in all sincerity that the present government has shown every interest in the requirements of the fisheries and in looking after the wants of our fishermen, engaged in that most arduous of pursuits, and who contribute so largely to the revenues of the country.
I have been in a position to see the results of some of the expenditures for the improvement of our harbours and to provide protection for the fishermen of my own and neighbouring counties. But the further attention of the government is required in that direction. The chief pursuit of my constituents is in the deep-sea fishery. The government cannot pay too serious attention to the requirements of that hardy and industrious class. We have seen with pleasure the introduction by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in various counties of the maritime provinces of the system of bait refrigeration. I hope that the hon. minister will not slacken in his efforts until that
system is established along the whole coast of the maritime provinces and in the counties of Gaspe and Bonaventure, in the neighbouring province of Quebec. The system will prove of great benefit, not merely to the fishermen,%by saving their time, but to the country at large, through the increased catch the fishermen will be able to procure during the season. Much time is now lost in looking after bait. Our fishermen, returning at the end of the week, must occupy a great part of Monday in securing fresh bait. With the new system, they will be able to attend to the fishing alone, while their sons will be able to look after the procuring of the bait and seasoning it ready for the use of the fishermen when they are ready to start out on Monday morning. I should he derelict in my duty if I did not commend this improvement with the strongest words at my command, on this first occasion of my addressing this honourable House, or, indeed, addressing any audience except my own people, among whom I have lived for thirty years, and whom I am accustomed to address in the language of my heart and without the difficulty I find in using the English tongue. X hope the government will continue to have at heart the interests of our fishermen. During the four years of their administration, this government has done much by the construction of breakwaters and wharfs to protect not only the property but the lives of our fishermen. While speaking on this subject, I cannot but refer to the great storm of the 13th of September last, when thirty-seven of our most useful citizens, noble, generous sons, and faithful husbands and worthy fathers, whose sole ambition was to work for the Christian education of their children, true representatives of that simple spirit of Christianity which has always prevailed in that community, fell victims to the fury of the waves. But, while we were compelled to witness a spectacle, which, perhaps, a man could not endure to see twice in a lifetime, we had the consolation of knowing that, owing to the improvements made by the government, owing to the deepening of the channel, instead of being compelled to go twenty-five or fifty miles around Miscou Island, many fishermen were able to make the harbour and so find shelter and safety, where otherwise they must inevitably have shared the death of their comrades. Some sixty or seventy-five men who would have lost their lives on that memorable day were able to enter the harbour. Fifteen minutes later and they must have perished. While I ask the government to continue their attention to the interests of the fishermen of the maritime provinces, I should fail in my duty if I did not express the thanks of my people to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and also to the Minister of Public Works for the construction of break-waters and other improvements to facilitate the
work of our fishermen and protect their lives and property.
Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to claim so long the attention of this honourable House. But I feel that I have one more duty to perform before I can take my seat and before I can return to my constituents. As the first French-speaking member who has had the honour to raise his voice in this parliament since the noble utterance of the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) the other evening as to the position of the French Canadians and the Liberal party and his splendid eulogy of our beloved leader. I cannot but express my sincere thanks, my appreciation and admiration of his noble words for the encouragement of the French Canadian population. I shall not attempt to speak for the French Canadians of the province of Quebec. They will, no doubt, express their views at the first opportunity. But, as the only French-speaking member from the maritime provinces who will address the House in this debate-as my hon. friend from Ivent, N.B. (Mr. LeBlanc). X understand, will not have the opportunity, as the debate must close in a few hours- I must speak on behalf of my fellow-French Acadians. Knowing their sentiments, knowing their gratitude for British institutions and the treatment they have received under those institutions, I must thank the Minister of Customs for his eloquent expression of the feeling which I know he entertains and to .assure him that the good feeling which has so long existed will be improved and strengthened by his noble and eloquent words. He has*. I am sure, by those words, endeared himself to every French Acadian. The harmony that was restored centuries ago still remains undisturbed, and the sentiments expressed by the Minister of Customs are cherished in the hearts of my people. From this day, I know, we shall be able to contemplate with joy and hope the fact that we have six 'millions of souls from the Atlantic to the Pacific, French Canadian, French Acadian, English, Scotch, and Irish-Catholics and Protestants-working together for the welfare of the community, devoted to the prosperity of the country, united by a spirit of Christian brotherhood and with faith in the future of Canada under British institutions. X must say also that the words of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) are greatly appreciated by the French Acadians of the maritime provinces, and that owing to the sentiments expressed by that hon. gentleman and by the Minister of Customs, the French Acadians will be more essentially British in the future than in the past. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. members of this House for the patient hearing that has been accorded me.


Mr. JAMES ICENDRY (West Peterborough).: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I have | not been able to follow the hon. gentleman

(Mr. Turgeon) as closely as I would like. In the few remarks that I am about to make I Intend to confine myself almost exclusively to the effects of the preferential tariff on the woollen industry of this country. As a practical woollen manufacturer of over .thirty-five years, I may be supposed to know something about the conditions governing that industry in this country.
The capital employed in the woollen mills of Canada amounts to about $15,000,000 to $20,000,000, and employ over 12,000 hands, and has at least 60,000 people directly dependent upon it. Now, who are these people ? They are the sons and daughters of our hardy industrious pioneers, their fathers have helped to build up this great Dominion, they have been taxed for its development, they have struggled to provide schools for their children and fit them for good citizenship ; and I contend that they have been successful, for in no country under the sun. not even in the United States, can we find a more intelligent, more industrious, more progressive class of people than the woollen and cotton operatives of Canada. These are the citizens that this government, with the preferential tariff, is surely and certainly going to drive out of our borders to seek homes and a livelihood in the United States -a country that at least knows the value of protecting its markets for its own people.
Last session the woollen manufacturers had an interview with the government, and we pointed out exactly what is happening to-day. We pointed out that a large number of our best operatives were leaving, and would continue to leave for the United States. Within the last seven weeks 1 know of seven mills in this country, in one of which I am interested myself, who have had to discharge 50 hands, and within the next three or four weeks they are liable to be shut up altogether for some time. On the floor of this House ou March 30tli, 1000, the Minister of Customs pointed with pride to the increased importation of goods under the preferential tariff ; he gave a list of the imports of eighteen of the largest industries of Great Britain to Canada. Had the hon. gentleman stopped for a moment to consider, or had he cared to consider, he would have seen in that statement of his a very startling fact. He would have seen, Sir, that 56 per cent of the whole increase was made up of woollens and cottons, woollens alone furnishing 38 per cent of the total increase, thus leaving the remaining 44 per cent to be divided amongst sixteen other Industries. He would also have found that it took thirteen of the industries to make up the value of the importation in woollens alone. But I will put these figures a little plainer. Of all the goods imported in 1900 under the preferential tariff, about 30 per cent were woollen goods. In round numbers, about $7,000,000 worth of woollens were imported out of the whole $28,000,000. Now,


James Kendry: is it any wonder that men who have invested capital, in woollen manufactures are very much discontented with the operation of the preferential tariff ? As I have already mentioned, it is driving a large number of our best employees out of this country to the United States. Would it not seem to be a wiser policy, Mr. Speaker, for this government to endeavour to keep at home our own Canadians instead of letting them go away to the south ; instead of spending large sums of money to bring in Doukhobors and other people of that class ? Our government spend half a million dollars a year to bring in immigrants, and still pursue a policy that drives away our own native born Canadians. I have a letter saying that last week some 80 or 90 left the village of Hespeler alone, they have gone to the United States, and in a short time they will probably send for tlieir families. Now, we must say for the United States that they are careful to look after their own people, and in that respect we might take a lesson from them. I want to show you exactly what this policy will do in so far as the labouring men are concerned. 1 have always wanted to see the workingmen well paid, but we do not want to see them put on the same level as the workingmen of Great Britain. No man in this country wants to see our employees treated as they are in England.
Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I had better name to you those thirteen industries which I mentioned a moment ago. They are : Drugs, dyes and chemicals ; flax, hemp and jute manufactures ; glass and its manufactures ; machinery and other iron and steel manufactures ; soaps, oils, paints and colours ; paper and its manufactures ; pickles, sauces and capers ; earthenware and china-ware ; fancy goods, hats and caps ; leather and its manufactures. Now, out of these thirteen industries, woollens alone are affected, that is the industry that this preference is especially going to strike.
Now, I claim that it not only affects the woollen industry but it affects wool. In the North-west they are beginning to grow as fine a quality of wool as is to be found in any part of the world, and we are now brought under a policy which compels us to close our mills to their wool. Just when they are getting to the point where they can produce any quantity of wool for their own market, they find their own market being shut to them. This preferential tariff policy also affects the towns all over the country where woollen industries are established. gome of these towns have given bonuses to the woollen factories, and possibly exemption from taxation. Let me state here that four years ago I condemned in the strongest terms the policy of giving a preference to any other country but Canada. I stand in this House as a Canadian, and support Canadian Interests. I was

born and brought up in Canada, and I say that we have no right to give any other country a preference to the detriment of our own people. If you want to build up this country you have got to do it on broader lines than the government are pursuing, we must build it up on the lines of our own interests. Surely our workingmen have *vested rights in this country as well as capitalists. Those operating in our woollen mills usually occupy their own houses, they have social, pecuniary and political interests in this country, which the government ought to respect. Some time ago, when I was mayor of the town of Peterborough,
I remember that many manufacturers were talking of locating there, but they were always afraid of the Liberals getting into power, knowing that if they did a Liberal government would probably pass legislation that would jeopardize their capital.
In 189G, the right lion, the Prime Minister came to Peterborough and stated on the public platform that the manufacturer of this country would not be disturbed, and that vested rights had no cause to fear the advent of the Liberals to power. Let me ask this House, if the Prime Minister has been true to his promise. What position does he occupy to-day ? I have been nearly five years a member of this House, and never hoard the policy of the Liberal party defined until the last ten days, when the Prime Minister and his supporters told us what they thought about it. I had always believed that the policy of this government was on the principal of the o'ld national policy, and for my part I found it hard to discover where the line was drawn. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) has also spoken, and lie has announced what he thinks the Liberal policy is. Well, Sir. we know what his opinions on fiscal questions were in former years, we know that he stated that if he got into power he would remove the last vestige of protection from the manufactures of Canada. We did not expect much from that hon. gentleman, and. at least to some extent, we have not been disappointed. The Prime Minister, in the course of his speech, said :
It wc impose a duty of 25 per cent on articles of any kind, it is manifest that the manufacturers of similar goods in this country must have the benefit of that 25 per cent.
That statement shows how very little the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) knows about the trade of this country. It is well known that in countries where goods are manufactured, certain goods are sold cheaper for export than they are sold in the country of manufacture. I myself know some gentlemen in this House who buy machinery in the United States, and they can buy for export to Canada cheaper than the people of the United States can buy exactly the same goods in their own coun-1
try. It is the same way in England, and, therefore, although we may have Z5 per cent, it is not 25 per cent on the real value of the goods. As a matter of fact, we do not even get our old protection to-day, simply because they sell job goods, or ' seconds,' for this country. Therefore, we have not the protection we should have. This government should take means to appoint some competent authority to adjust the value of the goods imported into Canada. As a matter of fact, we do not know what the duty is to-day, because at one port they collect one duty' and at another port another duty. There should be appraisers in each town, as is the case in the United States, and no matter whether they are job goods or seconds or anything else, they should pay duty under the regular tariff and at their full proper price.
Now, the provinces most directly affected by the preferential tariff are the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, which are the largest manufacturing provinces in the Dominion. And while I speak with particular reference to the woollen industry, I wish to say, that although other industries are less affected by the preference, yet, all our industries must be injured to a greater or less extent. The great question with us in the woollen industry is the question of labour, and the more labour we put on our goods the further we get away from competition with England. We pay our workmen in Canada from 50 to 75 per cent higher wages than they pay them in England, and hon. gentlemen will see at once to what extent we are handicapped in this respect. I believe that it is impossible for us to reduce our wages in Canada, because we have a high protectionist country to the south of us, and high class labour will not stay in Canada unless it is paid about the current wages in the United States. We. therefore, cannot get as cheap labour in Canada as they have in England. I have some experience in this matter. Sir. because I visited some large manufacturing establishments in England, and I state here that I, as a Canadian manufacturer, never wish to see Canadian workmen in as poorly paid a position as are the workmen of England. Therefore, if we have to compete with English goods under this preferential tariff, it is absolutely certain that we will have to reduce the wages of our workmen, or else close up our manufacturing establisments. As a matter of fact, I do not see anything else for it than to close our places up. This, of course, would be a hard blow to Canadians who have their money invested in the woollen industry, hut it will bear harder still on the thousands of workingmen who are engaged in Canadian woollen factories. The importation of low woollen goods is going on by leaps and bounds since the total preferential tariff came into force in July last. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have argued time and again that a tariff

was not made to suit one class of individuals above another, but, Sir, in face of the above facts, can you not see that this preferential clause is aimed directly and almost entirely against the woollen operatives and manufacturers of this country, and directly and largely in favour of the woollen manufacturers of Great Britain. Just consider, $8,933,000 worth of woollen goods imported in one year into a market of something less than 6,000,000 of a population, or nearly one dollar and a half's worth for every man, woman and child in the whole Dominion.
I would ask what share can there be left for our own woollen mills, or what prospect can there be of this industry holding out against such a competition ? During the last election, the hon. the Minister of Labour went up and down this country proclaiming himself to be the apostle of labour, the friend of the workingman. He was introduced as such at a public meeting held in Peterborough, and the workingman's vote was solicited on the strength of this new portfolio in the interests of labour. Where is he now ? Is he to speak on behalf of the 12,000 operatives ? Is there one member on the government side of this House who is independent enough to speak a word in favour of so arranging this fatal tariff that this industry may be saved for the country ?
We have a Minister of Labour in Canada -at least I heard we had such a minister during the last election-but I have heard little about him since, and I wonder where he is to-day. I assume that he is on his way to Australia, but nobody seems to have been appointed to take his place in the cabinet. I wonder the Minister of Labour did not interfere when the government decided to embark in this policy of giving this preference to England, because there is no doubt that labour in Canada will be greatly injured by it. This preference will undoubtedly be the means of injuring not only the woollen industry, but other industries throughout Canada, because you cannot injuriously affect one without injuring all. There are other considerations which enter into the woollen industry of Canada which, perhaps, the government do not pay heed to. Let us take the plant which is required for carrying on that industry. We will say that the plant of a mill cost $130,000 in Canada. That plant in England would be worth only $100,000, because we have to pay the duty and freight here. There is $30,000 more that a Canadian woollen mill has to invest in its industry at the start, and besides that, our coal cost's more in Canada, the interest on our money is more, and the cost of our labour is higher than in England. I believe. Sir, that there are any number of manufacturers who will bear me out in the statement, that if we could put down the cost of labour in Canada to what it is in England, we could compete Mr. KENDRY.
with the English manufacturers to-day. But, Sir, I never want to see labour in Canada as poorly paid as It is in England. However, this preferential tariff is bound to militate against the interests of labour in Canada, and I have no doubt that when the next four years come around the government will have some trouble with their own supporters to keep them in line on this question. I understood the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Boss) to say that he had a hosiery concern in his constituency, and that they were perfectly satisfied with the present conditions. I hardly think the hon. gentleman is right in that. But, was it not inconsistent on the part of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boss) to announce that he was a free trader all his life, and at the same time to tell us that he is in favour of the bounty system, which is about the most drastic form of protection that can be imagined. I, for my part, Mr. Speaker, am in favour of giving a bounty or adopting any other fiscal policy which will tend to strengthen the industries of this country, but I do not believe in helping out one industry at the expense of another. I often think that if we had our woollen mills located in Nova Scotia we would be a good deal better off than we are, and that, perhaps, if we moved down in the neighbourhood of Sydney, this government might give us a bounty, the same as they have done to the iron and steel men.
There has been a good deal of talk in this House about the beet-root sugar industry. The Ontario government have granted a bonus to that industry, but when the farmers of Ontario, who can grow beet roots as well as in any other part of the world, asked this government to grant them a bounty, the government declined to come to their assistance. I always understood from gentlemen opposite that the farmers were their special care, but now we see that the government allow the farmers to get out of their difficulties as well as they can, while they render all the assistance in their power to the iron and steel manufacturers.
Now in reference to the position taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Bichard Cartwright), we all know that in 1896 those of us who were candidates in Ontario never heard of that hon. gentleman then. I understood that the Liberal party repudiated him altogether in my riding. They said they did not want to have anything to do with him, and he was not seen in any of the constituencies.


William Humphrey Bennett: Oh, yes, he was in Lincoln.


James Kendry: I did not know he was in Lincoln. I may say that that hon. gentleman visited the town of Peterborough, where I live, and he got there the same kind of reception that he gets all over the country. His friends had engaged the
opera house and. hired a brass band, and I think all they could muster to meet him was about seventy-five. He thought it was a cold jilace, and he left it for other parts.
The Minister of Customs the other evening said this :
I may state here that when we introduced the preferential tariff. It was entirely out of love to Great Britain, and losing sight of every other consideration.
The hon. gentleman was satisfied to give the capital and the labour of this country to England, for that is exactly what this government are doing with their preferential tariff. They are willing that our employees should leave the country, and that the labour on the goods which come in should be done in Huddersfield, Birmingham, and the woollen centres of England. That is exactly our condition to-day. I understand that this parliament is here to legislate in the interest of the people of Canada, and not in the interest of the manufacturers of England.
I think we were told by the Minister of Customs the other evening that the woollen manufacturers should go home and work harder and eat less, and that they should be more alive. Well, I consider that the woollen manufacturers of this country are just about as much alive as the man who makes biscuits. The biscuit manufacturer has double the protection that the woollen manufacturer has. The hon. gentleman made the statement that there was only 25 per cent on biscuits, but the fact is that there is 274 per cent. Besides, he gets his raw material, his flour, in this country, and his labour is largely wind, or something of that kind, while the woollen manufacturer has to import his raw material from other countries. I did not intend to allude to any personal matter, but it was brought on'by the Minister of Customs himself. I want to say, so far as that gentleman is concerned, that he is looking after the biscuit industry of this country, if he is not looking after the woollen industry.
So far as the preferential tariff is concerned, I hold that this government are doing a great injustice to the towns of Canada. In the town of Peterborough, as in other towns, we have done everything we could, in the way of exemption from taxes and otherwise, to have manufactories located there. The object was to build up our town. And after the people of this country, both in Ontario and Quebec, have given all the encouragement they could, in exemption from taxation, in buildings and lands in some cases, for the promotion of manufacturing, this government comes forward and takes it all away. In my place in this House, I want to denounce in the strongest terms the preferential tariff of this government.
We had the minister without portfolio from Quebec (Mr. Dobell), saying the other
day that the people of Quebec were perfectly satisfied with the tariff. I understood him to say that the shoe industry of Quebec was perfectly satisfied with it. Did he say that ?


Hon. Mr. DOBELL.: No, I did not.


James Kendry: Well, I will read what the hon. gentleman did say. I want to show his position, because I understand that in Quebec there is an industry suffering greatly under this tariff, and I want to get him right. He said :
I claim tor the present government of Canada that they have passed a resolution by which the products of Great Britain are admitted in the rate of their tariff at 12S per cent, and next year at 25 per cent reduction. This we have done, not asking any compensation. There is a class of our fellow-citizens who ask that all such concessions should be made for a quid pro quo. The Canadian government has ignored such sentiments. We have done it because we owe a debt of gratitude to Great Britain. We have done it because it is no intention of ours to disturb in any way the system of free trade which has done so much for England.
I understand that the hon. gentleman is a free trader. We want to know where he stands.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to put myself right so far as the preferential tariff Is concerned. I do not speak for my leader in this House; I am quite satisfied with his resolution; but in what I say, I am speaking for myself, and I condemn in the strongest terms any preference to any other country. That is my position to-day.


Richard Reid Dobell: May I say a word in explanation ? What the hon. gentleman quoted a few moments ago was what Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated on his arrival in Liverpool. I gave it as a quotation, and I was very proud of it as coming from the lips of a Canadian.


James Kendry: And you agreed with it ?


Richard Reid Dobell: Entirely.


James Kendry: That is the same thing. Now. I want to say to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the premier of this country that 1 consider that these gentlemen have done a great injustice to this country. In 1S70 and 1877 I was in the manufacturing business. We all remember the deputations which came here to interview the government at that time; we know how those deputations were received; and I want to say that the deputations of manufacturers who come here to-day to wait on this government are received in exactly the same way. It has been said in this House that we do-not want any tinkering with the tariff; hut these gentlemen, ever since they came

into office, have been tinkering with the tariff. They first gave a preference of 12i per cent, then they altered it to 25 per cent, and afterwards they altered it to one-third. What is that but tinkering with the tariff ? I want to say that no man is warranted in going into manufacturing in this country to-day under this tariff. I would not invest one dollar in manufacturing in this country, with such a preference against me. If we owe England anything, let us pay it, no matter what it is-whether it is one million or two million dollars. But I say it is not fair to this country that the government should give this preference, not to England-we are not giving it to England-but to the manufacturers of Yorkshire. I say it is a matter of vested rights in this country; but it seems that we have no vested rights in this country which this government is not willing to legislate away.
Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand a letter, part of which I intend to read to the House. I understand that the Prime Minister has received a copy of it. I mav say that it comes from the manufacturers' of this country as a whole, and not from any individual manufacturer. It is as follows :


Hon.  W. S.@: Fielding,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-I beg to inclose herewith a paragraph taken from last week's Journal of Fabrics, showing the imports of woollen and worsted fabrics as compared with last year. You will notice a startling increase for the month of January, nearly 40 per cent, in woollen fabrics, and over 35 per cent in worsted fabrics. You will note also that there is a falling off in all other textile exports from Great Britain to Canada, except carpets, which is slightly increased, about 10 per cent.
When we interviewed you in Ottawa we told you that the 331 preferential rate had not fully gotten into operation, and that we should feel it when the spring imports were received. Our worst fears are more than realized. Our future looks desperate. Surely there is some way in which you can afford relief. There were over fifty employees discharged at the Auburn mills Peterboro', last week. Fifty more will be laid off this week, as the orders are being completed and no new orders coming in. During the past month we have discharged over 200 employees at Hespeler alone. Lomas's mill at Almonte, has completely closed down, and other mills are running on short time. The repeat orders for spung are of such small character, and coming in so slowly that it looks as though there would not be in six months from now 25 per cent of the woollen machinery in operation that there was in July of last year. I cannot think that you will allow that condition of affairs to continue. It is a case of life and death with us and matters should not be allowed to drift along until next year. Our help will be scattered I am informed by Mr. Brodie that forty-seven men left Hespeler last week for the United States. They left their families behind until they obtained work, when they propose to send for them. Our machinery will be lying idle and getting out of condition. Fixed charges will be running on, and there will be a very


James Kendry: ruinous loss of capital before the end of this year. Our general manager informs us that owing to the state of his orders he will be obliged to discharge over 200 more persons by the 10th April, which will leave only 400 at the mill, where we employed up to quite recently 800. I fear you do not. realize the serious condition of the woollen industry and the danger it is in of being completely extinguished.
Woollen machinery is only fit for making woollen goods, and buildings are erected especially for the convenience of manufacturing woollens. It is all very well for people who have no practical knowledge of these things to say with a light heart-as many members of parliament do in their speeches-* why not turn your attention to something else?' Well, when everything one has got is invested in an enterprise, what can he turn his attention to? It requires capital and experience to embark in any manufacturing enterprise. Our capital is invested in the woollen industry, and our experience is in the manufacturing of woollen goods. I venture to say that you do realize that the woollen industry is the only one that has been hit, and hit hard, and I may say, without the slightest exaggeration, is on the brink of ruin by the operation of the preferential tariff.
We do not object to the preference to Great Britain, we are prepared to support it, but the tariff should be so arranged that we should be put on an equality with the Lancashire manufacturers.
I can assure you that the situation is really serious, and the financial institutions who are supporting the various large woollen industries -what I mean by supporting Is discounting their paper and making them advances-are becoming seriously alarmed. If they withdraw their confidence and refuse to continue to make advances, the mills will have to close down, and that is just what is in sight, I fear.
It looks to us, and to a great many of the members of the House, that the woollen industry has been singled out for the severest competition, not only by reason of the peculiar advantage of British manufacturers of woollens, but by reason of the extent to which German goods are smuggled into Canada through Great Britain under pretense of partial manufacture in England. You will note that the several departments of the textile trade are relatively untouched by the preferential tariff. The silk trade, the linen trade, the jute trade, and the cotton trade all appear to be exempt from the severe competition suffered by the woollen mills.
I greatly regret to say that many members of the House I have spoken with do not vote as they talk, as I have been assured by many of them, including some members of the cabinet, that they were protectionists, and that we ought to have some relief; but they vote the other way when relief is asked for. I hate to put it in that way, but it is a true statement of the case.
In making this appeal I do so in the hope that the facts already before you, and the additional information contained therein will be fully and fairly considered by the government and that something will be done for us this session.
I have nothing more to say, Mr. Speaker, on this question except to express again the hope that the government will see its way to afford some relief to this very important industry.


Mr. R. SMITH (Vancouver).: Mr. Speaker, as a new member in this House, I deemed it more fitting that I should, during this, my first session, sit very quietly in the House and take in all that was happening around me. And therefore, on this occasion, I shall not take up the time of hon. members except for a very few moments.
Indeed I should not have risen were it not for certain arguments presented by some hon. gentlemen opposite on the question under discussion, on which I considered it necessary that, on account of the position I occupy, I should say a few words. The position is taken by these hon. gentlemen to whom I have referred, that the protection of the manufacturing industries of this country necessarily implies the prosperity of the labouring classes-that to have, for instance, the wheels of the woollen factories constantly revolving is always an evidence of the prosperity of the industrial classes. That proposition was started very strongly by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock), the hon member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), and the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Kendry). These hon. gentlemen all strove hard 'to impress this House and country with the idea that they are supporters of a high protective tariff, not merely on account of the manufacturers themselves, but more especially on account of the labouring men. That, Mr. Speaker, is the same old argument that was set up against the principles of Cobden and Bright. The argument set up in England, when the repeal of the principle of protection was brought about in that country, was the same that these hon. gentlemen have advanced, and as a representative, interested more particularly in the industrial classes from an organized standpoint, I wish to state that I do not believe at all in the principle which (these hon. gentlemen have enunciated.
With reference to the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), I desire to say that I have taken a very great interest in that hon. gentleman. I have sat very quietly in this House, being anxious to learn, and to make haste slowly and see my way ahead, and have been very much interested, particularly in the hon. gentleman from East York. I was interested more particularly in what he said on the question before the House, and I will tell you why ? I thought that the position which he then took is very different to the strong and persistent one which he has hitherto taken. The hon. gentleman, previous to this debate, constantly advocated the claims of the people, as opposed to corporations and trusts, and took every occasion to bring to our attention the importance of guarding the interests of the people against these institutions, and I had
come to the conclusion that the position which the hon. gentleman took, so far as it could be made practicable, was deserving of my support. But what do we find in this debate ? I find that he is just taking the opposite course, and is doing his best to apply the principles of protection in favour of those very corporations and trusts, whose existence he had hitherto considered a menace.


William Findlay Maclean: I am working on behalf of the manufacturers and the Canadian workingmen.


Ralph Smith: I will prove before I get through that the hon. gentleman never mentioned the producers at all, but that the whole of his plea was for the manufacturers. On the one hand, he comes repeatedly before this House, advocating the interests of the people, in the shape of government ownership and control of industries. On the other hand, he comes on the floor of this House and asks the people of this coutnry to tax themselves in favour of that same class.


William Findlay Maclean: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Findlay Maclean: I wish to put the hon. gentleman right, and I hope he will allow me to do so.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman does not want to be put right.


Ralph Smith: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) described himself as an out-and-out protectionist.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear-for Canadian labour.


Ralph Smith: The hon. gentleman never mentioned labour. He said he was a strong believer in government interference and in the authority of government. I believe-and I am glad to say it- that I also believe in the control of government. I believe that the political tendency of our time is to place greater authority in .the hands of the government and to make greater demands upon the government. But I take a different view of that question from that taken by the hon. member for East York. I believe in government interference for the weak against the strong, for the poor against the rich, for the masses against the few. And when the hon. gentleman advocates so persistently the principle of protection for the manufacturers, in my opinion it is not possible for him to render the best service to the workers of this country. There can be nothing in common between the call for high protection to the manufacturers end the demand for benefit for industrial classes.

The two principles are altogether opposite. The man who works for wages in the factory does not sell the products of the factory. If the competition is lessened in favour of the owners of the factory, and they are thus enabled to raise prices, how can the industrial classes be benefited ? The article produced by the labourer must be bought by the labourer as well as by others, and, if the price of the article is raised and the price of labour is not raised, by what course of reasoning is it to be shown that he is benefited ?
The hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) took the same position as the hon. member for East York, and the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) put up a strong plea in favour of the same position as that taken by the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Kendry)-in fact, both those gentlemen read the self same letters. All these hon. members put in a strong plea in favour of the industrial classes of this country, and have tried to show that if no greater protection is given to the manufacturers, the labouring men will have to move to the other side of the line. As I say, that is the old argument. But I do not at all believe that, when hon. gentlemen come to this House and seek special favour in the way of protecting their industries, the position of the industrial labourer is present to their minds at all. It is not with them a question how much the labourer should get; it is a question how large the profit of their particular industry should be. The whole history of the agitation of capital for the benefits of protection is a history of benefit to the capitalists themselves, without any reference to the condition of the labourer. Let 11s look for a few moments at the history of the case and consider some of the countries that are most highly protected. And here again, I wish to make some reference to the hon. member for East York, because he spoke on this line. Take the case of the United States. There you have an ideal country for the working of a protection system. If ever the principle of high protection could work out beneficially to a people, it would work out in favour of the people of the United States. You have there a country containing withiu its borders the greatest variety of natural wealth in the world-a country that produces everything necessary for the sustenance of life. That is a country where, if anywhere, they could afford to build a wall around their industries. And what is the condition of labour in the United States ? Has the protective principle, which has so greatly benefited certain capitalists, benefited correspondingly the producers and industrial labourers ? Mr. Speaker, the condition of the labour market in the United States in the most aggravated of any country in the world. It is beyond dispute that there are more strikes, more disturbances, greater difficulties in the way Mr. SMITH (Vancouver).
of industrial labour demanding a fair share of the product, there is more trouble and labour agitation in the United States, that highly protected country, than in any other country in the world. There is a greater combination of capital on the part of the workingmen, there is a stronger and more powerful organization of trades unionism than elsewhere, and there is constant agitation amongst the industrial labourers of that country to secure something like a reasonable share of the produce of their labour. In the United States they have an ideal condition for protection ; in the United States they have strikes, they have bloodshed, they have constant trouble and agitation, they have the militia sent to put down men, and women, and sometimes, even the children, as against the honest agitator who goes out to claim his rights. Can it be said that protection has benefited the American labourer or that he gets a greater share of the produce of his industry on account of protection ? Not at all. Now, let ns take the converse of all this-let us take the case of England. There you have a free trade country. Now, I am not advocating free trade for this country. I came from England a few years ago. I am glad to say that while I was there, I always found myself on the side of the reform movement of that country. However, I have observed conditions sufficiently to discover that it is not possible to carry out that free trade principle in this new and undeveloped country. I think that the government has the right ideal-a tariff for revenue. There is in that a tremendous force of protection. What is the condition of the labouring man in England ? A great deal has been said by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) about the labourer in England-and I am going to deal with that subject a little later on. The labouring men in England have greater numbers in their organizations and have greater benefits by legislation than they have in the United States. The legislation in favour of the industrial classes in England has some permanency. The factories in England today are better under the supervision of the government than are the American factories. And the factory operatives to-day have a better standard of wages-considerably better-than they have had for many years. Now, the hon. member for Centre Toronto mentioned the other evening, that one of the difficulties of the manufacturers in this country was the dearness of the fuel they had to import from the eastern states, as compared with the cheapness of the fuel necessary for the operation of the factories in England. Nott a single argument that has been put before this House affords a stronger condemnation of the principle of protection than that. I wish to ask the hon. member for Centre Toronto how it is that they have to pay more for the fuel than the manufacturers in England have to pay ? Is it difference in the labour ? Does the
man who digs the coal in England get less than the man who digs the coal in Pennsylvania ? As a matter of fact, the coal miner in England to-day has a larger wage than the coal miner in Pennsyslvania. Then the dearness of the article is not because the labourer has benefited, but because of the intermediate agencies that handle this product.


Mr. BROCK.: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to interrupt him ? How many months in the year do they require to heat their factories in England, and how many months in a year do they require to heat their factories in Canada ? Quantity as well as price has got to be taken into consideration.


Ralph Smith: like to have an answer. Are these signs of depression or of prosperity ? There are evidences to show that since the preferential tariff came into force the energies of this company have been stimulated ; as a matter of fact they have equipped their factory thoroughly with up-to-date machinery-that has all been done, mind you, since 1897. The machinery itself was said to have cost $50,000, and it is an undoubted fact that during these last few years they have turned out a much higher and finer class of goods than at any time in their history.
Let me mention that in British Columbia five or six years ago the people would not go into the stores and purchase Canadian manufactures, but to-day there is a growing disposition in favour of them, people are going into the stores and demanding Canadian woollens. I say there is a stronger demand for Canadian manufactured articles than ever before, showing that the articles are of higher value. I state that these milils have doubled their output, they are paying fair wages to their employees and they have made an average dividend of at least 0 per cent. Now these are very strong statements made on the floor of this House and hon. gentlemen must be in a position to answer them one way or another. If they are true, then where is the argument about the ruination of their property and of their business ? If they are not true, then we are driven to the conclusion that the hon. gentleman is prepared: to take a position that is not correct. I am credibly informed that this company did not pay any dividend at all in 1895-6 before the preferential tariff, but they were closed down entirely for intervals of weeks at a time. Ke-member, Mr. Speaker, at that particular time there was a Dominion election going on, and the hon. member for Peterborough was running in that election, and I want you to know that the mills were closed down at that particular time. And when protection is sought for by these hon. gentlemen the mills are very likely to be closed down again. But this is an old trick, we are used to that. Any one who knows anything at all about the history of labour is well aware that this is a trick often resorted to. Now, at that time the hon. member for Peterborough, speaking on a platform, said this :
If Sir Wilfrid Laurler was returned to power his factories at Peterborough that were closed at that time would never be opened again.
Now I want the hon. members of this House to remember what I have already stated. They have made large profits, they have employed more men, they have doubled their output, they have enhanced the value of their productions since the preferential tariff came into operation ; and yet at that very time the hon. gentleman stated that if the Liberal government came into power it would ruin his business.


Ralph Smith: Now, Sir, I did more than that. When I heard the statement read about the discharge of these men, I wanted to know if the hon. gentleman was saying exactly what was true, and I put myself to the trouble of having some very rapid correspondence with responsible men in Peterborough, and I am prepared to read the answers of those men in this House. I was anxious to know if the workingmen of this country were going to be driven out of employment, as the hon. gentleman had stated; I was very anxious about that question, because I was desirous of preventing a calamity of that kind. But I wanted to know what the facts were before I did anything. Now, this is the answer I received to questions as to the men being discharged and as to the possibilities of the mill being closed down : Ralph Smith, House of Commons.
Auburn woollen mills have been continually running night and day during these last four years

Now, these are the mills belonging to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kendry), who has just taken his seat.
-they have employed twice as many hands and have over twice as large a pay-roll as before, and turn out more than twice as much goods and of better quality than they did before.
This is a telegram that I am prepared to put on the records of this House, and when I am done reading it, I shall give the name of the sender.
They have improved their machinery out of their earnings at least $50,000, and have for three years been too busy to partly close down to accurately take stock, and as this is the period

I would like to remark that this is an explanation of very many things that have been said by hon. gentlemen opposite.
-as this is the period that they change from summer to winter goods, they now take stock and are extensively repairing their machinery and have laid off a very few hands temporarily for that purpose, as stock cannot be taken and machinery repaired with the mill running full capacity. They regularly pay good dividends to shareholders for five years, and are making money. Close and private corporation.
The name of this gentleman is to the telegram, and the tqjegram is sent by R. F. McGregor, chairman of the Associated Labourmen of the city of Peterborough. Now, Mr. Speaker, my experience with the strong plea in favour of protection has always been this : That the men who seek for special favours in the way of protection are always the men that object to protection when it comes down to the interests of the labouring classes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith) excuse me for a minute. Before he drops that subject, would he tell us has he any information from the
Hespeler mills?


Ralph Smith: I have not; I have not had time to look into it.


William Rees Brock: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith) attack any statement I made in connection with the woollen mills V What I stated referred to fifty mills in this country and not to one.


Ralph Smith: Special mention has been made of the mills at Peterborough. The hon. gentleman from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) read a most serious letter setting out that these mills had actually discharged their men and would he likely ito shut down, and the proprietor of these mills himself read that same letter on the floor of this House to-day. What I am doing is to prove to this House that there is no importance to be attached to that statement, as this telegram sets out.


James Kendry: I would like the hon. gentleman to read the telegram.


Some hon. MEMBERS: He has read it.


Ralph Smith: 1 think the demand made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ivendry) is fair, and I will read it again:
Auburn woollen mills have been continually running night and day during this last tour years, have employed twice as many hands, and have over twice as large pay-roll as before, and turn out more than twice as much goods, and of better quality. They have Improved their machinery out of their earnings at least $50,000, and have for three years been too busy to partly close down to accurately take stock. As this is the period they change from summer to winter goods, they now take stock, and are extensively repairing their machinery, and have laid off very few hands temporarily for that purpose, as stock cannot be taken and machinery repaired with mill running at full capacity. Have regularly paid good dividends to shareholders for five years and are making money.


James Kendry: Will the hon. gentleman allow me. If the hon. gentleman will allow me to explain, I will explain exactly the position. Mr. Speaker, so far as that telegram is concerned, the whole statement is incorrect. We are to-day not doing any repairs at all, and we are closed on account of having no orders in the mill. Who- ; ever gave that information to Mr. Me-Gregor, the whole thing is incorrect.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: What about the dividends ?


Ralph Smith: I have no disposition to dispute the word of an hon. member of this House. That is not my practice. But what I say is this : That I consider the authority of a disinterested man in Peterborough is of as much importance and far more likely to be correct than the statement of an hon. member of this House


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Ralph Smith: Especially that of an hon. gentleman who has a direct interest in making a statement like this.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kendry: Mr. Speaker, I may say that I am one of the proprietors of that establishment, and surely I ought to know the position better than any outsider.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Ralph Smith: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to take the full responsibility of what is stated in that telegram. I will be perfectly fair with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kendry). I am prepared to meet him under any proper conditions and to discuss this question with him, and if it is demonstrated by the hon. gentleman that this is incorrect, then of course, that view of the case can be presented.


Mr. RUSSELL.: He does not say it is incorrect.


Ralph Smith: Mr. Speaker, it is almost six o'clock, and I think I should be allowed to finish my remarks.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Ralph Smith: No ; I want to speak for another five minutes, and then I shall finish. I wish to refer now to my hon. and genial friend the member for Victoria, and I want to do so because I want to mention a matter which illustrates the importance of the principle under discussion.


Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: There are so many constituencies named Victoria, that I wish to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith) which, he refers to.


Some hon. MEMBERS: The genial one.


Edward Gawler Prior: Which is that ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: You.


Ralph Smith: The senior member for Victoria, B.C. A few days ago we were discussing in this House the necessity of placing an import duty on lumber, and that is a question which very materially affects my interests as the representative of Vancouver Island. I may say, Sir, that I had telegrams from important bodies at that particular time asking me to support this resolution, but I disagreed with the resolution entirely. What I want to get at is this : In discussing that resolution the senior member for Victoria, B.C. (Hon. Mr. Prior) stated that the reason why the lumbermen of British Columbia at the present time had to employ Chinese and Japanese labour was because they were not able to compete with the American lumber manufacturers. This, Sir, is a matter which hears directly upon this discussion. I have been contending that the high protective tariff did not protect the labourer, but protected the manufacturer. The statement of the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Hon. Mr. Prior) was a very bold statement to make on the floor of this House.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith) is referring to a past debate.


Ralph Smith: I am sure that the hon. gentleman from Victoria will not take any umbrage at what I am stating now. I will illustrate the point under discussion if I get time. That was a bold statement for the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Prior) to make, because the Chinese and Japanese were employed before the tariff was taken off by the Conservatives, and I want to ask my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Prior) can he give the House a guarantee that if the government impose a duty upon lumber coming into British Columbia corresponding with the duty on Canadian lumber : That Chinese and Japanese labour will be dispensed with. If the labourmen are protected by this protective tariff then we ought to be able to have a positive guarantee that that will be brought about. I want to tell my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Prior) that if he can give me that guarantee on the floor of this House then I will abandon my principles for once and support protection.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Ralph Smith: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman an easier question than that still. I ask him: Suppose that this duty is imposed, can we have any guarantee that the white labourers of British Columbia would receive any more wages than they do now V That is the great question. Does protection protect the industrial classes ? Decidedly not. You put .?2 per thousand upon lumber coming into British Columbia ; you advance the price of lumber ;' you lessen the competition, but. Mr. Speaker, they have all the Chinese and Japanese they want in the labour market of that country to manufacture that lumber. I want to know if the lumbermen are going to take the high moral position of discharging the Chinese and Japanese because they get a benefit from the government by the imposition of this duty ?


Edward Gawler Prior: The hon. gentleman


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Edward Gawler Prior: The hon. gentleman has asked me a question, and surely I may be allowed to say a word in reply. The hon. gentleman asked me if I would guarantee that the lumbermen would do away with Chinese and Japanese labour if the duty was put on. Of course, I cannot guarantee for them.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Edward Gawler Prior: Hon. gentlemen laugh, but it is a very foolish laugh. 1 cannot give a guarantee for them, but I can say that I stood up in this House and advocated a Chinese tax of five times the amount the government was willing to put on.


Ralph Smith: 


Ralph Smith: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to deal with the position of the hon. gentleman, because he was a member of this government for many years and had an opportunity of putting on a Chinese tax.


Edward Gawler Prior: We were the first to put the tax on.


Ralph Smith: In concluding my remarks, I want to say that when it can be demonstrated to me, when subsidies are granted to railway corporations, and high protective duties are placed upon manufacturers, that corresponding protection is given to the industrial labourers, then I am prepared to support the granting of those privileges. But that is not the condition of things that exists to-day. As I said before, the men who seek protection are the last men who want protection to be given to the industrial classes; but they are the very men, as their history shows, to forward petitions and requests to this House and to every other parliament in this country, against any law likely to provide for any restriction or protection on behalf of the labouring man. That is the position I take. The amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition, speaks of protection to labour; and if he is serious, he will seek to bring about corresponding legislation to protect the industrial classes. When you impose a tariff to protect the manufacturer, you want to have some guarantee that the labourer who makes the article protected shall be paid a minimum living wage. Until that is done, you may introduce all the protective tariffs you please, but you will have no assurance that the labourer is going to receive a share of the protection or be benefited by it in any way.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. JOHN R. LAVELL (Leeds and Grenville).: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who spoke just before recess, gave us another example of the many different attitudes adopted by gentlemen who support the government of the day on questions which are directly involved in the debate now going on in this House. Starting out as only a free trader could start out, and comparing the condition of affairs in a country which is most decidedly a country of protection, the United States, with the conditions in a country which is recognized as the ideal free trade country, that is, Great Britain, he drew a distinction very strongly in favour of the mechanic or labourer in Great Britain; but then, realizing that he was somewhat of an anachronism in this House, in dealing with the question in that way, he took the precaution to say that he was not a free trader. Then, proceeding along some other
lines which I shall deal with shortly, he wound up with what may possibly be termed the most ultra doctrine of protection which we have yet heard in this House. He said he would support the opposition's policy of protection if we would add to that protection, legislation fixing a minimum wage for the mechanic. Such legislation, it is needless to say, is not within the province of this House, nor has it been undertaken, so far as I am aware, by any legislature which has authority to enact laws relating to such a subject. While he was giving us these different samples of his financial creed, he told us, possibly with a desire to make it clearer to us, that his ideal of a trade policy was the ideal of the present government. It may be that others who are more familiar with the views that have been enunciated in this House in the past can form a clearer opinion than myself as to what is the ideal of the present government; but, speaking as one who has only heard this present budget debate, I must confess that I am still in very great doubt on that point. There was one keynote struck by the hon. member, perhaps inadvertently, which may indicate more clearly than he did in any other words, just what the policy of the present government is. When he rose, he said he had come here to take in all he could; and, if I am not mistaken, the present policy of the Liberal party can only be reconciled with those of past years on the assumption that they were all intended to take in all they could.
It is too late now in this debate to make any attempt to review the various policies which the Liberal party of this country have put forward. They include the different policies which have been put forward in this debate. The hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) declared in most vehement tones that he was a free trader, and as such he supported this government. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) said he was a protectionist, and as such he supported this government; and it is a matter of discussion whether the present government, after having come into power, did not, as has been repeatedly said, steal the clothes of their opponents. But I submit that that question is put too broadly. When the Liberal party are accused of having stolen the clothes of their opponents, it has led to some differences of opinion, and it has also led to some criticism of the opposition for making that charge in one breath, and asserting in the next breath that there ought to be more stringent protection in this country. The difficulty, Mr. Speaker, is this, that when the Liberal party stole the clothes of their opponents, they did not steal them all, they only stole, as it were, their upper garments, and the species of protection which they have put in force may be called a kind of kilted protection, that is, a protection which protects part of the Canadian body, and leaves the Tli
other part as minus the ' breeks ' as a Highlander. We have had very good examples of this in the course of the present debate. For example, the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Ross) described in most glowing terms the prosperity of the principal town in his riding, the town of Oshawa, the great advance which had taken place in the industries of that town, and the consequent prosperity of the country around, declaring that this was entirely due to the fiscal policy of the present government; and he also stated, if I am not very much mistaken, that it was the result of the change from the national policy to the present policy. I wonder if the hon. member took the trouble to ascertain the facts before he spoke. Going over the industries of the town of Oshawa, one by one, I find that every industry in that town is a protected industry, not in any technical sense, in which the term may be used in this House, but protected under the national policy.
The various industries similar to those in Oshawa received a certain amount of protection. Under that protection they prospered and grew, setting their roots deep and wide, and when this government came in and changed the tariff in part in 1897. the tariff, so far as it affected the interests of that town, was left severely alone. That is a part of the stolen clothes absolutely appropriated in full by the Liberal party, and the preferential tariff, of which so much has been said, practically in no way affects any one of the industries in Oshawa. It is no wonder then the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Ross) should have dilated as he did on the prosperity of Oshawa. That town is prosperous, and I am glad to know it, and the country in its neighbourhood is prosperous, largely because of the wages paid the artisans.
But, the hon. gentleman must go a little further back to find the cause of that prosperity. So far as it is due to any fiscal policy, it is due to the policy of the Conservative party inaugurated in 1878-9, and not to any change made since. This is a matter of which I have personal knowledge, because in the riding which I have the honour to represent, we also have a prosperous town, and prosperous for exactly the same reason. In the largest town of that riding, there is not a single industry affected by the fiscal policy of this government. The government left every industry in that town undisturbed, and it was most interesting in the last election contest to hear the former member for that riding, largely interested in one of its particular industries, getting up on platform after platform and declaring that in 1897 his party had wiped out the national policy with a stroke of the pen, and then raising his hands in holy horror at the suggestion of one of the members of the Conservative party in Manitoba, that the duty on agricultural implements should

be wiped out. That, however, is simply in line with all that has been said by these lion., gentlemen in connection with the fiscal policy of this administration. To the extent this government has retained protection, the country has prospered, and I challenge any supporter of the government to show that in any case where they have retained the duties on manufactured articles, which were in the tariff prior to 1896, there has not been prosperity. In fact, I go still further, and challenge any one to show any case in which a reduction of the duties has not reduced prosperity. The government removed the duties on some articles to show their affection for free trade. They took the duty off binder twine, for example, and barbed wire, and it is interesting to know that the prices of these articles have increased in larger proportion than the prices of any manufactured articles on which the duty was maintained. The price of binder twine increased very largely because of the trust, and the removal of the duty made the forming of a trust all the easier. The manufacture of barbed wire has been entirely destroyed in the country, but the prices have increased. Every man who buys barbed wire now has to pay a good fair toll to the freight carriers and others who bring it into the country.
The hon. gentleman who spoke just before recess, the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith), made some rather vigorous statements about the evils caused by protection, which he described as class legislation, or legislation in favour of the manufacturers. He said, in language that I cannot hope to imitate, that it was an injury to the industrial classes. Why, Sir, the whole foundation of the national policy is the retaining of work in this country for our workingmen. The whole argument, from beginning to end, in favour of the national policy, from the time it was first introduced, was that it would enable us to manufacture in our own country the articles that we use, and thus give employment to our industrial classes. And never before has the contention been so openly made that protection could possibly be an injury to the industrial classes, though it has often been said that protection was class legislation, not so much because it was for the benefit of tbe manufacturers, as because it was for the benefit of those who labour in the factories. This question was treated in that way in the elections that took place a short time ago on the other side of the line. The people of the United States are essentially protectionists, and the free traders, who are making an attack on protection there, have to do it in the veiled way as that which the free traders in this country have to adopt. The question was whether protection should be maintained, and what was taken as the type of protection ? The full dinner pail, nor was the propriety of that being taken as the type for one Mr. LA YELL.
moment questioned. Surely it is too late in the day, with the many years' experience we have had, to intimate for one moment that protection is not a benefit to the industrial classes who work in our shops and factories. The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) spoke about the men working in the coal' mines, and compared their lot with that of the coal miners of England. But, the members of this House must have noticed that when the hon. gentleman want. ed to .pick out a class in the United States, which may not be benefited by protection, he picked out a- class that is notoriously drawn from the lowest populations of Europe-not skilled labourers, not the men who work in protected factories, hut the men who went into that country from various European countries and worked there in sets and gangs, and even then I question if, looking at the subject from the widest standpoint, his statement would bear examination for a moment. If he had taken as an example the men who work in the factories, if he had taken the men who work in the woollen mills, about which there has been so much discussion, lie would have found a vast difference between their status and the status of the same class of men in a free trade country. And it is because such a difference was noticed years ago by tbe great leader of tbe Conservatives, under whom the national policy was inaugurated, that the national policy was adopted by the Canadian people and put so successfully in force.
The hon. gentleman confined himself to the example of labourers in the mines of the United States, trusting to his sweeping statement, that protection must of necessity injure those who are working in the factories, and who come under the heading of industrial classes. I say that our experience under the present fiscal tariff proves the contrary. The instances I have just mentioned, given us by the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Boss), prove the contrary. In those factories, which have been properly protected, the men are working at good wages, and the towns they inhabit are prosperous. In those where the duties have been reduced, the men are without work, or are working at lower wages, and the towns are not prosperous. I regret to say that in the riding I represent, there is a woollen mill which has been seriously affected from tbe causes mentioned by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Ken-dry). But. there is another result that I might mention. At the time when this preferential tariff came into force, affecting as it did principally our woollen and cotton mills, tbe farmers of this country found a very large home market for their wool, and' prices ruled from 20 to 25 cents per pound. But gradually, as the preferential tariff went into operation, our woollen mills had to reduce the prices, and to-day our farmers are only getting 15 cents and 10
cents for their wool, as compared with 22 cents and 25 cents. This shows how incidentally protection to one class of men equally protects a large number of other classes.
One interesting result of this debate is that we have had from the leaders of the Liberal party another statement of what their policy is. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs stated in very vigorous language that this tariff now in force is not a protective, but a revenue tariff, and, so far as there was any protection in it, it was purely incidental. And it has been repeatedly said by hon. gentlemen on the other side, that protection is almost impossible so far as certain classes are concerned. They have mentioned especially, over and over again, that the protection was impossible for this class. Now, if this is a revenue tariff and is not intended to give any protection whatever, it is an interesting question to ask how if comes that duties that were protective prior to 1896 are no longer protective, though they remain exactly the same. The right hon. the premier (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) implied in his speech that this was a revenue tariff, because imports increased under it. It becomes an interesting question to ask whether the tariffs of the United States and Germany are also revenue tariffs and not protective, because in those countries imports have increased. These are questions that I will not attempt to answer, but I would suggest that they possibly show some weakness in the argument of hon. gentlemen opposite. But, if this is in part a revenue tariff, and if any credit is to be obtained for the reduction of duties-and 1 presume that none of all those items that are put on the free list can be included under the head of revenue tariff-we have to deal with the dutiable goods only ; and, as I said, the great bulk of these dutiable goods bear the same duties that they did under the former tariff, save so far as the preferential tariff is concerned and so1 far as these reductions have been made year after year on the imports of Great Britain. Part of the policy as declared, was that there should be no change one way or the other. That must be looked upon as a new policy, because, so far as this tariff differs from the old tariff, it differs from it practically in no other way than by these preferential duties, and these have been changed for several successive years-in tact, I think it was last year that the last change was made. If there is no change^ further to be made, that is something brand new this year. Judging from the words we heard in sonorous tones from the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), one would suppose that it was reprehensible for a party not to have a new policy every year. He spoke with scorn of a policy which he said was old. If it was more than two
years old, I do not wonder at it coming under his displeasure. It does seem as though in the minds of some men in this country it is impossible to retain the same policy for more than a few years in succession. But we have now a statement which I hope will last a few years, of just exactly what the present tariff policy is. If I might be permitted, I think I would say that when we review the tariff policy of the Liberal party for the last few years, we find that though it has had many forms, though they have placed themselves on many platforms, possibly it is not right for us to say (that they have changed completely. I question if they have changed. I think, as I said, that the hon. member for Vancouver expressed it when he intimated that he would take in what he could while he was here. All these policies, from the time when they advocated commercial union, unrestricted reciprocity, and so on, were undoubtedly policies that the Liberal party took up because they thought they would please the country, feeling that when they came into power the fact that they had made strong protests against protection would not prevent them hanging on to protection if they thought that to do so would help them to remain in office. It was a change of policy, but not of spirit. It suggests the case of the doctor in a country village, who, going into a corner grocery was met with a request from a somewhat loquacious German to be told what this new religion was that they were bringing from China. The doctor wished to know what if was he referred to, whether it was buddhism or theosophy. ' No, not that, doctor,' said the German, and he attempted to give a description of what he meant. The doctor at last understood, and said, ' Oh, you meant the doctrine of transmigration of souls.' * Yes,' was the reply,
' vot vos dot?' The doctor attempted to explain, and at last said, ' Well, it is easier to give you an illustration.' He drew the attention of the German to the fact that death must come to every man, which the German admitted with a regretful sigh.
' Now, Strauss,' said he, * suppose that when you die, your soul, when it left your body, instead of going to some unknown region, went into the body of a little canary hanging in a gilded cage, in a lady's boudoir, and fed from her delicate fingers.' The German thought that would be very nice. ' But, one day the door of your cage is left open ; the cat comes in and kills the canary. Of course, your soul must leave the body of the canary and flies out of the window and takes refuge in a beautiful lily blooming in the garden and shedding its fragrance on the air.' ' Yes,' said the German, ' dot is goot.' ' But, your soul cannot stay in the lily, because a careless servant leaves the gate open, a donkey comes in and bites off your head, and your soul passes into the donkey. You are

driven out of the garden, and as you go out some old friend meets you and looks you in the face and strokes your long ears and says, " Oh, Strauss, mein old friend, how leedle you haf changed." ' Having listened to the speeches here and to the speeches on various platforms in this country, the only conclusion that one can come to is that though the form has changed, there is vefty little change in the true inner soul of the policy held by the Liberal party or their leader. They are prepared for any change, and now they have grown so used to changes that they cannot understand how a party can maintain the same principle for a dozen years. It is a bad condition of affairs in this country when it is possible for a great party not only to change its views when any occasion of party exigencies seems to requre it, but to speak words of scorn against another party which, having tried a great principle and found it to be in the best interests of the country, retains it and backs it up. Seeing the criticism to which the Conservative party is subjected by the hon. gentlemen opposite, this is all the more remarkable inasmuch as, in some lines, hon. gentlemen opposite have really gone further in the line of protection than have the Conservative party when in power, although still maintaining that the fiscal policy is one of a revenue tariff. No attempt has been made to answer the questions thrown across the floor of the House : How can bounties on iron be part of a revenue tariff ? How is the maintenance of duties of 30 and 35 per cent on articles imported into this country, part of a revenue tariff ? How Is even the maintenance of a duty of 27 i per cent on biscuits part of a revenue tariff ? The hon. Minister of Customs referred to that the other day, and, in very vigorous language called attention to the tremendous reduction caused not by his tariff, but by the preferential duties, showing that It was down really to 2oi per cent, only i per cent higher than it was for most of the time when the national policy was in force under the Conservative government. And that reduction was not due to the tariff policy as enunciated in 1897, but was due almost entirely to the preferential tariff. Now, incidentally, before I sit down, I wish to say something about the line that has been taken over and over again by hon. gentlemen opposite, when they said it was simply impossible to give protection to the farming community or to the industrial class. Until the hon. member for Vancouver spoke, I was under the impression that that class meant the industrial class of this country so far as they worked in manufacturing. But the hon. gentleman seemed to confine himself to an attack on capitalists. Now, as to that, it must be recognized by every person in this country that capital and labour are so indissolubly unit-Mr. LAVELL.
ed that they cannot be separated-it is impossible to get a divorce. I would refer the hon. gentleman to his friend the Liberal leader of Ontario, who, when he was asked that in granting certain franchises it should be provided that only home labour should be employed, distinctly refused on the ground that capitalists should be free to select their own labour. That, possibly, is going further than the Conservative party offered to go before. But that is the principle of the leader of the Liberals in the Ontario House.
He said that this was simply legislation for a class ; it has been said over and over again, and I presume the hon, gentleman meant the industrial class. They have insisted that the farmers were not benefited. If the farmers were not benefited, it would be interesting to see some hon. gentlemen opposite analyse the tariff so far as it affects agricultural products. If this is only a revenue tariff and if the farmers cannot be protected, why is there three cents a dozen on eggs ? If it is not there for revenue, and if the farmers cannot be protected, was it put there to blind their eyes ? Was it put there hypocritically ? Was it put there as a species of farce ? If the farmers cannot be protected in any way, why are duties maintained on these agricultural products, when they practically got no revenue, when it means nothing in the way of revenue ? It would be interesting to have an explanation of that. I maintain that the farming community can be protected, they are not protected simply by duties on agricultural implements, but by the growth of our home markets.
Some hon. members on this side of the House have already referred to the fact that it is impossible for a country purely agricultural to prosper and fulfil its destiny, and that manufacturing countries, on the other hand, are always strong and prosperous. When manufacturing and agricultural industries are closely allied a country reaches its highest development. We have had examples of that truth in Canada. In the lean years when industries were stagnant in Canada, our agricultural population prospered so far as good crops could make them prosperous, but they felt the depression as well as others did. But with the improvement in manufactures, under the operation of the national policy, the farmers prospered as did all other classes of the country. When there is a good home market the farmer must feel the advantage exactly the same as any other citizen will feel it. But no country can have a good home market unless it has prosperous manufacturing industries.
Considerable stress has been laid on the prosperity of the last four years. I am glad to know that the country has been prosperous during the last fouy years. I am glad that Canada has been able to share with
tlie rest of the world in the unexampled prosperity that has prevailed everywhere. But when hon. gentlemen opposite get up and tell us that our prosperity is due to their fiscal policy, they aslc us to assume something that is incapable of proof. As well might a man who goes into a wheat field for the first time, shortly before the wheat is ripe, and when he has gathered the harvest, say : Look, at the harvest I have gathered in. You people who have simply sowed the grain have no credit whatever for this glorious harvest. A country's growth is not of a few days or of a few years. A mushroom will spring up in a night, but not so the maple. Canada is not a mushroom country by any means, and no such industrial development as we have enjoyed during the last four years can be produced simply by the stroke of a pen or within a few hours after the passing of a statute in parliament. The fiscal policy was changed by this government in 1897, but the prosperity of this country began prior to 1897. Our prosperity had been preparing for years, owing to the fact that the previous Conservative government had fostered trade, had fostered the industries and commerce of Canada, and when, by the favour of Providence, good times came, Canada was in a position to take advantage of them. Surely it is recognized as a great general principle that there is a time of quiet growth, a time of underground sprouting, so to speak, before anything appears on the surface. We will, perhaps, during the next month, pass through one of the most disagreeable seasons of our climate, one of the months when possibly nature takes on its most forbidding appearance ; but will any person say that we can have the development of vegetation during the summer months without the preparation of these previous disagreeable months ? In the same way the prosperity of the last four years is not due to the almost imperceptible change in the fiscal policy of the country that took place in 1897. As to that particular feature of the tariff on which hon. gentlemen pride themselves most, the preferential feature, I say without hesitation that it has done infinitely more harm than good, in view of the conditions in which this country found itself when it went into force. It has, in fact, only been in force twelve or fifteen months, with any activity. If you deduct this period and look at the country as it was in 1897, such credit as may be due to any one from legislation must be given to the predecessors in office of hon. gentlemen opposite, to the men who for so many years led the fortunes of the Conservative party.
There are a number of other matters on which I intended to speak, but at this hour it is desirable that the speeches should not be long. I will close by emphasizing the point I made, that where there has been prosperity there has been no interfence by
the present government with our fiscal arrangements, and wherever the present government has interfered, it has done so to the absolute loss and injury of Canada.


Hon.   WM@: ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Hon. gentlemen opposite are much troubled in their minds about the differences of opinion that they say exists on this side of the House. Well, they put me in mind of the sea birds that come close to the shore in the fall and spring of the year, when the weather is calm, they swim backwards and forwards with the greatest ease ; but when the storm begins, then they cluster together. Wait, gentlemen, till the vote is taken, and then vou will see the difference of opinion that exists. Our friends opposite speak much of broken pledges, they are horrified that pledges have been broken before the public of this great Dominion. Well, if a man breaks his pledge to me once I never trust him. You have heard of the Scotch proverb ; Man cheat me once, deil fa him, man cheat me twice, deil fa me. The people of this Dominion have passed their verdict on the action of the government twice, and they have approved of their policy. The majority of the people of this Dominion have shown that they have confidence in the men who occupy the Treasury benches.
Reference has been made to the preparation of the late tariff for protective purposes, and it has been said that a master mind had prepared that tariff. Now, if my memory serves me right, the government of that day had to send to Washington to get a man to prepare that tariff, and when it was prepared it was something that nobody in this Dominion could interpret or understand. It was the American tariff pure and simple, except, of course, as to the figures of the duties. The meaning and principle of the tariff was* exactly the same. Down in Halifax we found the appraisers and importers quarrelling all the time. The importers said they had to hire one of their clerks all the time to do nothing else but to prepare their entries for the customs-house. One part of an article would be so much a square yard, and you had to make a calculation as to how many square yards would be in a piece. Another article you had to put on your scales and weigh it. Then merchants would send to Ottawa samples of the goods on which they paid a certain rate of duty, and there would be a different interpretation made, and a rebate of duty would have to be ordered. I do not know if there are any importers within the sound of my voice in this House, but I am sure that there is not an importer in Canada to-day who desires to go back to the protective tariff of the Conservative government. It was like nothing in heaven above or in the earth beneath, it was confusion from start to finish.
One thing that the present government have done is to simplify the tariff, they have made it plain, it is easily understood.

225G
I have it here before me, and tbere is not an item in it where you do not know exactly the duty that is to be paid on it. I may differ from the government as to the rates of duty that are still levied in certain instances, hut anyway there has been a reduction in the duties and the tariff is easily understood, and no person can make any mistake about it. I felt sorry to hear the speech delivered by my hon. friend to my right (Mr. Charlton), and if he continues to make such speeches, I doubt very much that this is the right side of the House for him to sit on.


William Findlay Maclean: What will you do with him ?
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I will tell you what you did with him last fall. He wrote a letter and by that letter he imposed on the Conservative party so much that they allowed him to be elected by acclamation so that the Conservatives have been beguiled by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton). Now, every member here should desire this country to be settled, and that we should have immigration-I would qualify that by saying that we should have immigration of the proper sort.


William Findlay Maclean: The Highland Scotch.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) You want the right kind of immigrants in this country, and you want them to build residences and out-houses and such things as are necessary for permanent settlement. Some hon. gentlemen have proposed here that you should put a duty on cheap American lumber which would he used by the settlers, and thus make it harder for them to get along. One of the things that surprises me, and X may say disgusts me, is the way that some members of this House have come here t<? advocate their own personal interests. I sat in a parliament for eight years, and at that time a member would be ashamed to advocate any principle in which he was personally interested. It is highly improper for men to come here and day after day plead for their own personal affairs. If we look at ourselves what are we ? We are selfish animals at best, and when a man begins to advocate his personal interests in this House, you can always begin to doubt his sincerity and his honesty. The member for Peterborough (Mr. Kendry) in the course of his speech today, said :	I speak for myself. When a
man speaks for himself, and for himself alone, this is not the proper place for him to speak at all. He has a right to speak for his constituents, but when he comes here to speak for his own selfish ends he should be ashamed of himself. I am glad to know that in all the divergent opinions that have been expressed on this side of the House no man has so far forgotten himself as to plead for his own personal interests.


William Findlay Maclean: What about your friend there ?
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Speaking of my friend on my right, sometimes I am afraid that I am sitting too close to him. I heard the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) quoting Scripture the other day, and I congratulate him on his knowledge of it, but I would say to my friend beside me here in the words of the prophet :	How
long will you halt between two opinions ? If protection be his God, then let him worship that, but if revenue tariff be what is right, then let him vote for revenue tariff.


William Findlay Maclean: What is your god ?
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I will go back in sacred history further than did my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean). When the great patriarch Jacob found that he could not get corn in his own country, he sent his sons to Egypt, and he got free corn, and the present government have so changed the tariff that w-e have free corn in Canada to-day, and therefore they follow the old free trade principles that were practiced in those early days.


William Findlay Maclean: You are a few thousand years out.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) There are several other things that I hope their supporters will be able to teach them in that line before the present term of parliament will expire. I am glad to see my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) smiling, and I would remind him that he condemned free trade and said that the people of Britain are ashamed of the ghosts of John Stuart Mill, and Cobden and Bright. Well, he will get few to agree with him in that respect. Gentlemen in this House have the habit of speaking of England as if it meant Great Britain, but to my mind it includes Ireland and Scotland as well as England, and when you come to deal with these trade questions on broad lines it is well to bear in mind that it includes the whole empire. I have no objection to Englishmen, but I like Irishmen better, and I like Scotchmen best of all. The hon. gentleman from East York (Mr. Maclean) stated that free trade has been a failure. Let me point out to him that New South Wales is the colony which has adopted the nearest approach to British free trade, and New South Wales has prospered in a greater measure by far than any other of the Australian colonies. The hon. leader of the opposition stated that in the commonwealth of Australia they would likely have a moderate protective policy. I read the speech of Mr. Barton, the new premier of the commonwealth, and lie stated that there were two parties in Australia, one advocating a protective tariff and the other advocating free trade. He mentioned that several of the premiers of the different colonies were in favour of free trade, but that the policy


Mr. ROSS (Victoria).: that would be adopted would be a revenue tariff, and he Indicated that it would take a year or two after the commonwealth was properly established, before they could arrive at what would be a proper revenue tariff. I want to point out the fallacy of thinking that Great Britain will give a preferential market to Canada and to Canada alone. That is out of the question. If anything comes out of that matter it must be by the commonwealth of Australia, and New Zealand, and the other British colonies combining with Canada. When that will be done, and we place ourselves properly before the British government you may get a hearing whatever the result may be ; but it is very doubtful if Great Britain will depart from her present free trade policy.
The great grievance of hon. gentlemen opposite appears to be about the woollen trade of this country. I remember the time when the woollen manufacturers prospered under a 10 per cent tariff. When I first came to this House there was only a 15 per cent tariff, and there were woollen industries in the country prospering at that time. The tariff was increased to 171 per cent under the Mackenzie government, and there was no complaint In those days of the failure of the woollen industry. Perhaps the most outrageous part of the tariff of the late government was that imposed upon woollen goods. In some instances it ranged as high as from 60 per cent to 70 per cent. Under the preferential arrangement made by the present government with Great Britain, there is a protection of from 21 per cent to 23} per cent on woollen goods, and if the woollen mills cannot thrive and prosper under such protection as that, it would be better for the country to let them go down.
I was amused at the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart), speaking of the preferential tariff, he shook his head, and said there is nothing in it-it is not of the slightest importance. But, then he took up his paper again, and said, there are $13,000,000 of woollen goods imported into this country ; and he almost cried at such a calamity. What became of those goods ? Why, the fashionable ladies of Canada used some of them, which they were enabled to get at cheaper rates than before, the working classes used them, the farmers and fishermen used them, and they were of benefit to the country. The great complaint in this country is, that it is too dear a country to live in. The great object is to induce people to come into the country, and we can only do that by making their supplies as cheap as possible. I was amused at hearing the hon. member for Lanark, the other evening, complain of the absence of ministers from their places in the House, instead of being here to listen to his eloquence. He forgot to say that the benches on his own side, including that of his leader, were also vacant ; so that, the inattention paid to him was as much on
his own side of the House as on this side. He made a speech in which, without considering it from an intellectual standpoint, he worked himself up into a high state of excitement, reminding one of a chief who was preparing his tribe for a war dance ; and speaking of the surplus of the hon. Minister of Finance, he declared that there was no surplus, but a deficit of $1,000,000. Some of the gentlemen opposite say there should be no surplus-that it is an unfortunate thing for this country that there is a surplus. Another one wants the harbour of Collingwood deepened and improved; another one wants a harbour at some other place made ; and probably another one wants the channel of the St. Lawrence made deeper and straighter. This shows the difference of opinion that exists on that side of the House. How can they expect to get all these things done without plunging the country into deeper debt than it is in at present, unless the Minister of Finance has a surplus with which to make these improvements ? I think it will be a sad day for the country when there will be no surplus. If the Minister of Finance finds that he has a diminished revenue at any time- and I want to impress this upon him-all he has to do is to reduce his tariff-


William Findlay Maclean: And cut off the bounties on iron.
Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.)-and then there will be larger importations, and an increase in the revenue accordingly.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: What about the bounties on iron ?
Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Now, I am going to tell something to the hon. member for West Prince.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What about the bounties on iron 1	.
Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) That is something in the future. We will speak of things as they appear. They say it is time enough to fight the devil when you meet him.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The devil is here now.


William Findlay Maclean: ' Does the hon. gentleman propose to raise the devil with the iron bounties ?
Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) The hon. gentleman from Peterborough (Mr. Kendry) spoke about the 15,000 people who are engaged in the woollen industry. Well, I belong to a province where there are 32,741 men engaged in the fishing industry, and all we want for those people is that everything they consume shall be made as cheap as possible, because they have to buy everything, and I do not want them to be compelled to buy their ready-made clothing from the shoddy manufacturers of Ontario. I say

shoddy, because there have been some very shoddy speeches made in that interest on the other side of the House. When I tell you that there are six mills in Ontario preparing shoddy for the manufacture of woollen goods, you can form your own idea of the kind of goods they would compel us to wear under their high tariff. We regard it as a great privilege to be enabled to buy goods of good quality. If you buy a coat made of the shoddy stuff that comes down from Ontario, the colour all goes out of it in a very short time. We have woollen mills in Nova Scotia, and in Cape Breton, and every one of them will exist and prosper under the present tariff. If any of those mills go down, it will be because they expect too high a price for their goods or, perhaps, it may be from another reason-over-production ; they may manufacture too much for the consumption of the Dominion. Let them make goods of good quality, and they will always find a market for them, even in this Dominion. People are getting more enlightened in this age. I am glad to find that even a minority of our friends from the province of Ontario are getting more enlightened. We hear hon. gentlemen say to us : ' Look at Ontario,' as if Ontario were the whole of the Dominion. Thank heaven, it is not. And, after all these great bombastic speeches about what Ontario has accomplished, these hon. gentlemen had to go down to little Nova Scotia, and out of the five members of the opposition returned from that province, select their leader. They had not a man among themselves capable of leading them or keeping them together. Our hon. friends opposite tell us what Ontario and the people of Ontario are going to do at the next general election. Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope that there will be a progress of enlightenment even in that province before another election takes place.
We were told that before we had a protective tariff, we had to eat Canadian pork. All I have to say in reply to that statement is that under the protective tariff we collected $113,748 of duty on American pork consumed in the provinces for the use of the fisheries, which does not show that, even with a high tariff, we were compelled to use Canadian pork.
I am not going to weary the House with figures. The resolution of my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, is so broad that it may mean anything. You can put any construction on it you like. In that respect it resembles some passages in the Book of Revelations, on which commentators have been giving different interpretations for the last 500 years, and are still as far from the correct meaning as when they began. If this resolution is satisfactory to hon. gentlemen opposite, then it is very pleasing to us, and it reminds me of a story told about the early settlement of Dakota. A man of rather shabby appearance and riding a poor-looking horse came to a settler's Mr. ROSS (Victoria).
house one evening. The settler asked him whether he was a lawyer or a doctor or a vendor of medicine or what he was. And at last the newcomer said : I am a follower of the Lord. Well, my friend, said the settler, you will be a long time before you will catch up to him with that horse. So it will be a long time before the policy propounded in the resolution of hon. gentlemen opposite will bring them to the Treasury benches.
I was glad to find by the high tone taken by the leader of the opposition and one or two of his followers that they have no aspirations to occupy this side of the House in the near future. They are aiming at something higher, they are to be a band of brethren, who would teach the people everything almost necessary for salvation, and they put me in mind of an incident which happened at a Methodist camp-meeting. At that meeting there was a very attractive young lady, and five nice young men from New York, such as sometimes stray to those meetings, went over to attend this one. One by one they related theiij Christian experience, and in each case that experience was that they had a call from the Lord to marry this beautiful young lady. The old deacon said : I thought I knew something of the mind of the Lord, but this is the first instance in which I have found that there was a call from the Lord to five young men to marry the one girl at the one time. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been fifteen years continuously in public life, and this is the first instance in which I have found the Conservative party not. working to occupy the Treasury benches, and I am pleased to see that they have a higher aim just now. No doubt their desire will be gratified, and they will continue to occupy the position which they now fill so acceptably to hon. gentlemen on this side.
The hon. gentleman for West Prince (Mr. Hackett) said the other day that race and religion was the stock-in-trade by which this government gained power. I can, from my experience, characterize that charge as a slander, at least so far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned. In my own constituency, composed of a few men of French origin, a good many Irishmen and a large number of Scotch Catholics, and of course a larger number of blue banner Presbyterians, I never heard any expression used which conveyed any reflection on the race or creed of the Prime Minister of Canada or the party that supports him from the province of Quebec. But I remember the time, which must be in the recollection of the right hon. the First Minister, when it was not so easy for the Liberals of the province of Quebec to assert their principles as it is to-day. I remember when a pronounced Liberal principle was considered a crime in some instances in that province. I had the pleasure of supporting a
government which had for Minister of Justice a gentleman who was afterwards promoted to be Chief Justice of the province of Quebec. I refer to my departed friend, Sir A. A. Dorion. A more pure, a more perfect and a more capable man I never met. I am a Scotchman but I never knew a Scotchman in public or private life outside my own family, that 1 held so dear as that pure-minded man. He was as nearly perfect as humanity could be. Of him it could be truly said, in the word of the Psalmist, ' Mark the perfect man and behold the upright, for the end of that man is peace.' I consider it a privilege to be even at this late day able to pay this tribute of resi>ect to my dear departed friend.
One word more. We must not forget even in this country that there is a Providence over us-that there is an overruling Providence in the lives of individuals and families and communities and provinces and particularly in the life of the Dominion. And Providence, in His anger, thought wise to punish this Dominion) with an unjust government for eighteen years. But hearing the groanings of the people when they were in bondage, as the Israelites of old in Egypt, he came down and relieved them of that bondage. And I want to say to my friends in the government, that, so long as they continue to do what is right, sot long as they continue to do what is just and honest and upright, there is a discerning public opinion growing in this country that will continue them in power. One thing I wished to say before I finished. The hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) said the other evening he was proud of the Conservative party, and was anxious that their history should be published. I think, for the sake of his own friends, they had better allow the present century to pass away before that is done, because there are certain things in connection with that party from 1872 until the recent defeat that had better not be written. If the hon. gentleman were in his place, I might enumerate these things, but


Mr. EDWARDS.: Enumerate them.


William Ross: Oh, no. I do not want to hurt the feelings of my hon. friends opposite. I only advise them not to be in a hurry in writing the history of the Conservative party from 1872 until their defeat in 1896.


Mr. ANDREW BRODER (Dundas).: At this late hour of the night, and at this late stage of the debate, I do not intend to detain the House long. I think I had better commence with some reference to the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Ross, Victoria, N.S.) who has just taken his seat. He is a sort of Rip Van Winkle, who appears to have been asleep ever since the honest Liberalism of 1873. He has not wakened up to the condition of the new Liberalism of this country, or he would not make the statements he has with reference to the Conservative party. His treatment of the sacred word and his effort to weave it in with the conduct and policy of the Liberal party to-day, certainly does not result in a very harmonious production. You could no more apply the sacred word to their conduct-why, there comes in the Rip Van Winkle again. He is thinking of the honest Liberals, of the Dor-ions and Mackenzies. He said that they had free trade in corn and spoke of Joseph going down into Egypt. It was not Joseph, but Joseph's brethren, the rascals who sold him there.


William Ross: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, 1 said that the patriarch Jacob, when he found he could not get corn in his own country, sent his sons to Egypt for corn.


Andrew Broder: He had to send to Joseph, Who was in Egypt.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, B.C.) I know the whole history.


Andrew Broder: I am sorry that, if the hon. gentleman knows it, he has not profited more by it. They had free corn long before Christianity was introduced, and we had to come back to that when these hon. gentlemen came into power. And we have it now. My hon. friend-I was going to call him our reverend friend-is not very happy in his allusions to the sacred Scripture and to free com. But there is this point with regard to free corn. If there was one argument more than another that the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite used as an argument in favour of free corn in Canada, it was that it would give the farmer who wished to fatten his cattle for the English market an opportunity to do so-so that we would not be obliged to send our cattle to the United States market as Stockers or unfed cattle. And what are the conditions to-day ? I will quote from a paper that there will be no dispute about, because hon. gentlemen opposite will believe the paper, and my friends on this side will believe me- so there will be no dispute. I will quote the Globe, showing the figures it gave on the 30th October last, just on the eve of the people going to the polls. The Globe says :
During four and a half years ending 31st December, 1896

That is previous to the Conservatives going out of power.
-Canada shipped to the United States 3,762 cattle, receiving therefor $52,606. Since December 31st, 1896

That is, while hon. gentlemen opposite were in power

-the shipments have reached 301,073, valued at $4,377,852. The Laurier government secured the

removal of the United States quarantine restrictions.
Now, X want to say that that was a very mistaken policy in the interests of the country. What was the value of those cattle ? You would think, to hear hon. gentlemen opposite talking on the platform, that the effect of it had been to enhance the value of our cattle by $10 a head. X have heard that statement made myself. But what are the figures given by the Globe? These figures show that the value of the cattle sent to the United States during the Conservative regime was $13.98 on the average, while during the four and one-half years of Liberal regime, the value was $14.54-just 56 cents per head additional. And, if you take into account the four years previous to 1896, there is no comparison at all in their favour, but rather the reverse. But consider the effect of this upon the interests of the country and the prospective interests of the cattle shippers of Canada. It has put beyond possibility of chance the removal of the embargo upon Canadian cattle in the English market. But, have hon. gentlemen opposite attempted to do anything in that respect ? They boast wonderfully because they have got the cattle quarantine regulation changed as between this country and the United States. But this affects us injuriously in the English market, and in every other market where it is proposed to ship cattle. Now, it always happens when I address the House that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) is not in his place. I wish ito make reference to him, and I may call him the ager-minded Minister of Agriculture, who thinks of nobody but the tillers of the soil. To hear what is said of him one would suppose that his tender hands are blistered holding out blessings to the farmers of this country. But what market has the Minister of Agriculture opened up for the farmer that the farmer did not have when this government came into power. From the premier down to the smallest man that sings his praises, not one of them can point to a single market that has been opened by them for the products of the farmers of Canada. But one thing that they did do was to close the German market against the Canadian grain. They gave the West Indies some privileges that had not been given when they came into power ; and, since then the West Indies have raised their tariffs against Canada. The Minister of Agriculture is heralded throughout this country as a practical farmer. I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that he never ploughed a furrqgv or hoed a row of corn in his life.


William Findlay Maclean: He cut his corn.


Andrew Broder: Yes, but it was on his toe. I wish to make reference to some things said by the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Ross) who has just taken his seat. He stated that the woollen industry was prosperous
during the Mackenzie regime under a tariff of 174 per cent. If the hon, gentleman will recall the history of that time, I think he will find that it was by no means prosperous in many parts of this country. He has spoken of the poor Canadian with the faded coat made of goods of Canadian manufacture. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the class of goods made in some of the factories in this country are a credit to any man to wear ; and I do not wish to deprecate home manufacture in favour of the labour of any other country. The hon. gentleman was good enough to refer to the fact that the representatives of the great Conservative party of Ontario had to select as their leader a man from Nova Scotia. So far as that is concerned, Ontario is not provincial. The Conservative party is a national party, not a provincial party, and it would be well for this country, if hon. gentlemen opposite could say that they were not a provincial party. More than that, we lay our hands upon an able man wherever we can find him. And still more, when we select an hon. gentleman to be our leader, we select a man who is ready to stand by his guns and keep confederation intact against the machinations and efforts of a man like the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), who, when he was premier of Nova Scotia, tried to take his province out of the Dominion ; and when he came down to the conference in Quebec to sit- in solemn council with Mr. Mercier and Sir Oliver Mowat and the premiers of this Dominion-only one Conservative premier among them-the only condition upon which he would confer with them was that they should put upon the minutes the statement that nothing that conference might do, should hinder Nova Scotia from seceding from the Dominion. That is the kind of men hon, gentlemen opposite follow. I do not intend to follow such a man, no matter where he comes from. We will take a man that is national wherever we find him. We are a national party, we are not provincial. It would be well for our hon. friends opposite to wake up and get a little bigger than the province of Nova Scotia, get a little bigger than the province of Quebec. It is high time. The people who govern this country were larger in their outlook than the mere province in which they live. It is a mistake for Canada, and unless her public men can take a broad national view they will not succeed in governing this country.


Mr. MCLENNAN.: Nova Scotia received better terms from this Dominion as a result of this protest from the Minister of Finance.


Andrew Broder: The hon. gentleman must take his medicine. Now this preference they talk so much about, this preference without any quid pro quo, what has i)t done? Now, I am going to use a homely simile which every man can understand. Our old


Andrew Broder: 

friend, the Rev-I beg his pardon. I mean the hon. gentleman who just took his seat, referred to our policy as something like what you saw in Revelation, you could not tell what it meant, you could make it mean one thing or another. Well, it will he a happy day for those hon. gentlemen if they ever get as near Revelation as that. Their conduct and their policy is like Revelation because nobody can understand it, you cannot even put two meanings on it, you cannot even put one. It is all out of joint like the hon. gentleman's speech, and I would advise him either to read the Scripture over again, or to leave it alone, in the House. Now, what have these hon. gentlemen done? They are living in the good old Tory House, and they have simply put a bay window to the House. Just like the bad boy running away from justice, he runs into the bay window, and thinks he is out of danger. They have merely put up a bay window to this' building, but it will never stand the storm, because the roof is not good, it will leak, and they will be driven out. The opinion is looming up all over this country that this English preference is a mistake. They say they have a revenue tariff. Supposing it is a revenue tariff so far as England is concerned. Is it a revenue tariff to any other country in the world ? No. Sir, and they cannot claim it is. The most they can claim for it is that it might be a revenue tariff so far as English goods are concerned. But when they apply it to any other country it is a highly protective tariff, and the principle of protection is as much embodied in it as it ever was in this country before, and in some instances more.
When you come to consider the farmers, do mowing machine, reapers, binding machines and all the heavy articles farmers are obliged to purchase-does one single article come into this country under the English preference ? The farmers' interests have been totally overlooked. So they need not claim so much for their English preference. But what does the mutual preference mean ? Hon. gentlemen say : Oh, you need not ask for it. Is thdt a position for a public man to take ? Is that what the followers of hon. gentlemen opposite do when they want anything ? No, they are knocking at the door every day of the week, Sunday included, for something they want. They believe in that principle when they are after the public chest, they ought to believe in that principle when they are after the markets of the world. But no, you must not ask for it, you can never get it. Now there is just this question to be looked at:	We have got to come to some
different conditions in this country from what hon. gentlemen opposite propose. I say seriously that the economic conditions of this country are in danger under the present regime. We are standing to-day in this position:	Chinese labour, one-third of the
world's population, knocking at our western
gate for admission. What does that mean? Five cents a day. ten cents a day, fifteen cents a day for labour. If hon. gentlemen admit that free trade is the policy of Canada, then they have got to open these western gates and let this horde of cheap labour into this country in order to enable us to compete with other manufacturing countries. You have got to decide either for high protection in this country or taking care of Canadians, or opening your gates and letting this cheap labour come in, in order that Canada may compete with foreign manufacturers. That is a question worth considering, and ought to be considered. What do we see to-day in that wonderful country ? Every commercial country in the world in arms out there watching the great interests that are at stake. If the country is divided up, no doubt England will be a great factor in the ultimate decision, and who then can compete with England in that country, with her money and with her cheap labour ? Canada is not in a position to do so. We wish to have the closest possible relations with the mother country, but we want to protect our interests in the future; and hon. gentlemen opposite are derelict in their duty if they do not take up that subject and deal with it before complications arise that they will be unable to cope with.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few things that ought to be said, and this cold storage business is one matter that I wish to refer to. After all the boasting that we have had with reference to what these hon. gentlemen have accomplished I say, without fear of successful contradiction, that cold storage, so far as fruits are concerned, is but in its experimental stage. They don't know to-day what policy is best to adopt, they do not know under what conditions it is safest to ship fruit; and I fancy that one of the causes of failure is that they have sent out to England their camp followers who know as much about the conditions that should govern the shipment of fruit as about those that govern the shipment of swine, and no more. They boast about their cold storage for shipments of butter and cheese to England; how is it then that these articles stand several shillings, in the English market, under the products of Denmark and of Australia ? They say that butter reaches there under the conditions it ought to be in, yet it has to take a back seat in the English market so far as prices are concerned. The quality is right, and if it was shipped there under proper conditions the price would be higher than it is. But in order to get good prices something more must be done. What are they boasting about ? There is another matter they have got to learn, and that is that you cannot take butter, or cheese, or any other perishable article out of a low temperature and put it into a higher temperature, with safety to that article. That has been one

of the great difficulties in shipments of our fowls over there. After all the boasting of hon. gentlemen, there is no place over there for a man to put his articles into cold storage by government provision ? There is for his butter and cheese, but there is not for his fowls, and he has got to go to the Englishman who makes a business of cold storage, and he puts his fowl in there-at what price ? From two and a half cents to three cents per pound for thirty days. That means that the Canadian shipper of fowl makes that much less profit on it. These gentlemen are not looking after the interests of the farmers as they ought. Shippers may stuff their chicken as much as they like here, but if they do not put it in proper condition on the English market the chicken won't bring a proper return. If you look up the records you will find all the shipments that have been made. Now, they cannot surely ask businessmen to ship goods under the condition of things that they have brought about themselves. I was looking up the articles of shipment going over to the old country, and it is a losing game, according to their own reports. Then why do they expect private individuals to invest their capital in such enterprises ? It is about time we had somebody running this concern that knew what he was doing. It is time for them to quit singing this song:	See
what we have done for the farmers, look at the cold storage we have given them. What was the argument of hon. gentlemen opposite in reference to cold storage in 1896 when it was almost in its inception ? Why, when the Conservative government had an item of $60,000 in the estimates of 1896, and when Mr. Foster, who was then acting Minister of Agriculture, asked hon. gentlemen opposite to allow the item to pass in order that he might keep up the continuity of the system, they refused point black to allow it to pass. Still, they go around this country boasting of what they are doing for the farmer. They are not willing to do for the farmer what they profess, they are now after something else. He is the last man in the account. They try to make him believe that their bowels of compassion are as warm as ever for him. Sir, they are as dry as a ram's horn.
Now if hon. gentlemen opposite were honest, were sincere in attempting to get a revenue tariff for this country, no government had a better opportunity. They had a buoyant revenue, a surplus of millions. They claimed to have made a reduction in the tariff, although they have a surplus of eight millions. No attempt to carry out what they professed to think this country wanted. They claimed that the country wanted a revenue tariff. Why, Sir, we never had such a revenue in this country. That is the sense in which it is a revenue tariff. A revenue tariff properly speaking should only meet the requiremnts and just Mr. BRODER.
demands of the country, but hon. gentlemen opposite have a revenue tariff that meets more than the just demands of the country and $8,000,000 to boot, according to their story.
I say that the mutual preference which is proposed in the amendment before the House, means a great deal more than many people may see upon the face of It. It does not mean that because England may put 5 cents a bushel on wheat or may put a very nominal duty on cattle and the products of other agricultural countries entering the British market, that therefore we will get a trifle more for our agricultural products; but it means-the first place for us Canadians in the English mai'ket, and it means an unlimited market for the products of Canada. It means a great deal more than hon. gentlemen opposite assume; it means an unlimited market for the products of this country for years and years to come. It puts the Canadian farmer in the position of the man who drives down to the Ottawa market with a load of produce and has an hour to sell his goods before any one else is allowed to get there. It means that his load is sold whether other people's loads are sold or not. If there is one thing more than another that England is interested in, and if there is one thing more than another that the government ought to represent to the authorities in England, it is that we in Canada have the land and we ought to have the energy and the population to produce all the bread and meat that England wants. We have got the broad acres to do it, thanks to the Conservatives who opened up our country, and the moment it would dawn on England that we would be able in a few short years to give her all the food products she wants, then there would be no difficulty in bringing about this mutual preferential trade which is advocated on this side of the House. Hon. gentlemen opposite say it is impossible to do it. Sir, It is worth the trial, and any public man who is not willing to make the effort, is not honest to the interests of Canada.
Now, Sir, I want to speak of a matter which has often been referred to by gentlemen on the Liberal benches. They will get up there and talk about the race cry, and the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Ross), was good enough to say that there was no race cry in Nova Scotia. Well, that is to the credit of the Conservative party in that province. The Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) waxed loud and eloquent- loud, whether eloquent or not-about some little paper away up north saying something about Laurier-Tarte & Co., and so on. If there is one thing more than another that these hon. gentlemen, from the premier down, persist in, it is in refusing to be held by the opinions expressed in newspapers. They repudiated their organs from the
Globe down to tbe smallest sheet-I do not want the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) to leave the House until I tell: him something. There was another cry in North Bruce, and what was it? It was the harbour cry and the dock cry. The 1 Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was up there wading through the snow up to his waist-and that is not far-and skating on the ice to inspect the harbours to see what the people wanted, just two days before the election. I am very glad he went up there, because I think he helped to elect a good Tory.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We only had fifty votes more there.


Andrew Broder: Well, with all the trouble you had in your special car and all that, they were a pretty expensive lot. I am not finding fault with that, because I think the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) ought to be used well-when he goes away.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
*


Andrew Broder: It is very significant that two ministers of the Crown should be in the neighbourhood of North Bruce. The hon. member (Hon. Mr. Ross) told us that Providence has been kind to the Liberals, but Providence did not favour these two ministers because the storm stayed them and snowed them in. Providence is beginning to leave you fellows over there. There is a good deal said by gentlemen opposite about the race cry, but I state here fearlessly that they are in power today because of the race cry. The race cry is not the product of a few months nor of a few years even, but you can go back to 1885 and 1886 and you find the right hon. the Prime Minister on the Champ de Mars in Montreal backed up by the Hon. Mr. Mercier trying to unite his people in one phalanx irrespective of party. There is 'the crop across the House to-day : fifty-eight members from the province of Quebec in a solid phalanx supporting the government, and seven Conservatives. Talk about the race cry. Can you find a single instance in the history of the country parallel to that. They have now the crop from ithe seed they have sown, and the moment you speak of the fine crop that they have grown on this soil that they have cultivated so long, they answer back : Oh, you are raising the race cry. I say that there is no honest man who should stand up and endeavor to make capital out of a race cry in this country. I have never done it. and I have stood up for the minority when my political interests would have been better served by taking the other side. That is known all over this country. I say that the men from the leader down who have attempted to unite the people because of their race and religion irrespective of
party, have not worked in the interest of Canada. Is not this a significant thing V I have here a quotation from speeches of the First Minister and the Hon. Mr. Mercier on the Champ de Mars as published on the 26th November, 1885, in La Patrie, and that speech of the Prime Minister is not to be found in the volume of speeches which the friend of the right hon. gentleman has published to be read by the people of Canada. Was that speech intended for Quebec ? It was not intended for the rest of the world, because it is not published. That is rather significant. It Is time hon. gentlemen opposite should cease harping on the race question. Why, you can scarcely mention the name of the Prime Minister or of the Hon. Mr. Tarte without being accused of raising the race cry. Have we not the right to deal with the conduct of public men no matter who they are or what they are ? The Conservative party is the party that has stood up for the rights of minorities in every respect. If you want authority for the statement that the Liberals have raised the race cry, you can read your own newspaper. You can turn back to the Montreal Herald of the 28th March, 1885, and you will find that it refers to the present Prime Minister and to the Hon. Edward Blake as endeavouring to make capital out of the condition of things in the North-west, and it speaks of the Globe newspaper as having for two years attempted to bring about disturbances in the North-west. I can quote from the documents of the Liberal party to prove that they are the party who live on racial cries. But, Sir, I say with pride that while the Conservative party stands here with a small phalnax from the province of Quebec, they stand as representing the best element in that province; the best element among the French Canadian people of the province of Quebec. Sir, the best element of the people, English and French, in the province of Quebec, stand behind the Conservative party in this parliament, and to-day we hear the rumblings of discontent of certain men who want to follow the lines laid down in 1885 and 1887. They stand up 'here and they say : Whist, whist, we have got all the advantage in Quebec that we can get out of that condition of things, and now we want to talk to Ontario a while. I do not believe that any honest public man should make use of such a weapon in political warfare. These gentlemen opposite cannot hurl taunts across the floor of the House without expecting a retort, and if they get a retort they have brought it upon themselves. I say, Sir, that the people of Canada irrespective of race or creed are willing to stand side by side in the great national interests of this country, and they should be allowed to do so without interference from the Liberal party.

Our old friend (Hon. Mr. Ross) spoke about the iron bounties. I think he was hardly fair in his argument, because at the present time we are paying more for iron bounties than was ever paid before in this country, and that is a condition of things he is willing to support. He told us it was time enough to bid good morning to the devil when you met him, but the hon. gentleman was between the devil and the deep sea, and he did not wish to answer that question. He has been too long in public life not to know what that question meant. He himself tells us he has been fifteen years in public life and he knows very well that was a fair question put in a fair way, and he should answer it.


William Ross: I will answer it if you wish.


Andrew Broder: I am going to answer it, perhaps better than you can. The hon. gentleman's province is much interested now in the iron bounties, and he did not want to say anything about it. Provincial interests came in again, and he is a provincial man. He is not a Dominion man at all, and if he is true to his province, he should support our leader here. If he is a free trader, I do not know how in the world he can sleep in that House over there.


William Ross: We have a leader from our province on this side of the House.


Andrew Broder: I only wish to say that consistency is a jewel which you will never find over there, and we need not look for it. Men who have talked free trade for twenty years are there now, declaring themselves to be tariff revenue men or free traders in principle, who cannot apply free trade to this country. If there is anything at all in the free trade argument, the sooner you apply it to a young country, the easier it is to apply it. Hon. gentlemen opposite are not honest when they make that statement, because they try to shelter themselves for not applying their policy to the country behind the statement that this is a new country and it cannot be applied. if they cannot apply their policy to the country, the honest, straightforward course is for them to go out of office and give others a chance to apply another policy. There is no danger of that, however, in this case. If the country is too young for a free trade policy, I suppose it is because the patient is not strong enough to stand the medicine. The fact is, that hon. gentlemen opposite are afraid of public opinion. They never announced to the country their British preference as a part of their policy. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies) put a small motion of about three lines on this subject on ' Hansard' some years ago, but it was never discussed on the public platform. They never attempted to put forward that Mr. BRODER.
policy until they got here among their friends who had been fighting for free trade for many years, and who said to them : You must do something in the direction of free trade ; and then the ingenious brain of the Finance Minister conjured up a preference to England, and they threw it to their followers as you might throw a plank to a drowning man ; and on that plank they got ashore. Is that what you talked about to this country for eighteen years ? In all that time it never was mentioned, and hon. gentlemen have not been honest in adopting it. They adopted it merely as an emergency food for their friends ; but it is very weak, and they will not live on it long, and they know it.
Now, the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) made some reference to the condition of labour in the United States. Does it not occur to that hon. gentleman and to the House that his argument was not pertinent at all ? Because you find in Europe that the manufactured products of the United States, such as iron, are disturbing the economic conditions of all Europe. Yet, this hon. gentleman talks about protection being *a failure to the labourer in the United States. Where are the labourers who are shut out of our mills going to-day ? They are going to the United States, a highly protected country. Hon. gentlemen could not use an argument more detrimental to their own interest than a comparison of the United States with any free trade country. American iron is displacing English iron in the world's market, and even our own Minister of Railways has to go to the United States to buy engines and cars. When we look over the history of the United States we find that their difficulty only came when they receded from a high tariff, and in every instance they have had to go back to a high tariff in order to keep their labour for their labouring men, and in order to keep pace with the great requirements of the country. There is no country in the world to compare with it, for the enormous success it has had as a commercial country, in the few years, nationally speaking, of its existence. Another thing I wish to refer to is the great increase in the value of the agricultural products of that country under high protection. The increase in the value of agricultural products last year over that of the previous year was no less than four billions of dollars. Yet hon. gentlemen talk about the condition of things in this country. When they make these comparisons, they must expect to be met with the facts.
These are things which every public man should understand before he atempts to legislate for the requirements of this young country. With its enormous resources and the great energy of its people, all it wants is proper management and the proper investing of capital to attain the position it ought to attain as a prosperous and. growing country.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: 

trying to find some fine names to make ourselves seem in accord witli declarations made twenty-five years ago. The Canadian people is broadminded ; it does not ask its public men to show that their action to-day is copied from a dictum a quarter of a century old, so long as their action is a right one, and one in the interests of the country. I believe that, as a general rule, the taxation of this country should be proportioned to the requirements of the government, meaning that there should be a high rate when the total revenue is not up to the required expenditure, and a lower rate when the total revenue is too high. This is a general principle, which, I admit, must be applied with some care. It does apply indeed, and has been applied for several years in France. Now, I am free to admit that I am not a great admirer of the French system of government, so far as politics are concerned. I have never made any bones about it. i think it will be admitted that I am not moved by a desire to flatter anybody-I am not a flatterer, I think I may be granted that much- if I say I am a great admirer of the British system of government, so far as politics are concerned, so far as the balance of power Is concerned, so far as concerns the granting of individual liberty and the keeping up of social liberty. But, so far as economic policy is concerned, I may be granted leave to say that the French nation is the best-ruled nation in the world. It may be said that under the French system of economy the trade of France has not expanded, while the trade of England, the trade of Germany, the trade of the United States have expanded. To my mind, the end of government is not so much to help the manufacturers and tradesmen of a country to make and sell more goods, but to see that, through a sound economical policy, each class of the people shall share in the benefits of industry. The richest country in the world, to my mind, is not the country which manufactures and sells the most, but in which there is an equal proportion of wealth amongst all classes of people. And, so far as that is concerned, there is no nation that equals the French nation to-day. And why ? Because their economical questions are outside of politics. There are free traders and there are protectionists in France ; but there is no party of free trade and no party of protection. There is a non-political commission which, every year, looks into the production of the country, considers the industrial condition of the country ; and, if it is found that the prices charged by the producers of goods are too high, the duties are lowered and foreign goods are allowed to come in to compete-not to crush the national industries-but to force the producers to sell their products to the people of France at a fair profit. Now, I admit that in Canada, it would be harder to apply that system, be-Mr. BOURASSA.
cause this is a new country ; new industries are developing, new natural resources are found which change every year the conditions of industry. But, 1 say that we should move towards this end. A tariff should not be prepared and maintained forever simply to protect this industry or that industry, simply to flatter the farming community on one hand or to favour the manufacturing community on the other hand. The tariff should be framed free from political aim, so that all classes of the people should get a legitimate profit by it, and no class should be allowed to make profit at the expense of another. I say that we need some kind of protection in this country. Even in 1890, before I knew exactly what would be the tariff framed, should my party get into power, I told the electors of the county in which I ran, that I was a protectionist, my reason being, I believe, that of the hon. member for Vancouver. The hon. gentleman did not get to the point of telling us why, having come to Canada, he had changed his mind or rather found that a policy which he admired in England could not be applied in Canada. To my mind, the reason is a simple one. As I said, I believe in the tariff being framed, not upon theory, but upon actual and real facts with which we have to deal. What is our position ? Here, on the northern part of the North American continent, are two nations. One is a nation of seventy-five millions of people, separated commercially from the rest of the world by the highest protective wall that exists on the globe. The other is a young rising nation of six millions of people. My reason for saying that we need that, and for some years yet to come, and, perhaps, for many years to come, we shall need a protective tariff in this country, is not merely to give revenue to the government, l*ut to protect ourselves against undue competition from the Americans. I would have no objection to the American goods coming into this country and competing on a fair basis with the Canadian goods; but I have, and I shall continue to have, objections to the American manufacturers, having made up their enormous profits in a protected market of seventy-five millions of people, coming and competing with the Canadian industries and slaughtering prices in Canada. I may be told by my free trade friends : But the Canadian consumer will get the benefit of it, for he will buy cheaper ; and why should you tax all the people of this country for the benefit of a few manufacturers ? I find my reply in the very words of the hon. member for Vancouver this afternoon. As he told us, the manufacturer is the most tyrannical monopolist in the world. It may be that the Canadian consumer, for a short time after the barrier was lowered or removed, would benefit by the low prices of American goods coming into this country, slaughtering our markets and destroying our

manufactures. Tlie consumer might get American goods for two or three years at cheaper rates and so make money. But once the Canadian manufactories were closed and competition in Canada was no longer possible, the prices would go up, as we have seen the price of coal oil go up. And, as against the profit we should make for two or three years, the consumer would pay tenfold in the following years when the Canadian manufacturer was crushed and the American manufacturer had control of the market. I would be a free trader as much as any man on this side of the House, if there could be fair competition from other nations with the American manufacturer. If the conditions were such that the German or English product could come in and compete with the American product, I would say : Let the Canadian manufacturers be driven out, and let the Canadian consumer profit by the cheaper market. But what do we see now : the steel king of the United States sells his goods, not merely in British possessions, not merely in the competitive markets of the world, but in England, at the very door of the English manufacturer, competing in an industry which has been for years in the hands of England. He forces the English railways to buy American steel rails manufactured in a protective country, after they have been transported to the seaboard on American railways, carried across the Atlantic, taken to the very door of the English steel manufacturer and sold at cheaper prices than the Englishman can make them.


William Cameron Edwards: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) allow me to ask him a question ? Does he pretend that it is as a result of protection that these steel rails were manufactured more cheaply in the United States and sold in the British markets ?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: Then, the hon. gentleman does not know what he is talking about.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Before my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Edwards) passes judgment on my knowledge, let me answer his question by saying : No, I do not pretend so. But, I take the facts as they are. Whether it be on account of protection or on account of more skilful labour, or better means of production, I find that the manufactures of free trade England are driven, not merely out of the markets of the world, but out of the British market as well, by the products of the United States. Therefore, I say, before we open our doors, let us consider these facts. I do not say, however, let us nail up our doors. And it is for that reason that I cannot adopt the first paragraph of the declaration of the leader of the opposition, which says :
72J
That, in the opinion of this House, the welfare of this country requires a pronounced policy of adequate protection and encouragement at all times to the labour, agricultural, manufacturing, mining and other industrial interests of Canada.	.
I simply say that so long as we cannot find better means of preventing American manufacturers slaughtering their goods in foreign markets, after they have made an honest profit in their own so long as we cannot otherwise prevent their killing our own industries in this way-we need some protection for some time to come. But when we come down to the details, then we should find out the difference between . protectionists on principle and protectionists by accident. The difference should be this : Instead of abiding by the straight rule laid down by the leader of the opposition, men who have fought all their lives for the doctrine of free trade, should carry their principles into practice by at least giving the lowest protection possible and concentrating that protection upon those industries which make the most use of the natural products of this country. That protection should also be administered in favour of those industries which are liable to be killed by the competition of foreign monopolists, and should be applied more particularly to Canadian manufactures that are not under the control of monopolies and trusts. In other words, we should fight, not only against foreign but against domestic trusts as well. Of course, I know that in the tariff of 1897 there is a special provision giving power to the Minister of Customs to discriminate against trusts and combines. But how is that law applied ? I shall not go into the details of the tariff, not only because I do not pretend to be an authority, but also because I do not believe that a great accumulation of figures implies a great deal of science. But I shall simply take the three industries of sugar, cotton and wool. These three, I would, in my ignorance, classify under the heading of artificial industries, and what I mean by an artificial industry is one which does not use any national product, but imports the foreign product and then converts that product into something else. The three industries I have mentioned, I refer to more particularly because their products are those most required by the mass of the people, especially sugar and cotton. Woollens perhaps are not so totally required by the poor, because they include the more expensive articles of clothing.
What about sugar ? We are told by the Minister of Finance that he does not propose to encourage the manufacture of beetroot sugar. I am not a believer in bounties on principle, but if under a free trade government bounties are to be given to capitalists, to owners of iron mines and iron smelters, why should not a similar favour be extended to the Canadian farmer, especially

when that would encourage competition against one of the largest and best known trusts of this country. If there is an artificial industry in the world, as far as Canada is concerned, it is that of sugar. We do not produce one cent's worth of the raw material required by the refiners, but thanks to our tariff-not only the tariff framed four years ago, but the present tariff- the sugar refiner has ample protection. According to the statement of the Minister of Customs the other night, our revised tariff of to-day gives S cents more per 100 pounds of protection to the refiner, which means the swelling of the dividends of the sugar trust and an increase of revenue to the government at the cost of the Canadian consumer. Yet, when the Canadian farmer asks a little bounty, he is told in reply : Oh ! no, this is a free trade government.
Let us take cotton and wool. Here are two industries which are most directly affected by the preference accorded to Great Britain. We had the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) telling us this afternoon that the woollen industry had not suffered from English competition. But on the other hand, we had the declaration of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. ICendry) telling us that it had. In this matter, I do not profess to be a judge, but I know that last week I met one of the representatives of the biggest woollen concerns of Canada, and was told by him of the efforts which the woollen manufacturers had made to meet English competition. He said that when the 25 per cent reduction was made in the tariff of 1897, they got new implements and improved machinery, and were prepared to fight the English competition. And even when the further reduction of 8J per cent was made, they did not cease their efforts ; but they were very much afraid that when the trade, which was now very brisk, became slack, they would not be able to stand the pressure. They were afraid that at first the smaller manufacturers would have to shut down and then the others would have to follow suit. I voted heartily in favour of the reduction of 25 per cent in the tariff of 1897, not for the reason, given three years later, that it was going to create a stronger bond of unity between England and the colony, but because it meant a reduction of duty to the Canadian consumer. For the same reason, I supported the further reduction last year, but at that time I made a reservation. I said : I am in favour of this reduction because I believe that industries, which cannot hold their own with two-thirds of the actual duty in their favour and the cost of transportation, are not worthy of existing on Canadian soil, and the Canadian people should not be taxed for their maintenance.
I expected that this year the question would be looked at with a little more care by the government. I would be disposed to say that these industries which cannot exist under


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: the present preferential tariff of England, should not exist. But then let the law be the same for all. How is it that previous to the reduction that was made in favour of British goods, the duties on woollen articles remained the same but the duties on cotton fabrics went up ? We had a letter from the most important cotton manufacturer of this country, Mr. Gault, congratulating this government on the way they had framed their tariff. The Minister of Customs says to the woollen manufacturers :	Go on, display
skill, and the Almighty will help you ! But when the cotton industries were concerned, perhaps the government said the same thing :	Display skill, help yourselves and
the Almighty will help you,-and perhaps they added :	We will help you a little too,
and we will raise the duty. Why this different treatment V Is it because the woollen industries are not combined and the cotton industries are combined ? I would be very much surprised, though not being a free trader on principle, if, under a government elected to power by free traders, combined industries should receive special protection, while industries who are striving to live separately receive no consideration.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the second paragraph of the amendment of the leader of the opposition, the paragraph in favour of mutual preference throughout the British Empire. To my mind that paragraph is a direct contradiction to the first one. Hon. gentlemen opposite have complained that Canadian industries are hurt by the preferential tariff, and they say they want a preference in the British market as a compensation for the preference we give. I have followed pretty closely the declarations of hon. gentlemen opposite, from the leader of the opposition to the last speaker, and I have not yet been able to catch their idea. I would like to put this question to the leader of the opposition :	Are we to understand by this paragraph in favour of mutual reciprocity between Great Britain and her colonies that, if the leader of the opposition should come to power, he would protect the industries which his party claim are hurt by preferential trade, by raising the duties on foreign articles to the rate that existed before, in order to make up for that preference in favour of British goods ?


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I do not see that there is any difficulty at all in what the hon. gentleman suggests. It is perfectly easy adequately to protect Canadian industries, and at the same time, so far as we have to import from foreign countries, to give a preference to Great Britain.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I think the reply is very indefinite. These gentlemen are attacking the preferential policy of the government on the ground that it hurts some Canadian industries. I do not think they would go so far as to say that, should they [DOT]come to power, they would first raise the

duty on those article by 33J per cent of the old duty, and then raise the duty on all other articles except British so as to make up for the preference. Therefore, should they leave things as they are, and simply ask for compensation by a protection on colonial goods in the British market, that would not afford any help to the woollen industry. The fact that we would sell more cheese, more flour, more butter, and that we might sell them at a higher price in the British market, would not be any compensation to the woollen manufacturers. Therefore, I say that from the point of view laid down in the first paragraph of the amendment that there should be ample protection to certain industries, the kind of preference which they suggest would not be in accordance with their promises to those industries.
Now the question is, what advantage would be derived from mutual protection ? To my mind-and that is especially where I differ from the government-X do not oppose this motion simply on the ground that mutual, protection cannot be obtained from England, I oppose it on principle. But the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance say that we cannot get that preference, while the hon. gentlemen opposite say we can. The evidence given by hon. gentlemen on this side that we cannot get the mutual preference, is especially drawn from the deliberations of the congress of the Chambers of Commerce in London last summer. I am one of the first men in this country who read that report. It was sent to me directly from London by an English friend of mine, who is like myself an anti-imperialist, only that he is free to say in England what I am not free to say here. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs have referred to that report, but only to that part of it which relates to commercial preference. But the question was not presented to the congress of the Chambers of Commerce in London, it was not presented to the British people, it was not presented to the Prime Minister of England, it was not presented to Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, upon the ground that it was simply a matter of trade; therefore I may be allowed to complete the record made by the Prime Minister and his colleagues. The document is a very interesting one, and is illustrative of the present state of mind throughout the empire-of the juvenile colonial enthusiasm in comparison with that stern common sense and sound British spirit of which we have had such a good example in the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith). And I may say to that hon. gentleman that I would be pleased one of these days if he would come down to the province of Quebec, and I would help to elect him in one of our French constituencies ; we need Englishmen like him in this country. The first question that was presented to that
congress was not the question of mutual preference, it was the question of a consultative Imperial council. Gentlemen who are familar with this congress know that all tlie resolutions discussed in it are framed previously iu all the Chambers of Commerce throughout the empire, and then sent to the Secretary of the Association in London, and therefore are printed long before they are discussed. A motion in favour of an Imperial council was proposed by a delegate from Birmingham, Mr. Tonks, and in order to give the House the spirit of his motion I will just read a word or two from his speech :
It might be better in this matter of the Imperial council to begin with consultation with the idea that we might end with federation.
Later on :
I believe one of the most important questions which we have to consider at this congress is this question. But if we are willing to take the first step, I feel sure, from what I know of the feelings and views of the Secretary of State for the Colonies that he is only anxious to take such a step if the colonies themselves are united in desiring it.
Well, the colonial representatives were so united that they were not satisfied with the suggestion of the representative from Birmingham: he was not expecting enough from the colonies, he was not opening wide enough the doors of the Council Chamber in favour of the colonies. The representative of the Ottawa Chamber, a civil servant of this government, Mr. Macfarlane, came there and seconded an amendment which was moved by the representative of the Cape Town Chamber, to the effect that not only did the colonies want to be represented, but they wanted to be taxed. The Englishmen said :	No, you go too far, we do
not want your money. But the colonials, full of pride and enthusiasm, insisted: We want to pay, we want to tax ourselves ! And Mr. Macfarlane, a civil servant of this government, was offering the money of the Canadian people to the Englishmen who did not want to take it. Sir, I will read the amendment that was proposed by the Cape Town delegate :
The time has arrived when a serious effort should be made to formulate a scheme of Imperial federation, whereby the self-governing colonies shall be represented in the councils of the empire; that as a means to this end, all the self-governing colonies should contribute a percentage (to be decided by the representatives in conference)

Not even by their parliaments. Oh, no ; parliaments are a small thing under the new system.
That representation in any federal council should be in proportion to the respective contributions of the several states ;
That copies of this resolution be forwarded to Lord Salisbury and the premiers of the selfgoverning colonies for their consideration.
References were made 'to the war in South Africa, and to the display of devotion by

tlie colonies, and, therefore, it was said, that we should not stop these devoted colonies from paying a little more. The representative from Ottawa arraigned Lord Salisbury, who, to his mind, was not Tory enough. He said that the policy for England should be Lord Beaconsfield's policy, and he quoted some words from Lord Bea-consfield, regretting that autonomy had been given to the colonies without some restriction, so that the colonies could bo ruled from London. Some very distinguished Englishmen protested. Lord Avebury, delegate from the association of Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, said : Do not go too fast; we may come to that but wait a little. Here are his words :
In voting for the original resolution, we desire it to be understood that we so vote because we believe that the resolution of the Birmingham chamber will carry us as far as we are prepared to go. Many of us, in supporting what is proposed by the Birmingham chamber today, believe that the time is not far distant when we shall see carried what is suggested by the Cape Town chamber.
Again, the colonies protested. Senator Drummond, one of the representatives of Canada, arraigned the mild language of the Birmingham resolution on the ground that the Englishmen did not want us to be English enough. He said :
I maintain that the language of this resolution of the Birmingham. Chamber of Commerce is entirely insufficient and disappointing. I can assure this assembly that the people of Canada who sent their sons to South Africa were not influenced by any such milk-and-water sentiment as * increased cordiality and sense of union' -increased cordiality-to the extent of inviting you to an afternoon tea, or something of that sort, and to any social function.
Finally, a compromise resolution was arrived at in order to make up for the sentiment of the English people who did not want to take too much from us, and for the sentiment of the colonials who wanted to make us pay more. It was found that in the wording of the compromise resolution, the consultive chamber was to arrange for all this, and thereupon a common-sensed Englishman said : You are making a legislature of this council ; it should be made to consider and advise and not to legislate. Again, a Canadian delegate said : No, no ; we want it to legislate for and govern and rule Canada. But, finally, the common sense of the English people prevailed, and the resolution which was carried was some kind of a resolution which leaves us yet the right to say that we can select to be taxed or not by Mr. Macfarlane, just as we please.
Then, the question of commercial relations came up. As has been said in this House, the matter was introduced by the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Kemp), who gave a great display of colonial sentiment. Mr. Macfarlane came to the rescue, stating that we had sent our sons to Africa, and, Mr. BOURASSA.
therefore, we wanted to be united and blended with England, and so on. In fact, the only colonist to talk <t little common sense was Mr. Cockshutt, one of the Brantford delegates. He said that the British Empire was a commercial empire, and that if it wanted to last it should continue to act on business principles. There was an amendment brought in by the Manchester Chamber, which has not been referred to in this House ; it said.
This congress, rejoicing in the growing evidences of unity between the mother country and the colonies, and recognizing the material and political advantages of the largest possible exchange of commodities between the various portions of the empire, is of opinion that all measures for the promotion of this end should respect the liberty of each portion to purchase in the cheapest market wherever it may exist.
Again the colonials protested. Dr. Parkin spoke of the display of Imperial sentiment in Toronto, Montreal and elsewhere. Mr. Scott protested, that even if we would not be granted any favour by England we were still willing to give our money and our blood for England. That did not disturb the British common sense, and Mr. Thompson replied, speaking of the colonies :
Their trade is of great value to us, but we esteem their friendship even more highly than their trade. The events of the past year have brought home to every Englishman the immense moral and material support which our colonial kinsmen can and do render to the mother country in the defence of the empire. This is far better than any mere community of interests, it is emphatically a union of hearts.
The delegate from the Edinburg chamber, Mr. Anderson, was still shorter and clearer, for he simply said :
Sentiment is one thing and business is another.
Well, the result was that the colonies, in spite of all their display of sentiment, had to come back to accept a compromise resolution, which meant simply that a delegation would interview the Prime Minister of England and ask his opinion, in order to know if some possible favour could be granted to the colonies. We know what was the result of that. The Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) has told us the result of that with much wit and eloquence. The Prime Minister of England, who had been so glad to accept our soldiers, who had been so glad to have our blood shed, who had been so glad to have our moral support in Africa, did not want to receive the Canadian delegates, because it might hurt him in his elections. And though Dr. Parkin, when that compromise motion was adopted, received it as a ' nunc dimittis,' and said it was the opening of a new era for the empire, yet, the Prime Minister of England, and Mr. Chamberlain, reduced it to nothing in a few days.
There was a third question brought up, and it is a question which was coupled in-
timately with tlie question of the Imperial council and the preference in the British market. It was the question of Imperial defence. Again, of course, it was moved by a colonial. The man who moved it was Mr. Hadrill, of the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Macfarlane, who must have much time to prepare his speeches when he is not analysing for the Dominion government, said the motion did not go far enough for him. He wanted Canada to be taxed 5 per cent on all its imports in favour of the British army and navy. This year that would have meant $6,000,000. It is a fine thing for a Dominion civil servant to go to London and to say in our name, without consulting the government of this country, without consulting the (Prime Minister of this country : That Canada is ready to tax herself $6,000,000 a year as a contribution to the English army and navy. But, Sir, what is most peculiar of all is this : Among the three hundred delegates present, one delegate, Mr. Geoft'rion, of the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, had probably read the eloquent words of the Prime Minister last session on the question of the South African war, when the right hon. gentleman said : That Canada was keeping her liberty; that Canada would judge of each case according to its merits, and would interfere in British wars only when she thought fit to do so. Imbued undoubtedly with the eloquence of the Prime Minister, Mr. Geo-frion stated that the contribution of Canada towards the South African war, in sending 3,000 men, and in expending several million dollars without being obliged to do so, should be a proof of the devotion of the colony, and, therefore, he moved as an amendment:
That the colonies be not asked to contribute to the defence of the empire unless they do so willingly, and without coercion or written law.
We have heai-d, Mr. Speaker, of the great influence of the words of the Prime Min-inster of Canada in Great Britain and throughout the empire. Here Mr. Geoffrion uses words taken almost literally from the right hon. gentleman's speeches, but they did not find one seconder in that assembly. Mr. Geoffrion could not find one man to second his motion, and he had to sit down, and the motion which prevailed was not the one inspired by the Prime Minister of this country, but it was the one supported by a Dominion civil servant, and proposed by the Montreal delegate of the chamber of commerce. To sum up, the result of that congress in London, which is far more important than some imagine, is this : When it was a question of giving some representation to the colonies in the Imperial council, there was a division of opinion pro and con ; when it was a question of getting some favour of the colonies from the mother land, it was set aside ; but, when it was a question of taxing the colonies entirely and
solely for the benefit of England, it was carried unanimously ; not a word of protest from the English delegates-not even a word of thanks.
Mr. Speaker, I do not utter these words as a reproach to the distinguished representatives of English trade and politics who were there. No, Sir, they were up to their duty. British statesmen and British tradesmen understand that their first duty belongs to the British nation : and therefore when the colonies go there and offer favours which they are not asked for and not obliged to give, British statesmen and British tradesmen would be very foolish not to accept them. But, I am sufficient an admirer of Great Britain to say that we should be the worthy sons of that great nation and look first after our own interests ; because if we wait for her to look after our interests, we may be left in the dark. The whole problem of political, military and economic Imperialism was summed up by no less an authority than Lord Selborne, Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, in his opening address at that congress, when he said ;
A century and a quarter ago it was this question of Imperial defence which lay at the root of that quarrel with our American colonies which finally lost them to us. To-day it is the same question operating more than any other to draw the different parts of the empire together.
I cannot but echo the words of Lord Selborne. The question of to-day is no new one. It is not the development of a new Imperial policy. It is the same old question which took from England the finest part of her empire. It is the question whether the colonies are to be ruled from London or at home. Sir, the present system is finer, I admit ; it is better framed ; sentiment is better developed in the colonies. Good governors and good majors-general are sent to the colonies ; there is a press which was not in existence 120 years ago ; and the press of this country is influenced to work up sentiment. The eyes of the colonies are veiled by sentiments of loyalty which are not at stake, and politicians are scared. We are proud to compromise the liberty of the colonies and tlieir autonomy under the new name. The representative of the Ottawa Board of Trade, at the London Congress of the Chambers of Commerce, eulogized the policy of Lord Beacons-field, and I do not think we shall have to wait very long before we shall have some apologists telling us that the best rule that existed for the colonies was that of Lord North and George III. We are coming to it very fast.
It may be answered that the parliaments of the colonies are free, that they can object to anything sought to be imposed upon them by the British government. Yes, but do not forget that the Irish parliament was free not to sell the liberties of Ireland, and

they were sold just the same. I admit that the operation was very quickly done ; but I do not think that it was more surely done than it is being done uow iu Canada. You may say that there is a good deal of politics in all these things. Yes, there has been a good deal of politics in the way the question of Imperialism has been treated in this country. No doubt it was politics when one party iu Ontario was telling the people that love to the mother country was the only inspiration of its policy, and in Quebec was saying that they had only done it for the sake of Canada ; and when the other party was saying in Ontario that their opponents had not done enough for England, and was saying in Quebec that they had done too much. But the men who were gathered together at the conference of the Chambers of Commerce in London, were not politicians, but representatives of British Capital and industry. Not only was the trade and commerce of the whole empire represented there, but also the bankers, the large navigation companies and the railway companies ; and the influence of British capital is very strong in all these institutions. When a Canadian or Australian or Cape Colony company has debentures to float or money to borrow, where do they go ? They go to London. You may say they go to London for business and not for politics. I may be allowed to mention a little incident to show how the London capitalist can influence politics in other countries. It may scandalize very much the loyalists of this House to hear it, but in England it would not do harm to any man ; so I will speak as if I were in England. I met last year in New York the chief secretary of the pro-Boer committee, who told me that he had gathered funds, not to help the BoerS, but to send help for their wounded and sick soldiers, just as another committee in New York had been organized to send help to wounded and sick British soldiers ; and he said he had tried to place his funds in fourteen American banks, and he was refused permission to do so. because he was told that it would hurt their business in London. When we see that the influence of English capitalists is strong enough to prevent a banker in New York accepting money which was to be devoted, not to military purposes, but to charity, we may be sure that the English capitalists can influence capital in Montreal, Halifax, Toronto, and elsewhere in Canada, and can also influence Canadian politicians. I do not mean to influence them corruptly, but I mean to influence public opinion. How was this influence of the Chambers of Commerce carried to the politics of the colonies ? In a very simple way: through the British Empire'League, a branch of which exists in Canada, and to which belong ministers of the Crown, members of both sides of the House.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: and senators-Conservative and Liberals, French and English. Two or three members of this cabinet were there ; and what did you see ? At the meeting of that league held in Ottawa, during this very session, the same resolutions, were passed which had been adopted by the Chambers of Commerce, and it was very skilfully done. These resolutions are always moved by a Conservative and seconded by a Liberal, or moved by a Liberal and seconded by a Conservative. The president of that league read an address, which has been scattered all over the country in pamphlet form, and in which the very idea dominant at the congress of the Chambers of Commerce in London was set forth, namely, that all the colonists should be taxed to contribute to Imperial defence, meaning, in the very words of the president, a contribution of over six millions of dollars from Canada, for this year alone.
Now, with regard to getting an Imperial preference for Canada, I do not see that it is a very remote possibility. It is true, Mr. Chamberlain has said that it will not come. But Mr. Chamberlain is not there for ever, and he has changed his mind on a few subjects, from home rule down. We know that Mr. Chamberlain is not only the master, but the prophet of this government. and of this country; but, Sir, there is something more powerful than even Mr. Chamberlain ; there is British capital, and there are British interests. British trade is suffering to-day. The British manufacturers are finding that their products are coming more and more into competition with foreign products in foreign markets, and foreign products are coming into competition with their products even in their own market. At the same time they see that the trade of their colonies is increasing and that their purchasing as well as their producing capacity is growing every day ; and they may come to the conclusion before long that something might be done with the colonies to the exclusion of the rest of the world. Of course, the British capitalists will not act as long as they can pay us with declarations and sentiments. John Bull is a practical fellow, and he will pay us with compliments and medals as long as we accept them, like the savages who exchange gold and ivory for glass pearls. But the time will come when the colonies will not accept such things as sufln-cient compensation for their blood and money, and what will then be offered ? Then we shall be offered an Imperial council, first to consult, and afterwards to federate and deal. I need not say that such an Imperial council does not mean representation for the colonies. I do not mean to say that there may not be two or three men in it from Canada, and two or three men from Australia, New Zealand and other British colonies : but that does not
mean representation for tlie colonies. Of course, 1 may presume that these men will always be the best we can send ; but after all they will always be, as far as each colony is concerned, a small minority in the whole council ; and moreover, they will always be under the direct influence of the London government. I say the Canadian people can have proper representation only in a chamber which is on Canadian soil, and over which they have exclusive and direct influence. You may say that this is not becoming, but our Canadian representative, Lord Strathcona, has already approved the idea. Addressing a Scotch audience some months ago, at some festival in the Aberdeen University, he said he was in favour of the organization of an Imperial council, on which each colony would be represented by one, two or three men, and which would deal with Imperial affairs.
The next step would be commercial preference, and I would not be surprised if it should come. But when it does come, it will mean that the amount of taxation which the British people will impose on themselves in order to give a preference to colonial products, would be more than compensated to them by the sacrifices of money and men required of the colonies to keep up the Imperial army and navy. There is some talk of reorganizing the army in England and the word ' conscription' which, six months ago, could not have been uttered before an English audience, has been pronounced by a minister of the Crown in England. On this question of preference, on which we are told that Lord Salisbury and Mr. Chamberlain have made up their mind, it is true there is no public declaration ; but, according to all the reports, the English cabinet are divided, and while Sir Michael Hicks-Beach still stands by the old principle of free trade, Mr. Chamberlain is inclined to give some kind of preference to the colonies. But as far as I am concerned, I shall vote against the resolution of the leader of the opposition, not because I think we cannot get this preference or because it may not come for a long time, but because I do not want it. And I do not want it for the reason that it would coist us a great deal of our liberty and commit us to Imperial federation. My position to-night is exactly the same as that taken by the right lion, the Prime Minister in 1891, when he said in Boston that Canada would never consent to Imperial federation because that would mean contribution to England's wars. The right hon. gentleman may have changed his ideas since, but I may be permitted to stand on the same ground as he did then, and refuse English preference because I believe that the price we would have to pay, namely, the obligation to contribute to England's wars, would be entirely too costly.
I now come to the third paragraph of the amendment, but evidently any reason for that third paragraph has disappeared since the hon. gentleman has told us that it does not apply to the United States. If the policy of discriminating in favour of or against foreign countries according to the advantages they give or refuse us, were to apply to any country, it would apply to the United States, and therefore if the hon. gentleman is not in favour of applying it to the United States there is no reason for its existence in the resolution at all. On this point I fully agree with the First Minister, when he says that our tariff should not be framed with regard to Germany or the United States but with regard to Canada. I believe with him that we should not impose a high duty, which would mean higher taxation on our own people, simply because a low duty might be of some advantage to American or German manufactures. On the contrary, we should frame our duties to meet the needs of Canadian consumers. The same remark applies to British goods. In this question we should treat all countries on the same principle. I have never preferred the American dollar to the British shilling, and I now worship the British shilling no more than I do the American dollar. The one principle upon which we should stand in our political, economical and military matters should be the devotion to Canadian interests in preference to American, British, German or any other. You may say that this is a policy of egotism. It may be, but egotism is the only law of nations. I do not say that we should disinterest ourselves completely from the welfare of other people, but our first duty is to Canada before every other country.
As regards our relations with the United States, I am a little embarrassed as to the treatment of that question. But my connection with the International Commission is now sufficiently distant to allow me to interpret the events that have succeeded, I may say this much, that if that International Commission did not come to any satisfactory conclusion, no blame can be east upon the representatives of Canada. They did their duty to Canada. They asked what they should have asked for. They showed sufficient spirit of conciliation and at the same time retained their dignity. But I will venture the opinion that if we did not succeed in getting better and fairer treatment from the Americans, the fault lies at the hands of the British government. That commission sat during six months-three in Quebec and three in Washington. After it was over, one of the British commissioners, who was at the same time a member of this cabinet, Sir Louis Davies, went to England and passed a few months there. And on his return he told us that he had found such prejudices in the minds of English states-I men that he had been obliged to write

a big volume In order to make them understand that Canada was right. Yet for six months the British government was represented on that commission by Lord Herschell, one of the ablest of English public men, and who was in correspondence with his government during all that time. Lord Herschell passed several weeks in Canada, and discussed the question with this government as well as with the American delegates, and was besides in correspondence all the time with the British authorities, and yet we had to send a delegate to London to persuade our dear cousins, the employees of Mr. Chamberlain, that they should look a little more to the interests of Canada and a 'little less to those of the United States. How is it that the British government succeeded in getting from the United States a settlement by arbitration of the Venezuela question ? Yet when we, under the same British flag, invoking the same law, ask the Washington authorities to apply the same principle of arbitration to the interpretation of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States, as successors of Russia's rights, they replied : No, the same principle no longer applies. In the war with Spain, the United States had the friendship of England and it has even been claimed that that friendship was the cause of the United States not having been disturbed by European interference. In the war between England and the Transvaal, the first nation to acknowledge the annexation by England of the Dutch republics was the United States. How is it, then, that, with all these friendly relations between the two countries, the Canadian case has received no attention ? How is it that the Washington authorities have been induced to agree with the British authorities on every question but the Canadian one ? I think it arises from the fact that as long as the British authorities are convinced that the* Canadians are simple-minded enough to give their money, blood, and assistance and to send over a representative to declare to the English people ' Even if you do not give us any return, we will still be always ready to help you,' they will take our money, blood and help, but when it comes to settling our difficulties with the United States they will only give us a faint-hearted support. So long as we do not make ourselves respected we shall not be respected.
Out of that great friendship between England and the United States, I had hoped for much. I had hoped that a country like Great Britain, which has done so much for the benefit of humanity, and the United States, which has done so much for the development of the world, would have agreed together upon a prompt and peaceful settlement of any dispute. But it seems that the spirit of grab is the basis of that friendship and cannot be fruitful of peaceable results. And perhaps the United States are Mr. BOURASSA.
not so much afraid of Great Britain as they were before this South African war. Of that we have had evidence by the way they have treated the Clayton-Bulwer treaty and the Hay-Pauncefote treaty.
Upon this question of the financial policy of the country, I wish to be clearly understood. Whether I may have a future or not in Canadian politics, I intend voting against the whole motion of the leader of the opposition, on account of its spirit. The principle enunciated in the first paragraph, I cannot accept. And I cannot accept it, not because I am a free trader, but because I am a moderate protectionist. The second paragraph also meets with my disapproval, not because we cannot get the preference asked for from England, but because we cannot get it without sacrificing a good deal of Canadian liberty and self-autonomy. And the third paragraph I am opposed to because, as matter of fact, we have no interest in applying the policy indicated to the United States or to other countries.
For many years, parties in this country have been divided on questions of political economy. The aim we should have, the end towards which we should move, is to secure the gradual control of our trade relations with all the countries of the world. I say that the adoption of the principle laid down by the leader of the opposition would have for its practical consequence the framing and control of our tariff policy by some kind of a board in London. It would be a check on our control of our own tariff not only with Great Britain but with the nations of the world. Therefore, Sir, as a Liberal, as a Canadian, attached to the interests of Canada, and wishing that the interests of the Canadian people should be looked after by the Canadian parliament, rather than those of any other country in the world, I shall vote against the three propositions of the leader of the opposition.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention at this late hour to offer any criticism of the speech which has been so ably delivered by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). In fact, even if time permitted, I do not feel that I should be justified in offering any adverse criticism of the discussion he has given to the fiseal policy of the country, for the reason that there seems to be much in common between that hon. gentleman and those sitting on this side of the House. I shall, therefore, follow what I intended to say without reference to the remarks of the hon. gentleman, knowing that he will not regard it as in any way discourteous on my part if I do not offer that criticism which, perhaps, a speech of such ability would be entitled to.
We have been told again and again during this debate that we are living in prosperous times, in fact, that has been the burden of nearly all the speeches that have been delivered by hon. gentlemen sitting on
your right. And I may say that it has been well responded to by hon. gentlemen sitting on this side of the House. We are glad we do live in a time of very considerable prosperity. Hon. gentlemen to your right, however, I think, unfairly claim too much credit for the government now in power for the prosperous times that we now enjoy. They believe that all the large exports and imports of our country have been brought about by reason of the fact that a change of government took place in the year 1896. But, Sir, I see that even in far off China the gross trade of the country has doubled within the last ten years ; and I do not suppose, for one moment, that it will be claimed that the Prime Minister of this country had anything to do with the large increase in the trade of China. It is said that in the United States last year the gross trade was $319,000,000 more than that of any preceding year in the country's history. Surely it will not be contended that the government of this country had anything to do with the increase of the trade of the United States during the past year. We must look elsewhere for the reasons of the prosperity of this country. I think we shall be obliged to go a little further back in order to find who really is responsible for the wave of prosperity that is passing over the country, so far as it can be brought about by any governmental action. Thirty years ago, the government then in power, led by the late Et. Hon, Sir John A. Macdonald, acquired the great North-west country, about which so much has been said. I question if there is any one single act of the government of this country from confederation down to the present time that has tended more to add to our prosperity than that. The acquirement of the territories of the great North-west, that vast domain now dotted with cities, towns and villages, and filling up with prosperous farms sending forth its millions of bushels of grain year after year for export and bringing back millions upon millions of money Into the country, to swell the prosperity of Canada-there is something that a government did that has had the effect of adding to our prosperity. Then, Sir. wre had the construction of the Canadian Pacific Rail-;way, an act that was brought about by the Conservative party long before the advent of the Liberals to power. This great undertaking has undoubtedly done much to add to the prosperity of the country. It enabled the great North-west to be opened up, it enabled the products of that country, the grain and cattle of the plains, the products of the mines of British Columbia


William Ross: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, I would like to say one word. The first staff of surveyors sent out to survey that road was organized by Mackenzie when he was premier of the Dominion. And he continued the survey.


David Henderson: Yes. the first surveyors who went out to survey the water stretches on the line attempted to be built by the friends of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Ross), were sent out by Mackenzie. But I refer to the construction of the great transcontinental road, the road which has opened up that vast country and brought about the prosperity of Canada by making a highway for the products of the North-west to the sea, that they might be transported to the old country, a return being made in the gold which helps to make this country prosperous. Had we remained contented with the amphibious route of ancient days, which has been referred to by my hon. friend, there would not have been very much prosperity brought to Canada by it. Then, Sir, the Conservative government inaugurated the construction and deepening of the canals and in that way assisted transportation, facilitating thus the sending of our products to the foreign market and securing for us a better return, and thus again bringing prosperity to Canada. And then, what legislative act has ever done more to bring prosperity to the country than the great national policy inaugurated by our old chieftain, Sir John Macdonald-a policy that is not only revered by hon. gentlemen sitting on this side of the House, but is respected and admired by hon. gentlemen who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) sneered at the national policy because it was twenty-five years old. Twenty-five years old ! Why, it was a surprise to the hon. minister that we should stand by a policy for twenty-five years. How many policies have the Liberal party had in the last ten years ? Continental free trade, commercial union, unrestricted reciprocity, free trade as they have it in England, preferential tariff, tariff for revenue only-they are constantly changing. An average of about a year and two-thirds is as long as they can endure any one policy. How long has free trade been the policy of Great Britain ? Three score years or more. And do hon. gentlemen opposite say that the British people should change their policy because it is getting old ? Is it not a fact that in England there was a system of protection for two hundred years prior to the advent of free trade ?-a protection that made England what it is to-day, what it never would have been had they adopted a policy such as is approved by many hon. gentlemen opposite.
Speaking very briefly of the national policy and of the great advantages it has brought to this country, I propose to give one single instance. I will take, for the purpose of illustration, one industry that is being carried on at the present time, I refer to the hog industry. In 18S9, We had very low duties on hogs and hog products. It was found the farmers of this country could not secure or retain the home mar-

ket. Tlie government of the day came to their rescue by increasing tlie duty upon liogs, mess pork, fresb pork, bacon and bams, in sucb a way as to give tbe farmers confidence that if they entered heartily in tbe production of bogs they would at least bare tbe borne market for tbeir product. Well, Sir, in 1890, we imported from tbe United States nearly 30,000,000 pounds of bog product. In 1900, so effectually bad tbe system of protecting that industry been tbat we imported only 12,000,000 pounds of bogs and bog products. Thus, in ten years we secured for tbe farmers of this country a market of some 24,000,000 pounds of bogs and bog products-something, I am sure, tbat adds to tbe prosperity of tbe country, and something that must be attributed to tbe national policy. But, Sir, tbat was not all-tbat was only a small part of it. Not only did we secure tbe borne market; but, when tbe farmers of this country felt secure in tbeir position, they commenced to develop tbe industry, so tbat, while, in 1889, before the duties were increased, we only exported about 4,000,000 pounds of bams and bacon, last year we exported from this country the immense quantity of 135,000,000 of pounds of bams and bacon. Year by year from 1890 the export of bog products has increased. As I said, in 1889, it was but 4,000,000 pounds. In 1890 it bad reached 7,000,000 pounds. In 1892, it was 12,000,000 pounds-I omit tbe odd thousands of pounds. In 1894, 28,000,000 pounds ; in 1896, 53,000,000 pounds ; in 1898, 85,000,000 pounds ; in 1900, 135,000,000 pounds.
Year by year has this industry gone on, year by year stimulated by the protection given to it in 1890 under the national policy, this industry has gone on and has become a source of immense wealth to tbe people of this country, not only supplying an increased home market of 24,000,000 lbs., but an increased foreign market in bams and bacon alone of 131,000,000 lbs., bringing back into this country $12,000,000 in one year. There is tbe foundation of Canada's prosperity, and tbat alone can be credited to tbe national policy of tbe conservative party.
Now, the Liberals have claimed that this policy, this large increase tbat has been shown to have taken place since 1896, is chiefly due to tbe administration tbat we have in power at tbe present time. As I have already mentioned, the Liberals have bad various policies, they have had commercial union, they have bad unrestricted reciprocity, they have bad continental free trade, and tariff! for revenue only. They have been shouting all these policies during tbe last ten years. They remind me of the story of a man who went into the backwoods and hewed out a home for himself, and put up a little house. One day a bear came round, and tbe good man became frightened, just as the Liberals did in 1897. The man climbed on top of the bouse, and Mr. HENDERSON.
allowed bis wife to use tbe axe until she bad J killed tbe bear. Seeing tbe bear was dead, be came down, and after making a thorough examination, said :	Yes, wife, we have
killed tbe bear. That is what the Liberals are saying. They were shouting all these different policies during tbe last ten years, and when prosperous times came they said : We have killed tbe bear-when as a matter of fact they did nothing more than come in and help consume tbe carcass.
Now, one word with reference to the expenditure of this country. When tbe Liberals were in opposition, if there was one thing they talked about more than another it was tbe necessity of reducing tbe expenditure. One of them promised tbat be would reduce it by $1,000,000, another one promised to reduce it by $2,000,000, another one by $3,000,000, another one by $4,000,000, another one by $5,000,000, and so on. We had immense promises of reduction of expenditure, but I fail to see tbat these pledges have been implemented by these gentlemen since they came into power. I think 1t well, even at tbe close of this debate, just to call attention to the fact that these promises have not been implemented. When they came into power the expenditure on consolidated fund account was $36,949,000 ; in 1900 it has reached tbe enormous sum of $42,975,000, showing an increase of $6,026,000. In 1896 we find tbe expenditure on capital account was $3,781,311 ; in 1900 it had reached $7,408,843, an increase of $3,087,532. I ask, where is tbe evidence of the promises made by tbe Liberal party when in opposition, having been carried out that tbe expenditure of tbe country has been reduced ? Tbe total expenditure in 1896 was $44,096,000 ; in 1900 it was $52,717,000, or an increase of $8,621,000 in tbe short space of four years. Tbe same can be said with reference to net public debt. From 1896 to 1900 the increase has been $6,996,374. Now, is this what tbe Liberal party throughout tbe country expected ? Is this what bon. gentlemen were sent here to approve of by tbeir votes ? Is this what they were told to vote for to-night ?
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me tbat the finances of this country are not thoroughly uliderstool by the people, and I think tlie time has arrived when some change in the system of our book-keeping ought to be adopted by which the idea tbat we have a surplus of $8,000,000 will be entirely dissipated. I dare say there are many people who actually believe that the government last year met all tbe wants of the country and bad a surplus of $8,000,000. Now let us see bow the account stood. We find that there was expended on consolidated revenue account, as follows :	Charges of
debt. $10,873,673 ; subsidies to provinces, $4,250,608 ; sinking fund,-about which I shall have more to say-$2,465,640 ; collection of revenue, $11,044,526 ; other expenditure, $14,340,832, making a total expenditure
on consolidated fund account of $42,975,279. Besides tliis there was an expenditure on capital account of $7,468,84a, railway subsidies, $725,720, other charges amounting to $1,547,624 ; or a total expendi-[DOT] ture of $52,717,406. Now, how much money did we realize last year for the purpose of meeting this expenditure ? We are told there was a surplus of $8,000,000. If there was that surplus, the general public would understand that we must have had a revenue of $8,000,000 in excess of that, bui that is not the fact. Our total consolidated fund receipts only amounted to $51,029,994, with other small receipts, making altogether $51,031,466, or an excess of expenditure over all our revenue of $1,686,000. Yet the Minister of Finance comes down and tells the people of this country that he has a surplus of $8,000,000. So great a change has been made in the public accounts in the manner of dealing with capital account, that I think the time has now arrived when the consolidated fund account and the capital 'account should be merged in one, so that a full and complete statement of the finances of this country would be given to us, by the Minister of Finance, and we should know exactly whether there is a surplus or a deficit, I trust that will be done, I think we are nearing the time when it ought to be done, and I am quite sure that only then will the people come to realize the fact that instead of having a surplus at the end of the year, we are gradually getting deeper and deeper into debt.
Now the government say that they reduced the debt last year by $779,640. It does seem a very strange thing how a government that spent $1,688,000 more than its revenue, could possibly have something to apply in the way of reducing the national debt. Well, it is simply a matter of bookkeeping. The Finance Minister paid the sinking fund which he was compelled by law to provide for, $2,465,640, he paid that over, and when he found lie was short $1,686,000, of meeting the expenditure, he borrowed back the sinking fund again, not only enough to pay his deficit, but he actually borrowed the whole sinking fund back, and then he was able to show a reduction in what he calls the net debt of $779,640, although the gross debt of the country is larger in 1900 than it was in 1899.
We are constantly met with the statement that the Conservative party when in power also increased the national debt. We never-denied it. The Conservative party were justified in doing it because they had great public works to construct. We constructed the Canadian Pacific Railway at an expenditure of $65,000,000. We spent $36,000,000 on the canals. We spent $20,000,000 on the Intercolonial Railway. When the provinces were hard run for funds we gave them $10.000,000, and there were other items amounting to $11,000,000, making a total of $142.000,000 spent on capital account by the Conservative government from 1S78 to 1896. Of that amount $24,000,000 was met out of revenue, leaving the increase of debt only $118,000,000. Hon. gentlemen opposite taunt us with this. The hon. Finance Minister taunted us with it in his budget speech, but I ask any gentleman in this House to rise and say if he can, that we should not have expended money on any single item I have enumerated. I)o hon. gentlemen opposite object to the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway ? I had occasion once before to read the opinion of the Hon. O. W. Ross with respect to that, and I need not repeat it now, but I can point to the fact that that expenditure is approved of by all classes of the people of Canada today. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) has ventured to apologize for the $7,000,000 Increase in the national debt during the regime of the Liberal government. The Conservatives have no apology to offer because every dollar of their expenditure was justified. The hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) told us in explanation that the Crow's Nest Pass Railway had to be built and that it cost $3,500,000. He ought to have selected something that would have better justified the increase of the national debt than the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. He should have omitted that apology because I believe that had the subsidy originally granted by the government of British Columbia been used solely for the purpose of constructing that road, only a very small subsidy indeed would have been required from the Federal government. The South African appropriation of a million and a half dollars had the hearty endorsement of the people of Canada and the hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) need not have apologized for that. There is another item of one million dollars loss sustained in the sale of our bonds at a low rate of interest last year, which the Minister of Finance charges to capital account, and that is another reason why the two accounts should be merged in one. While we realize a million dollars less on our 24 per cent bonds than if we had placed them at a higher rate of interest, I do not say but that we will get a return for that million dollars-yet when the saving in the payment of interest comes back to the people of Canada it will be credited to consolidated revenue account, whereas the loss itself is now charged to capital account.
The question was discussed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to what became of the large surpluses which he claimed the government had during the past two or three years. He told us they had a surplus of $12,000,000 for the past two years, and his explanation of how that money had disappeared was in my opinion very *unfair, as I intend to prove. He said that when the Conservative party went out of power it had left large undischarged liabili-

ties amounting in tlie ease of the railway subsidies to several million dollars, but lie failed to show that one single dollar of these subsidies had been earned. Consequently they were not a charge upon the country at that time and therefore should not he considered as a liability of the late government. The hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) said that some $10,000,000 or $12,000,000 had been spent to complete the canals, and this he charged hack as a debt of the Conservative government. Well, Sir, just to find out how much of this ten or twelve million dollars was due to contracts of the late government, my hon. friend from Wentworth (Mr. Smith) put a question on the Order paper the other day asking what amount was paid by the government for the construction or improvement of the canals in each of the years 1897, 1898, 1899 and 1900, and how much was paid on account of contracts entered into by the late government and not re-let. To my surprise the government answered that of the sum of $12,095,087 paid on canal construction during the last four years, only $4,132,251 was paid on account of contracts let by the late government, and not re-let. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright, therefore, was misleading the House when he accounted for the disappearance of the surplus by saying that the present government were compelled to assume the liabilities of the late government on canal construction to the extent of ten or twelve million dollars.
' Well, Sir, another of the promises of the Liberal party was that they were to reduce taxation. Instead of that we find as usual the very reverse. The gross taxation from customs duties which was $20,219,000 in 1896 had risen to $28,889,000 in 1900, and the total taxation of the country has risen from $27,759,000 in 1896 up to $38,242,000 in 1900. The Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), in his very able speech the other night told us that the government could not help it and he led us to understand that they were perfectly powerless In the matter. He said there were more goods coming into the country and that that was the reason why there was a larger revenue. But, if a proper fiscal system were adopted by the government, even that would not cause such an enormous increase in taxation. In 1899 they had a surplus of $4,837,000; in 1900 they had a surplus of $8,054,000, and we are told that next year there is to be a surplus of $6,500,000. In the face of this no effort! is being made by the government to stop the growing taxation. It means taxation which they say is not necessary, but unfortunately at the end of the year we find that this money is used to meet the expenditure of the country. No man ever condemned in stronger language than did the Minister of Customs the surplus of Sir Leonard Tilley in 1883. On that occasion he said : Mr. HENDERSON.
When the government find that they have beyond a doubt a surplus, when they can calculate with certainty on having one, it is their bounden duty to reduce taxation. It is no part of the duty of a Finance Minister to extract more money out of the pockets of the people than is absolutely wanted to carry on public affairs.
What would be said of a Chancellor of the Exchequer in England if he could not estimate the requirements of the public service nearer than ?82,000,000 ? He would be ridiculed as being unable to grasp the financial conditions of the country.
And yet $82,000,000 compared with the immense revenue of Great Britain is not more than $S,000,000 as compared with the revenue of Canada. We must therefore conclude that it is the opinion of the Minister of Customs, that the present Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) has not a proper grasp of the financial conditions of the country. Sir Leonard Tilley in 1883 found no difficulty in disposing of the surplus. He did not allow it to grow from year to year. He did not desire to take more money out of the pockets of the people than was necessary to meet the ordinary affairs of the country. He struck the duty off tea and coffee and in that way disposed of a large part of this excessive revenue, the same as Mr. Foster did in 1891 when he found he had more revenue than was necessary to meet the current expenses, he drew his pen across the duty on raw sugar and gave back to the people of Canada during the next five years about $20,000,000, thus helping them to tide over the depression of these years. But the present government say :	Oh, we
cannot help it; we are powerless; there are more goods coming into the country. Can they not adopt the policy of their predecessors in this matter as they have adopted the policy of their predecessors in many other matters ? Would it not be possible to-day to reduce the enormous taxation of this country which they tell us is not required to meet the ordinary expenditure ? What is to prevent the Finance Minister wiping out the total duty on raw sugar which amounts to $1,828,084 ? Let him strike that item off and he will find that he has a very considerable reduction in taxation. There are many other articles which might be dealt with in the same way, such as dried fruits, nuts, oranges, lemons, and so on. Then, there was the enormous increase in the tobacco duties of about $1,000,000 a year, which might be removed. You could also take off the duty on rice. In this way three or four million dollars of duties might be taken off, and the taxation reduced. It seems to me there is a great deal of truth in what the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) said in 1883, that the Finance Minister evidently had not a grasp upon the financial condition of the country.
Before leaving the question of the sugar duties, I desire to draw attention to some statements which were made a couple of evenings ago. In the year 1900 we paid
an increased duty on raw sugar of $489,966, and on refined sugar $35,819, or a total increase of duty on raw and refined sugar of $525,785, more than we would have paid if the policy of the Conservative party had been still in force. Yet the hon. gentleman claimed great credit the other night for having reduced the protection on sugar. Now, what was done ? Mr. Foster left the duty on raw sugar at 50 cents per 100 pounds, and the duty on refined at $1.14 per 100 pounds, giving a protection of 64 cents per 100 pounds to the refiners. Had Mr. Foster continued to be Finance Minister I do not suppose for a moment that he would have allowed that duty to continue. As soon as the revenues of the country did not require the duty, I have no doubt that he would have removed it, and given back to the people from $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 a year in the shape of sugar duties. But the other night the Minister of Customs, while claiming credit for having reduced the protection on sugar, had to admit that he had increased the duty on raw sugar by 18 cents per 100 pounds, which amounts to an increase of nearly half a million dollars of taxation, all of which goes into the treasury. In 1897 the government placed a duty on raw sugar of 50 cents per 100 pounds and on refined sugar of $1 per 100 pounds, leaving a protection to the refiners of 50 cents per 100 pounds. The other night the Minister of Customs charged that the Conservative party had given too much protection because they had given a protection of 80 cents per 100 pounds in 1891, and in 1895 had brought that down to 64 cents ; and he said that if the sugar manufactories could live with 64 cents per 100 pounds protection in 1895, why could they not do so in 1891 ? Yet we find the hon. gentlemen pursuing a course of very much the same kind. Although the refiners had a protection of 50 cents per 100 pounds, we find the hon. gentleman in 1898 increasing that i>rotection to 56 cents per 100 pounds for the benefit of the sugar barons whom we used to hear so much about. In 1900 the duty on raw sugar was 68 cents per 100 pounds, and the duty on refined sugar $1.24, or a difference of 56 cents per 100 pounds, being six cents more than in 1897. And yet the hon. gentleman skimmed over that part of his address very nicely, and tried to leave the impression on the minds of the people that he had kept the protection down, when he knew that he had given these sugar lords $150,000 more protection than they had in 1897, on an imports of 250,000,000 pounds. I am very glad to see the hon. gentleman in his seat.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: As he is in his seat, might he ask you if the protection is as great now as it was under Mr. Foster ?


David Henderson: I should decidedly think not; but what I mean to say is that you have not followed out your own policy. The hon. gentleman came down the other night and in language as loud as thunder, blamed Mr. Foster for giving protection to the sugar refiners of 80 cents in the early nineties, which he reduced to 64 cents in 1895, although the hon. gentleman himself did in 1898 increase the protection from 50 to 56 cents.
With regard to the rate of taxation, which is perhaps the most disputed question we have before us at the present time, the Finance Minister and the Minister of Customs differ, one saying that it is one thing, and the other saying that it is something else. I do not believe either is right. The rate of taxation is a simple problem which any schoolboy of ten years of age can solve for himself. If he has the figures before him, there is nothing difficult about it. The hon. gentleman says he did not make up the figures, that they were made up in his department. I am saying nothing against the officers of his department; but I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman told his officers what data they should take to make up the rate of taxation. That is the way the country was misled. The Minister of Finance says the average rate of taxation last year was 16-41 per cent, while the Minister of Customs puts it at 15-98 per cent. Then the Minister of Finance, in order to show how much better off we are now in that respect than we were under the Conservative regime, takes the highest year during the last four years of the Conservative regime, and compares that with the lowest year of the Liberal regime, and makes out a reduction of something like 2 per cent. He says that if the Conservative party had remained in power, notwithstanding the immense revenue that was raised last year from customs, we would have taken out of the pockets of the people last year $3,292,230 more than we actually did. The statement is an absurd one, because if the Conservative party had remained in power they would not have allowed these customs duties to remain as they were when the money was not required. Mr. Foster, I have no doubt, would have again struck off the duty on raw sugar. He should have done, as Sir Leonard Tilley did in 1883, when he struck the duty off tea and coffee, and as Mr. Foster did in 1891, when he took the duty off raw sugar. Yes, as Mr. Foster did in 1894, when he put on the free list from 175 to 200 articles and reduced the duty on many others, particularly agricultural implements. Why the Conservative party found no difficulty jn managing the finances of the country so as to prevent millions of money being taken from the pockets of the people from year to year, which were not required for the purpose of the government.

Hon. gentlemen opposite, when out or power, promised that if returned to office they would reduce taxation. We have seen, however, the Finance Minister getting up deliberately and saying he did not intend to reduce taxation. And wo had the Minister of Customs saying the other night that they had reduced the rate of taxation. Where are we to find these lion, gentlemen ? Let me read an extract from a speech delivered'by the hon. the Finance Minister, in which he said :
When we reduced the tariff in 1897 we made a large number of changes which, in the main, were in the direction of lower taxation. We reduced the duties on many articles, we added a number of articles to the free list, we made large changes in the way of reduced taxation. It was of the utmost importance that we should maintain a strong financial position, and in view of the uncertainties as to the amount of revenue that might be produced by the lower rate of taxation, it became necessary that we should take some steps to make good any possible loss that might result. It was thought that it might fairly be met by providing for the raising of some additional taxation in order to balance, or make good, the loss occasioned by the reduction of duties.
Again, lie said :
It was necessary _to have an increased revenue in certain directions when we were to lose revenue in other directions.
There we have a direct declaration by the Finance Minister that, notwithstanding all their promises and pledges to reduce taxation, they did not intend doing so. The government simply Intended to play the game of taking a little off on the one hand and adding as much more on the other, and thus, in the language of the hon. gentleman, prevent any reduction in the revenue of the country, and maintain a firm financial position.
With reference to the actual rate of taxation, let us see what it really is. In 1800. the total imports of this country, dutiable and free, amounted to $154,051,593, but in that year there was imported into this country and entered for home consumption, $6,302,683 of corn, which never entered into home consumption at all, but passed through the country. It entered at one port and passed out at another, although it appears under the heading of goods brought into this country for actual consumption. We are, therefore, justified, and the Finance Minister says we are. in deducting that amount from the gross imports. This leaves a net import for home consumption of $147,688,910.
!In 1897, a change was made in the law with regard to the duty on tobacco, and $1,151,345 were added to the duty on tobacco in 1899 by this change. The hon. gentleman may say that this is excise and not customs. But, it makes no difference to the people whether that tax is collected as an excise or a customs duty. It is none the less a tax, and an increase in taxation. It is one of those taxes which Mr. HENDERSON.
the Finance Minister said he would add in order to make up for something that he took off-in order to maintain a strong financial standing in the country. Adding to $25,734,228 customs duty in 1899, the increased tobacco duty of $1,151,345, we get a total taxation for that year of $26,885,573. It is now an easy matter to show the average rate of taxation, by simply dividing the total duty by the total imports, and I find that the rate for 1899 was 18-20 and not 10'70, as stated in the blue-book. Let us deal in the same manner with the imports for home consumption in 1900, and deduct the corn that simply passed through the country, although entered for home consumption. It should not have been so entered, and was not by the previous government, at id if we are to have a fair comparison, we must have the same basis of comparison.
Total imports in 1900	*480,804,316
Less Indian corn exported	 4,757,595
Net imports	 $176,046,721
Total customs collected	 $25,559,110
Increased tobacco duty	 991,995
Total	 $29,551,105
Making a total taxation of $29,181,185, or an average rate of 10-98 instead of 15 98, as entered in the blue-book by.the Minister of Customs, which the Minister of Finance said was all wrong.
We have no difficulty, then, in finding out whether we have now a higher or a lower rate of taxation than before. I am not going to take one year, because the fairer way is to take the full four yeas 1S97, 1898, 1899 and 1900, and compare them with the last four years of the late Conservative government. Taking the Trade and Navigation Returns, I find that the rates of taxation were as follows, for last four years of Conservative rule :-
1893	
$17	381894	
17	131895	
16	991896	
18	28Total	
$69	78
or an average of 17-45 for the four years.
Compare that with four years of Liberal rule :
1897	
$17	871898	
16	951899	
18	201900	
16	98Total	
$70 00
or an average of 17-50 per year.
Thus, the average of the last four years of Conservative rule was 17-45, and of the first four years of Liberal rule 17-50, showing an increased rate of taxation of l-20th of 1 per cent.
But the hon. the Finance Minister said that in order to maintain a strong financial position, when he was compelled to take the duty off one article he had to put it on

another. If he had done that fairly, perhaps no great exception could be taken. But, in all these shifts of duty from one article to another, a great deal of unfairness has been dealt out to the people. Let me give you a few illustrations. For example, the duty on pianos was reduced by 5 per cent, but, in order to maintain a firm financial position in the country, it was necessary that the loss should be made up from some other source, and, consequently, the hon. gentleman added 5 per cent to the farmer's cutter. Why transfer 5 per cent from pianos and put it on a cutter ?
Then, they took the duty off corn for the benefit of the farmers of the western states, and they did this without asking the Americans permission to send our barley into their country free of duty. They also took the duty off binder twine and made it free, and then, in order to maintain a strong financial position, which the Finance Minister sajd he was compelled to do, they made every man who uses tobacco contribute to make up the loss sustained by the reduction on corn. On what principle is every workingman on a farm compelled to contribute to the revenue in order to please the farmers of the western states ?
And here again, I say the government made another blunder. They did not ask that twine should be admitted free into the United States. They gave free twine to the United States, and allowed the Americans to retain the duty of 20 per cent on manila twine going into that country. We have manufactures springing up all over the country for the production of manila binder twine, and I say it is not fair to these people who are putting their money into that industry that the United States should be allowed to send their product here free of duty and our manufacturers, if they have a surplus, if they want to ship a few tons of manila twine into the United States should be met with a duty of 20 per cent. If we were willing to give free twine, we should have exacted free twine-no preference should be given to the United States manufacturers that was not given to the Canadian manufacturers. I do not believe in a one-sided policy. Then, they reduced the duty on iron and steel. But, in order to maintain a strong financial stand, they put over half a million dollars of increased duty on sugar. Thus, whilst the bloated manufacturer who makes all these agricultural implements about which we heard in the past is given a reduced duty on iron and steel, the man who wields the sledge for him, who works at the forge or the bench is compelled to pay more for his sugar in order that his master may get his iron cheaper. Where is the fairness of that ? Well, then they go to the farmers a,nd tell them what they are going to do for them. The hon. Minister of Finance in his magnanimity says : We will reduce the duty on scythes. Scythes-that went out of use forty years ago. But, in order to main-73
tain a strong financial stand, he doubles the duty on grindstones. Then, we come to cotton goods. They reduced the duty on white cottons, but, in order to maintain a strong financial stand, they increase the duty on coloured cottons. The man who wears a white shirt, such as the hon. Minister of Customs or the Minister of Finance is protected all right. The duty on their goods is a little less than 17 pel' cent. But the farmer, the toiler, the man who works in the foundry or the shop, who cannot, by reason of his occupation wear a white shirt is compelled to pay 35 per cent. Where is the fairness in that ? These hon. gentlemen say : Why does not he buy it in England, for the preferential tariff reduced white cotton from 25 per cent to 17i per cent. But the duty on the coloured shirt is not reduced by the preference, for the simple reason that we do not bring these goods from England. The heavy coloured cotton goods, the ducks, the denims, the cottonades, the heavy cotton shirtings, do not come from the old country, but from the United States, because the American goods are better in quality. What I am saying I saw in the presence of a gentleman who is a large importer and who knows whether the statement I make is correct or not. I did not consult him before making it. I make it from personal knowledge that these goods are not, to any extent, imported from England. The English goods of that class are not what our people want. The fine cotton wool is used in England for making the muslins, the lawns, the laces, &e., that come to us from that country, while the coarse cotton fibre is allowed to go into the coloured goods, and so an inferior article is produced. The Canadian consumers want either the Canadian goods made out of the gen-real run of cotton, or the American goods, and they will pay higher prices for them rather than take the inferior goods that come from England. So, there is no competition between the heavy coloured cotton goods coming from England and those coming from the United States-one has no effect whatever upon the other. We were told the other night that because there was a reduction on goods coming from England, therefore,-this is what the Minister of Customs said-every dollar's worth of the same class of goods coming from the United States would come in at a reduced price. But in this case there is no competition, and so the workingman, the toiler, is compelled to pay the higher duty on these heavy coloured cotton goods-100 per cent more than that on the white goods. Is that fair treatment ? The duty on silks is reduced, but the poor man's rice is taxed to make up for it, so that the government may maintain a strong financial stand. And look at the unfairness of the matter even with regard to silks. The lady wants a nice silk dress-we will not say even the finest article, but take goods at about $2 a yard in the old country.



That is brought in at a duty of 30 per cent making a duty of 60 cents a yard. Under the preference, this is reduced one-third, so ifuat the lady who wears a dress at $2 a yard gets a reduction of 20 cents a yard. But the domestic, or the wife of the workingman, who cannot afford to buy silk at $2 a yard, but is satisfied with a dress costing originally 40 cents a yard and sold here, with profit, duty, and other charges added at about 75 cents a yard, instead of getting a reduction of 20 cents a yard, must be satisfied with a reduction of 4 cents a yard. And all the way through this tariff, there is the same unfairness. The poor man, the poor woman, the toiler is compelled to bear the burden, the benefit going to those who are better able to pay. The government reduced the duty on coal by 7 cents a ton to help the great railway corporations. But, to maintain a strong financial position, they increased the duty on furs by 5 per cent. Bo, if a farmer wants a fur coat to wear when driving into town, he must pay more for it. If he wants to buy a fur coat for his wife, he must pay 5 per cent more for it. If he wants a pair of mitts, if he wants a sleigh robe, he must pay 5 per cent more. Go through the country and many of the farmers you meet have good fur coats. The increase of duty on their furs goes to pay the duty on the rich man's coal-that is the effect of the tariff. Then, they reduced the duty on salad oil, which was 30 per cent, but which was brought down to 20 per cent. This was for the benefit of the rich man, because the poor man has not salad oil on his table every day. Then, in order to maintain a firm financial stand, they Increased the duty on batts and wadding. They reduced the duty on flowers and feathers, and, to maintain a firm financial stand, they looked around to see something that could be taxed. Here, they say are a fine lot of fellows going up to Muskoka hunting : these are sportsmen and do not mind a few dollars; we can bleed them-and so they raised the duty on guns from 20 per cent to 30 per cent ; and not a gun comes in under the preferential tariff. Then they considered the case of the farmer Imilding a new house. He is putting the windows into it and the government increases the duty on the putty he has to use-they could not allow the farmers even to have that. They take the duty off mushroom spawn-for whose benefit I do not know ; but, to maintain a firm financial stand they increased the duty on putty by 33J per cent. Then they took up the case of the farmer's wheat, and said to the farmer : You are getting too much protection on your wheat. And so, they reduced the duty on wheat and flour, but they were very careful to maintain a firm financial stand by leaving the old wagon to pay 25 per cent. Then, in their magnanimous way, they reduced the duty on scythes, snathes and reaping hooks, hay rakes, and even on the old fashioned flails.-two sticks Mr. HENDERSON.
tied together with a string-all these old things that became obsolete, thirty, forty and even fifty years ago-they reduced the duty 10 per cent on every one of these. But desiring to maintain a firm financial stand, they were careful not to give a dollar of reduction on the plough, the harrow, the sulky rake, the mower or the binder. That is the policy of the present government with liegard to the tariff, and that is how it is that they managed to tax the people and how they maintain a firm financial stand while still declaring that they have made enormous reductions. They make reductions on the one hand and then make up by increases in some other way.
Now I desire to say something with reference to the preferential tariff. The manufacture of woollens has been spoken of as an illustration of the injurious effect of the preferential tariff. Why was this preferential tariff ever introduced ? It was long a puzzle to me to know why the government . had introduced a preferential tariff until the Minister of Customs disclosed the secret the other night, and in his own words, he said it was entirely out of love for Great Britain. Well, I am thankful, Mr. Speaker, that I belong to a party that does not require to pass an Act of parliament to show our lovo to Great Britain. We never required to pass any specific legislation to show that we were loyal to Great Britain. I am not going to accuse those on your right of disloyalty, but when we look back for ten years and see their various policies -continental free trade, unrestricted reciprocity, commercial union, and all those other policies, it is no wonder, I say, that when they came into power they felt it necessary to pass an Act of parliament and do something to show that they were as loyal, at least, as the Conservative party. Now with reference to woollen goods, of which complaint has been made, I apprehend that there are very strong grounds for the complaint. I realize that fact, because I am personally acquainted with woollen manufacturers in my own county, and from the accounts that I get from them the condition of that industry is a very serious one. This afternoon we had the statement made by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Kendry), and we had that statement flatly contradicted by the hon. gentleman from Vancouver (Mr. Smith). Now, the member for Peterborough knew what he was talking about, he had a personal knowledge of the facts ; the member for Vancouver had no information except what he had got from some outside source, and wbicn he was unable to verify. However, I give the hon. member for Vancouver the full benefit of his contention. He said that the Auburn mills had been running for the past four years ; whether he was playing on words and meant that they had been running behind, I do not know. But I will give him the credit for having the information that

the mills had been running night and day for the past four years, although that is a strong statement. Now I do not doubt the fact that during the past three or four years those mills have been very busy. 1 know the same thing occurs in my own county. There is a firm that manufactures yarn and blankets, and until last fall they had been busy, running full time, aluiough they told me they were not making money. But you know that every manufacturer in this country has a barometer, and that barometer tells him exactly how his trade is extending. He sends out his agents all over the country to get orders, and these gentlemen come back or report back ; they are not getting orders, they are getting nothing ; orders are not coming in. The manufacturer at this season of the year ought to know exactly how many dollar's worth of goods he is going to sell during the next six months. The man who manages the Auburn mills knows now what his trade is going to be for the next six months, and he knows whereof he speaks. The member for Vancouver knew nothing about it, and consequently was not able to give information. I am sorry to say that there is too much ground for the complaint that has been made, and I do hope in the interest of the people of this country that the appeal of this large industry will be listened to by the Minister of Customs and by the Minister of -Finance. To show the condition of affairs I will make this statement: In the year 1898 there were $7,985,847 worth of woollen goods entered for consumption into this country ; in 1900 that had increased to $9,809,565, or an increase of $1,823,719, an increase of 221 per cent over the importations of two years ago. What would that be in four years at the same rate ? An increase of 45 per cent. Where will the woollen industry be if this state of affairs continues for five or six years ? We can expect to find it exactly where the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) told us the other night we would find this industry. He said there were only three alternatives ; one was to close down, the second one to run on half time, the third to reduce wages, and he feared the latter one would be followed. We know what the consequences would be. Men would not accept half wages in this country, they would go where they can get paid for full time. Now, 224 per cent of a reduction in the output of a factory certainly means at least 224 per cent in the profits of manufacture alone ; it means 30 or 35 per cent in; my opinion, and to the workingman it means a reduction in his wages of from 25 to 30 per cent. I say the condition demands the most careful attention on the part of those who control public affairs.
I wish to make a reference to another industry, the manufacture of gloves and mitts. In 1898 we imported $504,0S1 worth ; in 1900 we imported $703,009, an increase in 734
only two years of $138,928, or an increase of almost 25 per cent. You see that in four years half the output of the glove factories of this country would be captured by the foreign trade, and what would be the result ? But this is perhaps not the worst feature in the matter. The glove manufacturers are not only met by competition, but they are met by an article produced by cheaper labour, with cheaper fuel, with cheaper money, and their raw material is taxed in order to maintain a firm financial standing in this country. Take the raw material of a glove manufacturer, take the fur goods ; the amount of imported fur, goods which come from France, Germany, Russia and the United States, was 64 per cent of the entire import, so that only about 36 per cent came in under the preference. Of sewing silk and twist, 38 per cent came in from the United States, only a fraction of the silk came in under the preference. Take wool felt, at 35 per cent, used by glove manufacturers as lining, there came in from the United States 90 per cent of the whole import; and of glove leather which forms the foundation of the whole business, out of which the glove is made, 99 per cent came in, not under the preference but from countries with which there is no preference ; only 1 per cent of the glove leather coming into this country under the preferential tariff. So that practically the man who makes gloves in this country-and it is a very large industry-is subjected to a very heavy competition under the .preferential tariff ; and when he comes to buy the raw material he is not permitted to buy It under the same favourable terms. How is a man going to compete and pay living wages to workingmen under circumstances such as these ?
The Minister of Customs said the other night when addressing this House that we are buying woollens cheaper because of the preferential tariff. Now, I speak as a business man of twenty-five or thirty years' standing. I do not believe the people of this country on the whole are buying, quality for quality, woollen goods any cheaper than they were buying them five years ago. We never had better woollen goods, better tweeds, or cheaper tweeds, than we had under the reign of the national policy. We never had cheaper agricultural implements than under the national policy. With regard to these woollen goods, I say the preference affects the Canadian manufacturer because there are more goods coming in. And how is it that there are more of these goods coming in if they are not being sold cheaper ? There are reasons for that. There is a quality of English goods with a fine finish but not possessing the wearing qualities of the Canadian tweeds, and that captures the eyes of those who are not judges. They are not cheaper goods, but if you take them quality for quality at the same price they *are the dearer goods of the two. The pre-
[DOT]2311

ference given, on woollen goods is equal to about $600,000, and that $600,000 is simply a bonus given by the government of Canada to the manufacturers of Great Britain ; a bonus which they use for their own benefit. 'They devote a large part of that money towards the employment of agents who go through Canada pressing the manufactures of Yorkshire and Lancashire on the people. The Minister of Customs told us that the woollen manufacturers should use more energy in the business and they would succeed, just as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) told the manufacturers twenty-two years ago to [DOT]go home and eat less and work more. The 'government is giving to these English manufacturers a bonus equal to $600,000, and that $600,000 is being made use of by these men [DOT]to pay their agents and push their wares in this country, not at a cheaper rate, but every one knows how a business can be increased if it is pushed. That explains how it is that the manufacturers of this country [DOT]are not keeping the trade of the country. [DOT]If we gave our own manufacturers a fraction of this $600,000 to enable them to push their wares in the country, they could meet the competition to a certain extent, but the Canadian manufacturers have to do that out of their own pocket, while the Canadian government actually furnishes the English manufacturers' money to do so.
The total imports under the preferential tariff last year amounted to $27,095,791, and on that there was a duty paid of $5,639,035, and 25 per cent preference would amount to $1,879,676. That is what was lost to the revenue of this country last year, and the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) says that was saved to the people of this country. Why, Sir, it has to be made up in some way. The duty on raw sugar just simply balances it in order to maintain our firm financial standing. If you take the duty off raw sugar you would save to the people of this country just as much as you would save to them if they got every cent of the preferential duty. Ton have your choice. Take the duty off raw sugar, the total of which was $1,863,903. or on the other hand, take 25 per cent off the duties on goods coming from England, which amounts to $1,879,676, but I contend that the latter is not saved to the peolple of Canada. I do not believe that more than a small fraction of that goes into the pockets of the people of Canada. I wonder if the Minister of Customs will stand up to-day and say that we buy all our goods cheaper because of the preferential tariff. I hold in my hand a small article which costs the people of this country over $2,000,000 a year. It is a small article which enters into every household of the Dominion of Canada, and cannot be done without. I tell you that for that small article the people of this country under the present tariff pay $1,000,000 more than they did


David Henderson: in 1895. There is the article. It is a common spool of thread. Any lady will tell you that in 1895 she bought two of these spools for five cents, but go down Sparks street to-day and you can only get one for five cents. The price has increased 100 per cent. Why is this so ? The government tinkered with the tariff. If they had let the tariff alone it possibly would not be so. Under the old regime spool thread came in at a duty of 25 per cent, but thread in banks not spooled came in at 12J per cent, and the difference of 121 per cent protected the man who spooled the thread, and that was enough to enable him to make a profitable living and to sell cheap thread. But this government said :	We will leave
the 25 per cent on spool thread, but we must maintain a firm financial standing, because we have lost it on something else, and they raised the duty on hank thread up to 15 per cent, and then the preferential tariff was applied. As it stands now, there is one-third off the 25 per cent, or about 161 per cent duty on the spool thread, and 10 per cent on the hank thread, or a difference of 61 per cent now as against 121 per cent formerly. The government cut the protection in two until the men who spooled the thread in Canada had to go out of business or do what men in desperation will do, join the combine, one of the largest in the world to-day, namely, the great English and American Trust of Spool Thread. By joining the combine, they get their price for spool thread, and instead of 21 cents, a spool of thread costs 5 cents to-day. If you take the quantity of thread that is imported in hanks to this country and convert it into spools, you would find that it would make about 32,000,000 spools, and as there are about 18,000,000 spools imported, this would give a total of 50,000,000 spools, or a consumption of about fifty to each family. The former price was 21 cents. They are now sold in some places at 4 cents and in other places at 5 cents, or an average of 41 cents, an increase of 2 cents, and 2 cents per spool on the 50,000,000 spools means exactly one million dollars more than the people of Canada have to pay for that little spool of thread to-day than they did five years ago. They have to pay that in order that a firm financial standing should be maintained in the country.
Let us consider why this preferential tariff was introduced at all. The Minister of Customs told us it was love for Great Britain, but I have often thought it was hatred to Germany-not so much love of the mother land as dislike to the father land. I shall not discuss that to-night, however, but I do say that whatever was the cause of the preferential tariff being introduced, it has proved a very disastrous thing for the people of Canada, as we are beginning to realize now. Let me ask : do the farmers get any benefit from it ? Why, our cattle today in the British market have no prefer-

ence, although we give millions of dollars to help the manufacturers and workmen of Great Britain. They took from us last years some 7,000 head of cattle less than they did two years before. In the last three years of the Conservative regime fat cattle in Great Britain realized an average of '$75.94 each, and for the first four years of Liberal rule they only realized an average of $00.57, or a decrease of $15.36 per head, notwithstanding the preference we gave to the people of Great Britain. Now, Sir, notwithstanding the fact that we open our doors to Great Britain, she is closing her doors to us. Two or three articles were mentioned the other evening in which there was a decreased export to Great Britain, and the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) complained that only a few were mentioned. At his request I shall name a few more and I shall make them of a diversified charter. Great Britain in 1900 took less from Canada than she did in 1898 of the following articles, and to the amount stated:
Leather, sole and upper	 $	2,750
Sewing machines	 3,170
Agricultural implements	   12,000
Carriages	 42,000
Wood pulp	 114,000
Pine deals	 565,000
Wood and manufactures of	 740,000
Beans	 37,000
Oatmeal	 69,000
Hams	 466,000
Horses	   643,000
Oats	 586,000
Animals (all kinds)	  398,000
Pish all kinds	 922,000
Flour	 2,289,000
Wheat	 5,127,000
Total breadstuffs	 7,273,000
Of corn we sent none to Great Britain in 1900, although in the same year Great Britain took from the United 'States 5.413,000 bushels more than it took in the previous year, notwithstanding the fact that the United States gives no preference to Great Britain at all. Of cattle we sent to Great Britain 7,600 less ; of cheese, 10,000,000 pounds less, and of eggs 171,000 dozen less. We sent more bacon, butter and apples, because we produced a great deal more.
Now, let us see how Great Britain treated the United States. She took from the United States large increases in 1900 over 1898, notwithstanding the fact that the United States gives no preference. She took from the United States in 1900 the following increased amounts over 1898 :
Corn	
Canned beef Beef, fresh Pork, fresh


Tallow ...: Lard	
Hams


Cheese ...: Horses....
Now, let us see for one moment what we
have lost in addition to all this. It has been stated over and over again that the present government have not secured for the great agricultural classes of this country a single market. Not only have they not secured a new market, but unfortunately they have lost an old one. The wheat exports of Canada to Germany in 1898 amounted to 199,747 bushels, and in 1900 to 92,839 bushels, a decrease of 106,908 bushels. Of peas we sent to Germany in 1898 44,425 bushels, and in 1900 22,902 bushels, a decrease of 21,503 bushels. Of oats we sent in 1898 637,400 bushels, and in 1900 28,727 bushels, a decrease of 608,673 bushels. Of rye we sent in 1898 505,738 bushels, and in 1900 none. Why did we send in Germany in 1900 smaller quantities of these articles than in 1898 ? The United States sent to Germany of wheat in 1898 3,218,401 bushels, and in 1900 9,065,713 bushels, an increase of nearly threefold, whereas we sent a great deal less. Of wheat flour the United .States sent to Germany in 1898 190,039 barrels, and in 1900 691,782 barrels, an increase of 501,743 barrels. Of corn the United States sent to Germany in 1898 39,263,528 bushels, and in 1900 46,256,978, an increase of close on 7,000,000 bushels. Why is that market closed to us and open to the people of the United Statesi? Just because of the preference we gave to England. You know how the trade arrangements between England and Germany were disturbed and how the German government took offence at our action because we insisted on the denunciation of the treaty between England and Germany. Was it to be expected that Germany would treat us as it had treated us before ? Human nature in Germany is much the same, I suppose, as human nature in Canada. So Germany turned round and passed a discriminating law against Canada, placing a discriminating duty of 97c. a bushel on wheat, 3 3c. on pease, 4-4c. a bushel on rye-duties which are actually prohibitive, because they are more than the duties charged against similar products from the United States. The farmers in Ontario have been asking how it is that in Buffalo No. 2 spring wheat was selling last week at 77Jc. a bushel, whereas in Toronto wheat of a like quality was 'Selling .at the same time at only 68Jc. a bushel, or 9c. less than at Buffalo. The solution, of the problem is simple. The man who buys wheat in Buffalo can send it to the German market and sell It there at 10c. a bushel more than the Canadian buyer who buys in Canada. In that way he can give to the farmer in Buffalo 10c. a bushel more than the Toronto buyer can give to the farmer in West- York. That is one of the dire consequences of this tariff, which

was intended. I dare say, as a preference to England, but which turns out to be a very disagreeable thing for Canada. Wheat

sold in Canada in 1895 for 20c. a bushel more than the Liverpool price. To-day wheat of the same quality is selling in the city of Toronto at 16c. a bushel below the Liverpool price. See how our farmers are handicapped by the action which the government took, I hope unwittingly, under which they are actually selling their wheat, rye and oats for less than they otherwise would and under which the British market is taking smaller quantities of the other articles which we have to export, such as eggs and cheese.
Now, I realize that one o'clock having arrived, I have exhausted the reasonable time allowed to me, and I desire to bring my remarks to a close. I hope and trust that when the House comes to a vote on this 'question, it will weigh every argument well and give a fair verdict according to the evidence. If it does so, apart from all prejudice, I am sure that the motion of my hon. friend who leads the opposition will receive the hearty endorsement of the members of this House; because I am convinced as one who has listened to this debate carefully during the last ten days, that the arguments have been almost solely in favour of the contention of the opposition.
Before I sit down, I want to emphasize something which the Finance Minister drew our attention to a few days ago. In his budget sp'eech he told us that we were on the crest of the wave, and sounded a note of alarm. While he did not anticipate reverses, that was simply a matter of speculation, he said there was going to be a check on the prosperity of the country. He said the country was going to take a rest in order to get ready for another spring, and that it would go on again with leaps and bounds. It has occurred to me that we had better not take a rest. Let the government help those men who are engaged in the woollen industry, in the glove 'industry, and in all the other industries of the country. What is the use of closing up these factories ? Let the government amend their fiscal policy. From 1891 to 1896 was there any -country in the world that stood the depression of those years better than Canada ? There was not, because we had a sound fiscal policy which protected the industries of this country and our financial institutions. When in the United States the banks were going down by the hundred, in Canada they withstood everything and came through all right.
I do hope that the government will reverse its decision and give us a policy that will enable us to tide over those lean years -which the Finance Minister says are approaching in the near future-those years in which the pendulum will swing the other way. and thus enable the people to prepare for the crisis when it comes.


Mr. THOMAS MURRAY (Pontiac).: I am here, Mr. Speaker, contrary to the advice Mr. HENDERSON.
of my physician, in order that I may give my vote in the division - which, I understand, is to be reached to-night and while I do not propose to take up the time of the House at any length, I am unable to cast a silent vote on this occasion. I have taken a pretty active part in the political history of this country, and have always strongly opposed the so-called national policy, and intend opposing, with all my power, the resolution now before the House. I have always believed that the national policy was conceived and born and nourished in iniquity, and -died as it lived, and should be left at rest.
In 1867 I was a candidate. I was a pretty young man then, and am not a very old man yet-not quite old enough to be shelved in the Senate-and I have a pretty fair knowledge of the history of this country since confederation. Neither in 1867, nor in 1872, did we hear anything of protection or the national policy. It was only when the late Sir John Macdonald was hurled' from power, and when suffering penal servitude for his political offences, that that wily ipolitieian found it necessary to inaugurate some scheme by which he would get back into office. It was then that he conceived the idea of the national policy. I was a candidate in 1878, and my opponent then, Mr. Poupore, who was a strong man in the county, said to me : Murray, if you will only support Sir John and the national policy, I will retire from the contest and allow you to be elected by acclamation. Why, I said, what is it anyway ? What does it mean ? But, Mr. Poupore could not tell me the first thing about it. He, like many others, went it blind, and the country followed suit. The people of the county of Pontiac were told that if we only had protection, they would have home markets for all the products of their farms, and would get so much more for their butter and their eggs. Every little water power was to be utilized, and manufacturing industries were to spring up on every hand. The people allowed themselves to be seduced and charmed by all these promises, and returned the Conservative party to office. What followed ? We have not a single manufacturing Industry in the county of Pontiac today, although between here and Pembroke Is the finest water jjowei _o be found in the world. The people were deceived and lost faith in the national policy. Did Sir John Macdonald ever appeal to the people fairly and squarely on the merits of that policy, after it had been inaugurated ? No, but he introduced the infamous gerrymander Bill, and resorted to the system of appointing partisan revising barristers to fix up the lists, and it was by such means that he succeeded in retaining office.
In 1891 I happened to have the honour of representing the county, for which I now have a seat in the House. We know what then took place. We know that this very

bacl man Tarte-who was a very good man then in the Conservative ranks-made certain grave charges against the administration, which charges were proven, and we know that those charges and the failure of the national policy brought about the downfall of the late government in 1890. Was the country then in a state of prosperity? Not a bit of it. I have had an experience of forty years as a general trader, and I know that never was the country in a more perilous condition. Was it any wonder then that the Conservative party was hurled from office ? And is it to be wondered at that the present government should have been sustained at the last general election. At that election, the fiscal policy of this government was submitted to the severest scrutiny and discussed in every detail, and I venture to say that the hon. member fcr Halton (Mr. Henderson), who has just addressed the House, has simply being going over all the ground which he went over on the stump at the last election. All these arguments which we have heard in this debate were then put before the people, but the people gave their verdict, and that verdict was in favour of the present administration.
I was pleased to see the opposition elect their present leader (Mr. Borden, Halifax), because I think he is a very honest man, and disposed to do what is right. I was pleased with his utterances, but I think he made a mistake in introducing the resolution now before the House. I think we might well have given our attention to more important and practical matters. I was in hopes that this House would have got down at once to practical business and taken up questions in the general interests of the country. I expected that we would have grappled with some of the great enterprises before the country, for instance, the construction of the Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal. That is a work which should receive the attention of this House and government. The government, I believe, are doing something in the way of making surveys along the Ottawa and the French rivers, and I understand, irom some statements made by the Minister of Public Works, that the government propose to construct a canal at French river which will be a part of the general system. The construction of the Georgian Bay canal, however, is a national enterprise, the importance of which we cannot overlook. We have along the Ottawa river, dividing two great provinces, a water communication that to-day lies dormant. And the enterprise of building this canal, whether it be taken up by a company or by the government, should be entered upon at an early day. so as to develop the great resources of that northern country. I represent a county twice as large as England-a county which is to-day practically undeveloped, which has only fifty miles of railway, and which is
rich in agricultural and mineral wealth and in timber. Yet, although within a stone's throw almost of these parliament buildings, that county is still undeveloped, and I am sure I will have the sympathy and support of both sides of the House in my efforts to have the great resources of that northern country made productive. When northern Ontario is being developed, should northern Quebec be left to lie dormant ?
I do not intend to take up any more of the time of the House, but before concluding, I might say a word on this racial question which has been discussed in this debate. That question was used in my county at the last election. At the upper end of the county of Pontiac, which is occupied by Frenchmen, we had the right hon. the Prime Minister stigmatized as a traitor to his creed and race, and Sir Charles Tupper, forsooth, held up as the great champion of separate schools, and through these appeals I lost some votes. Then, in the lower end of the county, which is largely Protestant, the people were asked to vote against Sir Wilfrid Laurier because he was a Frenchman, and against Murray because he was a Catholic.
There is no question at all about it-these appeals were made. Some hon. members have stated that these things were not done in Ontario, that Ontario acted from national motive. But we know better than that. 1 know better than that as one who has been in the local legislature of Ontario. I know wliat the Conservatives did there, when they appealed to race and creed prejudices of the province on the question of separate schools and the use of the French language. I know all about it, and the country knows about it too. And my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) was in that legislature also; and he knows it as well as I do, and he was a party to the business when I was there. Nothing more should be necessary to convince hon. members of the truth of what I say than the vote that took place on the motion of the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan) the other day. Fifteen Conservatives from the province of Ontario voted against that, motion, and why ? Because they dreaded their constituents. I do not accuse these men of being bigots themselves. And two hon. gentlemen, one from one of the Yorks and one from Toronto, had the courage of their convictions and voted for the motion. And liow do we find a certain society in Ontario acting towards these men ? They pass resolutions denouncing them because they voted as their consciences dictated. Is that an evidence of the liberty of conscience or equal rights that these men talk about so much, or does it show that these prejudices exist ? These prejudices do exist in Ontario. The fact that fifty-eight members from the province of Quebec support the Liberal government is not due to the fact that the Prime Minister is a French-

man. It is because be is an honest and an able man and because he has been successful in the administration of the government of this country. Talking aljout Frenchmen, Irishmen, Englishmen or Scotchmen in this country-why it is ridiculous; it is time these cries were done away with. But it is not to be wondered at, human nature being what it is, if some did vote for the Prime Minister because of the recklessness with which he was abused on account of his race by the Conservative press of Ontario. The hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) said that the premier had appealed to the French Canadians and said :	I am a
Frenchman; the same blood that runs in my veins runs in yours. When he was attacked in the manner I have shown, attacked on account of his race and creed, was he to say nothing in his own defence ? I will venture to say that he never asked a man to vote for him on account of his race or creed. I know that I have never done it, and I have been through more elections, probably, than any other man in this House. I defy any man to say that I have ever appealed for support on grounds of race and creed.


Mr. CLANCY.: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Murray) a question ?


Thomas Murray: Certainly.


James Clancy: Is not the hon. gentleman conscious that he is making a disgraceful appeal at this moment ?


Thomas Murray: No, Sir, I am not; I want to disabuse your mind of that. When I was running in Pontiac, my opponent was an English Protestant. I said to the people :	Mr. Levecque-who was speaking on
my behalf-has appealed to your sympathies on account of the school question and Sir Charles Tupper's action in that connection: Mr. Brabazon, my opponent, is an English Protestant: do not vote against him on account of his religion: vote for him or against him on the merits of the question before you -on the merits of the national policy if you like-but do not vote against him on account of his religion. I have never appealed to my co-religionists on the ground of faith. Why, I would not put myself in the power of any elector to say that I appealed to him for sympathy or support on such grounds. I am a Canadian and I want to meet all men on equal grounds and to do away with these prejudices to fight them down-and I think if any man in Canada has done his part in fighting them down, I have. I have been elected in a constituency in Ontario which is largely Protestant. My opponent tried to take advantage of me on account of my belief. When he was nominated for the next election, I said to him: You have endeavoured to prejudice the electors against me in a former election, and this time I had hoped .to avoid a contest with you: do you object Mr. MURRAY.
to me yourself on these grounds ? When I cornered him thus, he had to say: Yes; it was bom in my bones. Do you see the point ?-if he had said that he did not object to me, on these grounds, he could not have appealed to the electors to vote against me on those grounds, because the answer would at once have been that he himself, when asked, had not objected to me. But when I met him before an audience that was largely Catholic, I said :	This gentleman
has made certain statements against me, but, so far as religion is concerned, your interests are as safe in his hands as in mine. That is the way I dealt with him. I need not tell the House who the man was, I merely cite the case as showing the course I have taken in trying, as a public man, to put down these prejudices.
My hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) who is smiling at me now and with whom I had the pleasure of sitting in a council of the united counties, stated in his speech the other evening that he stood by the national policy and was going to appeal to the country on that policy; and he said that all enlightened countries favoured protection. That was paying but a poor compliment to free trade in England. For my part, I have fought the national policy. And I will fight this motion. I want to see it buried, never to be resurrected. I am in favour of a revenue tariff as it was in Mackenzie's time. I do not take any stock in protection at all. Some of our hon. friends, even on this side of the House, talk protection. But I do not believe that there is a single man who listens to me now but will say that had Mackenzie's revenue tariff still been in force in this country, we should have enjoyed as much prosperity, perhaps more than we have had. But, Sir, the death knell of protection has been sounded. My hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) may appeal to the country as he has done time and again. But I say as 1 have already said that the friends of the national policy never appealed to the country on the merits of the national policy. They appealed to the country in the last two elections on all sorts of issues. But the verdict of the people has been given, and they ought to be satisfied. Let us get down to business. There should be less party animus than there has been. Hon. gentlemen will not allow that anything good can emanate from the present government, but would have us believe that prosperity and every good thing came from the national policy and the great Conservative party. And yet when they last appealed to the country, they could not agree among themselves but were fighting like the Kilkenny cats. I say again, let us get down to business, let us get down to work. Let my hon. friend the leader of the opposition propose the abolition of the Senate, let him propose to reduce the representations of this House, and I will join him. Let us have cheap government,

let us have honest government; let us have men who will look to country before party; let us do something for our common country.


Mr. ROBERT A. PRINGLE (Cornwall and *Stormont).: Mr. Speaker, at this very early hour in the morning, I do not think it will be at all becoming- in me to take up very much of the time of the House. I did not intend until this afternoon, speaking on this motion. But, representing as I do the *electoral district of Cornwall and Stormont in which is situated the town of Cornwall, known in eastern Ontario as ' the factory town,' I felt that it was incumbent upon me, even if I only said a few words, to give my reasons for supporting the amendment so ably spoken to by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), and the other hon. gentlemen who have supported it. I listened attentively to the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Murray). He says he is not a very old man, but he lias been in polities for a great number of years. He *says that in 1878, when the Right Hon. Sir John Macdonald went through the country advocating the national policy, he did not know what it was and had to ask his opponent what it meant, because he had never heard of protection. Well, if the hon. gentleman, in 1878, had never heard of protection, he had not followed the political history of the different countries. He complains that no manufacturing industries have reached the county of Pontiac, and then he tells us that the county is entirely j undeveloped and that they have no railway communications. I have no doubt that manufacturing industries will reach the county of Pontiac within a very short time, if the national policy is adhered to, and that these valuable water-powers will be used to drive the wheels of manufactories. He refers to the Conservative party having been hurled from power in 189G. It is quite true that they were defeated in 1896, and they were defeated upon pledges given by the hon. gentlemen opposite, not one of which they have fulfilled to the present day. He referred to the speech of the non. member for South Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart) in which the latter had made some statement about the enlightened countries favouring protection. I would like the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Murray) to name one country which has not framed and which Is not now framing its commercial regulations in such a manner as to guard its own interests against the encroachments of its rivals. He cannot name one that is not adopting such a policy. The only statement a free trader can make is that Great Britain to-day is a free trade country. But they do not tell you of the years and years of protection in Great Britain which built up the industries of that country until they felt they were able to control the markets of the world, and then they threw down the walls of protection.
The hon. gentleman has referred to the race question, and I for one hope it will be the last time that it is referred to in; this House. I cannot understand why hon. gentlemen opposite are continually getting up and talking race and creed. You do not hear it on this side of the House, we don't want to hear it in this House, and we don't want to hear it in the country. When a motion is made in this House in favour of a policy of adequate protection, and encouragement to the labouring, agricultural, manufacturing, mining and other interests of Canada, why should a gentleman speaking on that motion give us a long tirade about race and creed ? Why should he get up and say to hon. members who did not see fit to vote as he voted on some motion in this House, that the constituents which elected these men were fanatics and bigots?


Thomas Murray: Why do hon. gentlemen on your side of the House introduce this question ?


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I have not heard it on this side.


Thomas Murray: The member for West York (Mr. Wallace).


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: The first thing that the leader of the opposition said was that he did not desire to hear anything of that sort discussed in this House.


William Ross: The member for West Prince (Mr. Hackett) stated that it was race and religion that brought the Liberal party into power.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Well, the hon. gentleman may rest assured that he is not able to drag me into a controversy on the race and creed cry. I think, Mr. Speaker, among the greatest questions of legislation, there is probably not one which bears more directly on our future welfare than that of the national policy, and the tariff which we adopt in this country. To all theories and all reasonings against protection stands opposed the. unanswerable fact that experience has been always and every where is in its favour. Our government is made for all. We are not asking for any special protection for any one class in this broad Dominion ; we are asking for ample protection to be given to every class, and the class that requires it most is the labouring class. I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the speech delivered the other evening by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), and I was a little struck at some of the remarks that he made. One of his remarks especially attracted my attention, in which he said that Sir John A. Macdonald, for^ the purpose of obtaining power, did not hesitate to introduce a tariff which was anti-British. Sir John A. Macdonald gave fifty years of his life towards building up the empire of which we form so important a part. You never heard Sir John A. Macdonald ad-

vocating unrestricted reciprocity, or commercial union ; but you did bear bim, in that manifesto which be published just prior to that election, use these words :
As for myself, my course is clear. A British subject I was born, a British subject I will die. With my utmost efforts, with my latest breath, will I oppose the veiled treason which attempts by sordid means and mercenary proffers to allure our people from their allegiance.
The people of Canada responded to that appeal, and they buried for all time to come that policy which was so strongly advocated by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and by other ministers who sit before me to-night ; and we did not hear any more of commercial union or unrestricted reciprocity.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).: Since the hon. member has mentioned my name, will he allow me to ask him a question ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If the hon. gentleman who has the floor is willing.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: All right.
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) I want to ask the hon. gentleman if he has taken cognizance of the cablegram which is published in this evening's papers containing a declaration from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England that the policy which is now advocated by the opposition will not he countenanced in England ?


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I am not accustomed to pay much attention to all these telegraphic *despatches that we find in promiscuous newspapers. Now, the hon. memebr for Bonaventure says that this tariff is nothing more than a repetition of the old policy. But I will do him the credit to say that he stands up in this House and says that he is in favour of protection. He is on record in the ' Hansard ' as saying that he is in favour of moderate protection. But he goes on to say that this country has made no progress during the regime of the late Conservative administration, that it remains stationary.
I would like to take him down to that little factory town of Cornwall, where, in 1881, we had a population of 4,408, and, according to the census of 1891, we had a population of 0,805, an increase of 2,337 in ten years, or about 52 per cent. I want to tell him that from 1891 to 1896 our popu-; lation increased until, counting the town : and the suburbs, built up largely by the manufacturing industries established under the national policy, we have a population now of between 9.000 and 10,000. Without1 going into a number of items that I could mentiou, showing the great prosperity of the country between 1878 and 1890, I will only take the deposits in the savings banks. In 1877 there were 24,074 depositors, and the amount deposited was $2,639,937 : in 1890 the number had increased to 126,442


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: and the amount to $2S,932,930, or an increase of $20,292,993 during the term of the Conservative administration.


Charles Marcil: May I ask the hon. gentleman what was the increase in the population of Cornwall under the Liberal administration ?


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Under the Liberal administration the grass grew in the streets of Cornwall, from 1873 to 1878.


Charles Marcil: I mean during the last live years.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: The increase has been practically nothing from 1896, because the manufacturers of this country had no confidence in the administration of the hon. gentlemen. I do not hear of any new manufacturing industries started iu that town since 1896. The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) says that the United States have not prospered under a protective tariff. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith) said that the protective tariff is injurious to the labourers of any country in which it is enforced ; that it creates strikes, and he cited the United States as an example. But he did not say anything about the strikes in free trade England, and I could point him to the town of Valleyfield and other places in Canada where strikes have occurred during the regime of the present Liberal government. If protection injures the United States and if the labourer is not successful in that country, why should we find that 448,572 immigrants went into the United States in 1900 with the expectation of having their labour rewarded, and we know that the United States never had a higher protective tariff than it had that year. I am glad that the hon. gentleman referred to the United States because there is no country that gives to Canada the object lesson that that country does. Let me glance for just a moment at the commercial history of the United States. We can go back to the report which that great statesman, Alex. Hamilton, made in 1789, in favour of a protective tariff ; we can go back to 1813, after the protective tariff had come into force, and we can see how in that time the manufacturing industries of the United States took root. We find that in 1815 there were 140 cotton manufactures in the vicinity of Rhode Island, operating 130,000 spindles, and that many places such as Pittsburg sprang into existence as manufacturing centres. Five years after the protective tariff had been introduced into the United States the number of cotton spindles in operation was estimated at 500,000, employing 100,000 men, having a capital of $40,000,000 and paying about $15,000.000 in wages. That was the inception of protection there. We find that every time a party opposed to protection has been elected in the United States that country has gone backward ; business has become
[DOT]2325



[Stage Direction]
demoralized, and we find that when the people got a chance they returned to a protective tariff as the only safeguard of that great country. In 1888 the policy advocated by the Republican party was :
We are uncompromisingly in favour of the American system of protection. We protest against its destruction as proposed by the president and his party. They serve the interest of Europe; we will support the interests of America. We accept the issue and confidently appeal to the people for their judgment. The protective system must be maintained. Its abandonment has always been followed by general disaster to all interests except those of the usurer and the sheriff.
The Republicans denounced the Mills Bill introduced during the administration of President Cleveland. The people had had four years of tinkering with the tariff and they returned the Republican party by an overwhelming majority. In 1892 the Republicans were returned on the same policy of protection. In 1896 they appealed again and were returned on the policy of protection to American industries. In October, 1890, President Harrison gave his assent to what was known as the McKinley Bill which advanced duties on many articles, and the object of which was to reduce the revenue and increase protection. I freely admit that if you increase the protection you will reduce the revenue; but who will benefit by that? Is it not the workmen and the people generally whom you are protecting ? In the fiscal year of 1890 the customs of the United States amounted to 8230,000,000 and in the year 1891, part of which year the McKinley tariff was in force, it was reduced to $220,000,000 while in the following year, in which the McKinley tariff was in full force, the customs revenue was reduced to $177,000,000. But they had all the revenue they wanted and they protected the artisans and mechanics of their own country. I again tell the hon. gentleman from Vancouver (Mr. Smith) that the United States to-day are more prosperous than they have ever been in their history. There are 18,500,000 spindles going night and day in that country while there are 45,400,000 spindles in Great Britain and 33.000,000 spindles in all the rest of Europe.
Let me refer for a moment to the iron trade of the United States. In 1840 the United States had not entered the field of international competition in the iron trade, but in 1897 the United States undersold the English manufacturers in London, and her products for 1898 equalled that for Great Britain and Prance combined. Every great industry was built up under a protective tariff in the United States and now she is in a position to compete with any country in the world. I quote from the Economist, the well known English financial paper, the following in regard to the iron trade of the United States :
The fact that the United States is now able to produce pig iron and some forms of steel cheaper than this country is a serious menace to our foreign trade in the future.
I may say that I was very pleased to hear the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) come out squarely in favour of protection. In fact I have listened very carefully to this debate and it puzzles me to know just where these gentlemen opposite are. The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) is in favour of protection ; the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) is in favour of protection; the hon. member for Victoria, N.S. (Hon. Mr. Ross) is an out-and-out free trader ; the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Murray) is a tariff for revenue man, and they ail seem to have a different view as to the proper fiscal policy for this country. Now, Mr. Speaker, a word with regard to the preferential tariff. I may say that I have never been able to understand why this preferential clause was put in the tariff. The Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) told us that it was done out of love for Great Britain, but I have never heard that Great Britain asked that any preferential treatment should be given to her. I ,dld understand that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister in 1896 gave a solemn assurance that if he were returned to power he would appoint a commission to take this matter up, and see if some mutual preferential arrangement could not be made. The preferential tariff as it stands is a direct injury to the manufacturers and the artisans of the Dominion of Canada.
I have not time to go over many articles which are covered by that preferential tariff.
I will merely mention one article-linseed oil. Under the preferential tariff there is only a small duty upon linseed oil. and we imported in 1899 some $300,083 worth. There are in this country a large number of agriculturists who are engaged in the raising of flaxseed, which is used by the manufacturers of linseed oil. These agriculturists have no protection at all. for flaxseed is admitted free of duty, and Great Britain can import flaxseed from some of the southern countries, take it to England, manufacture linseed oil from it, and bring that linseed oil to Canada, to the detriment of our agriculturists and the men who are manufacturing linseed oil here. There are factories in Winnipeg and Waterloo, and it is a very great hardship to these men.
" I find also that there has been an immense increase in the importations of cottons from Great Britain in 1899. I believe we have men in Canada who are just as competent to manufacture cotton as the British manufacturers. and the preferential tariff is a great injustice to our manufacturers without securing to the public cotton goods at any less price. In 1900 there were imported from the United States, $1,520,655 of cotton goods.
[Stage Direction]
An industry in which I feel a deep Interest is the woollen industry of Canada. No man concedes more readily than I do that the great and important industry of the Dominion of Canada is agriculture ; but after that we should see that our manufacturers are taken care of by a proper regulation of the tariff. Of all the lines of home manufacture which are adversely affected by the preferential tariff, the woollen manufactures are singled out for the severest competition, not only by reason of the peculiar advantages of the British manufacturer in this line, but by reason of the extent to which German goods can be smuggled into Canada through Great Britain under the pretense of being partially manufactured in England. Now, that does not affect the woollen mill only, but it affects all the other industries. It affects the ready-made clothing industry, and a number of other industries which depend on the woollen manufactures of this country. To this government, who. I understand, have turned down the deputation from the woollen manufacturers, and have told them that they could have no relief, I want to say, why not pass a Bill providing that no goods imported into this country shall get the benefit of the preferential tariff unless they come through a Canadian port ? In that way we would build up our ports of Halifax, St. John, Quebec and Montreal, instead of building up Portland. Boston and New York. If the government cannot see their way to grant relief to the woollen manufacturers of this country, I think they should do that. The woollen industry at the present time in Canada is in a most precarious condition, and the prospects of the future are most discouraging. I say that advisedly. In the town in which I reside there is one of the largest woollen factories in the Dominion of Canada ; and those people have come to me and asked me to urge on tins government the advisability of giving them some relief as against this preferential tariff. I am not at all familiar with the position of the mill in the town of Peterborough. I understand that the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) has received some information in regard to that mill running night and day. The information which I have received from a thoroughly reliable source, is that the orders are falling off, and that in a very short time that mill will either have to shut down or run on half time. We find that the total imports of woollen -goods in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1900, were $9,968,899, and in 1891, $7,116,097, an, increase of 40 per cent, or $2,852,802. The Increase has been greater and more marked during the few months that have passed of the present fiscal year. I have not the exact figures for that period, but I have the figures for July, August and September, as shown by the monthly returns, and the imports for those months amount to $3,669,000. I am
Robert Abercrombie Pringle: free to admit that the consumption may have increased to a slight extent, but not to a very large extent. The total imports of all classes of dutiable goods exclusive of woollens, in 1897, was $59,925,608, whereas in the three months of July, August and September, 1900, they amounted to $24,715,609. Now, if the imports of woollen goods had increased in the same proportion, they would have approximated for the three months $2,525,000, making a surplus of the imports of woollen goods for the three months of $719,000. That means a great deal to the manufacturers of woollens in the Dominion of Canada. It means work for at least twenty-eight factories, each turning out $100,000 worth of goods. One-third of this amount would go in wages. I am not going to discuss the reasons why the woollen industry of this country should receive a moderate protection-at least 30 per cent. That ground has been fully and amply covered by the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). But I <say this, that that industry is a large one, it is distributed throughout the Dominion, and it has a far-reaching effect. If hon. gentlemen will look at the newspapers of to-day, they will find that there is a larger amount of wool unsold on the Canadian market than there has been for some time, and I understand that only 15 or 16 cents a pound is offered for it. That means a great deal to the farmers of this country, and I believe it means a great deal to the great North-west, which I believe can raise a quality of wool which would be almost universally used by our woollen manufacturers throughout the country.
Now, as I said from the start, I did not intend to take part in this debate ; but as I come from a manufacturing town, and the manufacturing interests of that town are very seriously affected by the attitude of the government in regard to the tariff, I felt it incumbent upon me to say a few words in support of the amendment.


Angus McLennan: Mr. Speaker. While we must admit that it is now difficult to bring into this debate anything new, interesting or original, I feel that, representing as I do, a very important constituency and coming from a portion of this Dominion which has prospered to so great an extent under the policy of the present government; I feel I would be recreant to my duty if I did not offer a few observations on the subject before the House. I was somewhat surprised, coming from the same province as the hon. leader of the opposition, to find that hon. gentleman submitting to us a resolution in opposition to that policy which has brought such an unprecedented degree of prosperity to that province. As an indication of the Improvement which has taken place during the past four years, I might point out that that portion of the

government railway, which runs through the province of Nova Scotia, and which formerly moved very slowly and leisurely along during the daytime, is to-day and has been for the past two or three years utilizing every hour of the twenty-four, so great is the demand on its resources for the carriage of freight. Some idea may he formed of the immense improvement in traffic when I state that over that portion of the Intercolonial Railway which runs through the Island of Cape Breton, the revenue for the year 1900 was $500,000 in round numbers, as compared with $125,000 in 1899, and that a small sleepy town in eastern Nova Scotia, which four years ago had a population of 3,000 or 4,000, is to-day a city of 10,000 or 12,000.
There are many points to which I could call the attention of the House, hut as we are all anxious to have this debate brought to a close, I shall limit myself to very few. Referring more particularly to the county I have the honour to represent, let me inform the House that it possesses the only undeveloped coal properties east of the Rocky Mountains, and these properties remained undeveloped until the present government came into office and furnished an opportunity for capital to take hold of and develop them. The present administration voted a very handsome subsidy to that enterprising firm, Messrs. McKenzie & Mann, who have constructed a railway from the Strait of Canso to the Inverness coal properties, four in number, and I would ask the attention of the House while I submit a few figures showing the extent of these properties. These figures are taken from the report of an expert mining engineer sent out by an English company, and this is what Mr. Ross has to say with regard to them :
One hundred and eighty million tons ol coal at Port Hood, twenty million tons of coal at Mabou, over one hundred million at Broad Cove, and two hundred and forty million tons at Chimney Corner.
All these properties are about being touched by the railway built by McKenzie & Mann, and thus prosperity is not only brought to the working people of Inverness, but a market to the farmers as well, for the county of Inverness is one of the finest agricultural counties in this Dominion. In view of these facts, I cannot understand now any representative of Nova Scotia should show any disposition to go back from the present era of prosperity to that era of paralysis of trade and of every line of industry which prevailed in that province during the eighteen years of the so-called national policy.	[DOT]
It has been charged that the present administration is expending money beyond its means. But these hon. gentlemen who make that charge forget the policy of their late honoured leader, Sir John A. Macdonald. In the year 1890, Sir John A. Macdonald addressed a large meeting near the city of Halifax, at a place called Prince's Lodge, and at which were present delegates from all parts of the maritime provinces. The elections of 1891 were then-approaching, and the Conservative leader was gathering his friends from all parts of the provinces. He there declared that his policy was to give the people their own money to expend upon their own public works. As an instance of the wisdom of this policy, he cited the fate of John San-field Macdonald, once premier of Ontario, and the success of. Sir Oliver Mowat who had succeeded him. Premier Macdonald, he told his audience, thought he was doing wonders when he husbanded the people's resources and locked up the people's money in a strong box, but the people grew restless and wanted their money. While they admired that characteristic of Mr. Sanfield Macdonald, which induced him to thus husband the resources of the province, yet they found that their public works were being starved out, and they rose in their might and hurled him from power and elected Sir Oliver Mowat in his place. And from that day, for twenty years, Sir Oliver Mowat went on expending the people's money upon the people's public works, and by this means kept himself in office by meeting the public requirements of his province. That policy, Sir John Macdonald declared he approved and intended to follow. This country, he said, was a comparatively new country and our public works needed money, and so long as he led the party the people of the Dominion would get their own money to expend on their own public works. And then, he said, ' when my successors come to power, they will find very little after me to spend.' This was the language of the late Sir John Macdonald, the leader of the Conservative party, and this was the policy he advocated in his palmy days.
And while, as Sir John Macdonald truly said, this is a comparatively new country, with various and pressing wants, a progressive government certainly could not fail to apply the people's money to the people's wants. It would not, indeed, be a matter of surprise to see a resolution of the character of this which has been introduced by the leader of the opposition brought into this House, if this parliament had been here for years, with the trade of the country paralyzed, with revenues falling and the public works of the country starved out. If we had had a. condition of that kind year after year for several years, then, indeed, it would not be a matter of surprise if the leader of the opposition and his party should suggest an alternative policy. But,, at a time when the present government and parliament are fresh from the people, when the people of Canada have pronounced their judgment as to the government's policy of the past four years, and that only four
[DOT]2331

months ago, it is difficult to understand why lion, gentlemen opposite find it advisable, or even justifiable, to bring in a resolution condemning a policy which the people of Canada have approved in a manner not to be mistaken by the opposition or anybody else. There was a time when the majority of the people of Canada approved of a somewhat high tariff. Indeed, I was one of those who thought that, while the industries of Canada were in their infancy, while they were under severe competition from the older industries to the south of the line, a fair amount of protection was necessary until those industries should be, as it were, self-sustaining. And, as is well known throughout the country, the original intention of the national policy was, that it should be a temporary affair, that these heavy duties should not be maintained beyond the period during which these industries might fairly be called infant industries. But, the trouble was that the high tariff was kept up to such an extent and for such a time as to render the manufacturers of the Dominion almost independent of the government, in fact the masters of the government at last, so that they could defy that government to touch their interests by the threat of swooping uown upon them at an election. I compare the mistaken policy in that regard with the mistake which this government would make if they continued the bounties on iron and steel. The iron and steel manufacturers would, like other pampered manufacturers, become masters of the situation. Suppose that plants like that at Sydney and Sault Ste. Marie were established at Montreal, Halifax, St. John, Toronto, and other places, and the present bounties on iron and steel were continued until these institutions became so well planted that they would actually become the masters of the situation, the administration would then learn their mistake, and so would the country. But. the present administration evidently saw this danger, and they drew the line at seven years. We will back you, say the administration to the manufacturer of iron and steel, for seven years ; if you are tnen able to walk without support, you can walk, but if you cannot, we are through with you anyway. This encourages the manufacturer of iron and steel in the meantime, but. when these establishments are self-sustaining, the people will be relieved from further supporting them. I heard it stated by the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) that the present government made no effort to secure trade, that they had not opened any new channel of trade. Well, there is one tiling to their credit, and that is, that if they have not opened up any new channels of trade, they have clearly demonstrated to the people that they were capable of developing, widening and deepening the channels that already exist. To demonstrate this, let me quote a report from an Ameri-Mr. Mclennan.
can consul reporting to his government. This is a quotation from the report of Mr. James Boyle, American consul at Liverpool :
The statistics of the British blue-book on trade for 1898 presents two striking facts-that the notable increase in American Imports last year was chiefly in manufactures, and that Canada is the leading competitor of the United States in forest and farm products. This Canadian competition in the British market is now keener than it ever was, and American farmers and shippers would be wis^ to appreciate the fact that the outlook is that it will increase. That there should be competition is inevitable, owing to the similarity of the natural and farm productions of the United States and Canada and the equidistance of the two countries from this market. But during the past two years

That is two years of Liberal administration. -the Canadian trade has been given a great impetus through the operation of a system of government supervision and subsidies. Possibly influenced by the Canadian example, Russia is shortly to introduce the experiment of subsidizing sold storage service on ships bringing dairy produce to Great Britain, and already Russia sends enormous quantities of these products to this market (Liverpool).
In the annual for 1899 of the British Co-operative Wholesale Societies (which do a yearly business of $60,000,000) there is a long article on Canada and its productions, from which is taken the following statement of the official efforts that are being made to increase the sale of Canadian products in Great Britain.
Government Enterprise.
It is a government enterprise, and is unique in the history of governmental connection with trade. The plant for two years past has been worked from the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa. Its object is not only to increase the demand in Great Britain for Canadian cheese, butter, eggs, poultry and fruit, but to so improve the means of transportation by rail and sea that these Canadian products shall be sent into market in the best possible condition and in the most attractive form. The scheme even goes beyond this, for another of its aims is to steadily improve the grade of all produce sent to Great Britain, and thus secure for Canadian produce a good and abiding reputation.
To secure these advantages, the Department of Agriculture, in the first place, sent out its experts to aid in the establishment of creameries.
It goes on to give figures with regard to the
exports of Canada, to Great Britain during the same years. It starts in this way :
The exportation of Canadian butter to Great Britain has greatly fluctuated. It reached its highest figures in 1881, when the value was $3,333,419; from then, against European competition (particularly Danish), It gradually declined until 1889, when the value was only $174,027 ; after 1889 the trade revived, but has not had a regular growth. Its present development dates from 1897. when, under the stimulus of governmental instruction in manufacture, shipment, &c., and subsidized cold storage steamers, it jumped up to $1,912,389, as compared with $893,053 in 1896. In 1898, the value was $1,915,550.
The Canadian cheese trade has been one of steady growth. In 1868 the value of the exportation to Great Britain was only $548,574 ;

in 1880, $3,772,769; in 1897, $14,645,859, and in 1898, $17,522,681. These figures, both as to butter and cheese, are taken from the last report of the Canadian Minister of Agriculture, covering the fiscal year ended June 30, 1898.
From the same authority is taken the following table, showing the rapid growth of Canadian farm products exported, and, speaking roundly, over 90 per cent of these exportations were to Great Britain:-
Inc.
Articles.	1896.	1898. p.c.Wheat	$ 5,771,521 $17,313,916	200Flour	
718,435	5.425,760	655Oats	
273,861	3,041,578	1,010Oatmeal	
364,655	554,757	52Pease	
1,299,491	1,813,792	39Cattle	
7,082,542	8,723,292	23Cheese	
13,956,571	17,572,763	25Butter	
1,052,089	2,046,686	94Pork, bacon and hams. 4,446,884	8,092,930	82Eggs	
807,086	1,225,304	55
Following is a table which shows the value of the leading Canadian importations into Great Britain, with the value of the same kind of products from the United States, for the years 1S94, 1897 and 1898.
He then gives a comparative statement for the two countries, Canada and the United States, by which it will be observed that just as American exports decrease Canadian exports increase :


VALUE OF IMPORTS INTO GREAT BRITAIN.
[Stage Direction]
Articles and
whence imported.	. 1894.	1897.	1898.Apples, raw- From United States	$ 2,129,234 $	2,443,228 $	1,954,298From Canada..	1,541.368	1,355,643	2,179,782Butter- From United States 	612,102	3,079,048	1,386,601From Canada..	437,988	2,162,029	3,217,004Cheese- From United States 	7,816,848	6,867,563	4,892,007From Canada..	13,068,277	16,278,574	14,306,503Eggs- From United States 	126,034	205,806	325,717From Canada..	450,249	942,830	1,223,310Fish- From United States 	2,000,079	3,482,593	2,983,276From Canada..	3,074,844	3,571,448	4,278,695
Other farm products are in the same ratio; just as American exports to Great Britain decline, Canadian exports Increase. These figures furnish satisfactory testimony in favour of the improvement of the.trade of Canada with Great Britain, as compared with that of our neighbours in the United States. This is an index pointing out that tlie present government stands for encouragement to the marketing of agricultural products. There was an item passed in this House not long ago for the encouragement of fishing, that is an item of $25,000 beyond the ordinary grant. I will give the House a few figures that were handed to me a few
days ago from the official in charge of this department, and they go to show the value of this appropriation to the various parts of the country. I will give the statement for January, 1901, because it is short:
Shipments of Fresh and Frozen Fish from Mulgrave, January, 1901.
To	No. of pounds.
Montreal	 578,550
Quebec	 81,160
Points west Montreal	 209,350
Points east Quebec	 65,550
United States via Halifax and St. John 74,590 By express	 36,250
Total	 1,045,450
I give this as a justification for the appropriation made by the government on behalf of the fisheries in the maritime provinces. I will also refer for a moment to the favourable condition of trade in this country, which fully justifies the government in continuing the even tenor of its course. In 1900 the trade of the Dominion was $60,000,000 over the year 1899, thus showing an improvement in the trade of this country in one year closely approaching that in the trade of the country for the eighteen years of this so-called national policy was in force. I ask my hon. friend the leader of the opposition then, coming as he does from the same province as myself, how can he justify fighting this order of things in his province by his resolution ? We see an improvement in the trade of this country of $60,000,000 in one year as compared with the improvement for eighteen years under the very policy that he wishes this country to revert to.
1 need scarcely call the attention of the House to the revenue of the country. For the past year it has been $51,000,000, the expenditure has been $43,000,003, leaving a surplus of $8,000,000. Let me say in this connection tliat while hon. gentlemen opposite clamour against what they call the useless expenditures made by the present government, the present government at least is living within its means ; whereas when they, the opposition, were governing this Dominion and receiving $38,000,000 of revenue, they had to go to the money markets of the world and borrow by the million. For eighteen years their borrowings averaged $6,000,000 a year. I am stating this fact chiefly to show the unreasonableness of offering a resolution that is calculated to combat this most satisfactory order of things in the administration of the public affairs of this country.
Having thus briefly referred to some of the points which I feel justify me in voting against the resolution submitted by the leader of the opposition, I shall not weary the House further than to say fhat while the trade of this country flourishes as it does, while the revenues of this country are ample, while public matters are attended to without an increase in the public debt, while all industries in Canada are prosper-
[Stage Direction]
ing, the policy of the present government is good enough for me and I shall vote against the amendment.	[DOT]
Mr. H. A. CALVIN (Frontenac).: Mr. Speaker, I wish that X could give a silent vote on this question, and X wish so because it is not very pleasing for me to hear the sound of my own voice in this Chamber, and it would save you the infliction of any extra words at such an early hour in the morning. I feel that I cannot give a silent vote on this question. I am not a strict protectionist and this amendment is a protectionist amendment I am in favour of the preferential tariff, and although this amendment does not very distinctly ask for the abolition of that preference, yet many of the speeches on this side of the House have tended very decidedly in that direction, and to that extent I am not in accord with them. We must have a revenue. That goes without saying. That revenue must come largely from customs duties. These customs duties may be arranged in such a way as that they may be incidentally protective, and that seems to me to be not much out of the way. I am not a protectionist for protection's sake, and I rise to make this explanation in order that I may stand clearly before the House and before my constituents on this point. I hardly go as far in the matter of absolute free trade as my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Edwards) who certainly is consistent. I cannot help but admire the manner in which he stood up for free trade even against a proposal to put a duty on lumber, he being a large lumberman himself. I cannot say that I admire so much the stand taken by his neighbour (Mr. Charlton) who, professing to be a free trader, and sitting amongst those who profess free trade, yet when his own trade is attacked, comes out a strong protectionist, and speaks in favour of the motion of the hon. gentleman from Simcoe (Mr. Bennett). If there is any trade in which this country should be impregnable, and I think is, without fear of being successfully assailed, it is in the lumber trade. You have a country carpeted with forests ; you have a population who are quite capable of developing that great national resource to the very best possible advantage, and in that trade, if in any trade, I believe we are unassailable.
I am much interested in the attempt-I call it only an attempt-to show that it is possible to protect agriculturists, the prices of whose products are fixed in a foreign market. I am not going to argue that ; it does not seem to me to be necessary. The price is fixed by the foreign market, and it just means'that the farmers who produce these goods should be able to produce them under the most favourable circumstances possible. That does not mean a high protective tariff. Further, I would say this : That the professions of hon. gentlemen on Mr. Mclennan.
the other side of the House are not quite consistent with their practices. They profess to be free traders ; they really are protectionists. The practices of the two sides of the House, it seems to me, do not differ very materially, and I may say while on this subject, that it will be a happy day for Canada when they do not differ at all When the tariff will cease to be a football in this House, and in the counti'y, and when the business of the country will not be continuously disturbed for fear of tariff revision or lowering or raising-and if there is anything which disturbs business it is the uncertainty attending what may be done at any particular session by any particular party that may be in power-I repeat, it will be a happy day for the country when the tariff ceases to be the football of parties, and when the two parties will divide on the general administration of the affairs of the country ; for I suppose it must be that the country will be governed by either one party or the other. Right here I think that the government are very fair candidates for condemnation now. They have an abundant revenue; the most abundant revenue the country has ever had, but there is no suggestion of the lessening of taxation to the extent of one solitary cent. It is a case of spend, spend, spend. Collect every dollar that we can from the people and spend it all. I do not think that is a sort of thing that can go on in this country for ever. The government claim a surplus of $8,000,000. If that is so, why- not lessen some of the taxes ? Why not take some of the duty off coal, or why not take the duty off sugar, as has been suggested by my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) ? But what is the use of going through the list ; the government know just as well as I do where duties can be knocked off and where the burdens of the people can be lightened. In spite of all the revenue that comes in every dollar of it goes out and the public debt is growing. I rose, Sir, not to make a speech, but to put myself right in this matter, because on this amendment I intend to vote with the government. Though that is technically voting confidence in the government, and perhaps it is, I want to say that I do not wish my vote to be taken as a vote of confidence in the government. I have not confidence in the government. I do not think their general administration is such as should commend itself to me or to any other-I won't say ' other'-but to any fair-minded person. May I be permitted to go back some years in the history of the neighbouring republic, at a time when their position as to population and unoccupied territory fairly nearly resembled ours. I refer to this to illustrate what I mean by a wasteful administration of public funds. Let me read a sentence or two from the fourth annual message of President Munroe. It looks like ancient history, but it will illustrate my point:

On the 30th of September, 1815, the funded and floating debt of the United States was estimated at $119,635,558. If to this sum be added the amount of 5 per cent stock subscribed to the Bank of the United States, the amount of Mississippi stock, and of the stock which was issued subsequently to that date, the balances ascertained to be due to certain states for military services, and to individuals for supplies furnished and services rendered during the late war, the public debt may be estimated as amounting at that date, and as afterwards liquidated, to $158,713,049. On the 30th of September, 1820, it amounted to $91,193,883, having been reduced, in that interval, by payments of $66,879,165.
Here is the United States after coming through a costly war with a debt of nearly $160,000,000, with a population of seven or eight millions, and with a large unexplored and unoccupied country. Except as regards their war experience their condition was pretty nearly akin to ours at present. Having come through a war which called for a debt of $160,000,000 ; in five years they paid off $60,000,000, and just let us go along n few years further to see where they landed in the latter part of President Jackson's term. In his seventh annual message in 1835, he said :
The condition of the public finances was never more flattering than at the present period.
Since my last annual communication, all the remains of the public debt have been redeemed, or money has been placed in deposit for this purpose, whenever the creditors choose to receive it. All the other pecuniary engagements of the government have been honourably and promptly fulfilled, and there will be a balance in the treasury at the close of the present year of about $19,000,000. It is believed that, after meeting all outstanding and unexpended appropriations, there will remain nearly $11,000,000 to be applied to any new objects which congress may designate, or to the more rapid execution of the works already in progress.
Now, I call that good finance; I call It pretty common sense kind of work, and it is not the kind of thing we are accustomed to in this country. In about twenty years they extinguished a debt of $160,000,000, and in 1835 they had it all clear, and had something like $1,000,000 in the treasury. Is that the kind of road we are on in this country? What is the end of this road? Are hon. gentlemen opposite never going to say to company promoters: No, we are not going to give you any bonus, we are done with that; we are guardians of the public money, and we have stopped the bonusing of railways. I am afraid that time has not come yet, but I hope it will come soon. Must we spend, spend, spend, without any end to this sort of thing ? Must we be face to face with repudiation before we think it Is time to call a halt ? Must money be thrown away, as it has been in the Galops cut, where $1,000,000 has been thrown away. I do not say that it has been thrown away by hon. gentlemen opposite; but they condemned that work when they were on this side of the House, and yet they themselves have 74
spent $200,000 on what is an absolutely worthless undertaking. It is a channel that is never going to be used. I do not know how many expenditures have been made in the country of the same sort, but I do know of that one. I say it is time to call a halt on these heavy expenditures. We cannot go on the way we are going for ever, and I think I have given a fair sample of what I mean by reasonable, fair, ana correct finance.


Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: Mr. Speaker, I had wished to speak on this subject, as I think every member has a perfect right to do; but at this time of the morning, for the sake not only of the feelings of the House, but my own feelings, I will refrain from so doing. I think every member of this House, especially a member who claims to be independent, should express his views on this first vital question that has divided this House this session, and I had expected to speak somewhat lengthily in expounding my views upon it. But, Sir, I feel more like protesting against what I consider the unparliamentary procedure followed in this House in the carrying on of its debates, rather on what I regard as debating society lines, making it necessary for a member to call in the services of an intermediary before he can get a place in the line of speakers. I do not think a member should be expected to speak at this hour of the morning. The system that is followed has this result, that some members can drop into this House in the course of a debate that lasts for days, deliver their speeches, and be gone. This has the effect of lengthening the debates. I have also proved that a member can sit in the House, and try for hours and even days to get the floor without succeeding in getting it. However, Mr. Speaker, I can well be content to dispense with my speech on this subject this morning, because I had the pleasure, as we all had to-day, of hearing my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Smith) in an eloquent and forcible speech, give expression to very similar views to what I hold on this question. I am totally opposed to the claim that has been made time and again in this House in the last few days, that we want more protection, and want it for the sake of the workingmen of this country:	I believe that is wrong. I
am absolutely sure that high protection has nothing whatever to do with wages. When I hear gentlemen in this House or on the platform in the country, talk in this way, I always think of Ruskin's remarks about the make-believe of the Russian court. He said that in the Court of Russia, with all its pomposity and all its make-believes and its cringing, servile officers, it always struck him that surely the leading men there must wink at one another when their followers were not looking. So when these gentlemen, especially the manufacturers, those



who have worked the national policy for all it is worth, are telling the workingmen of this country that this is what they want to make them rich, I think, they must wink at one another. I regard high protection as a double tax on Industry, and the people employed in industrial pursuits, the producers of this country, are the people who have to pay these taxes. 1 am sorry I have not a fair opportunity to go more fully into this subject; but at this time, it would be, as I say, not only an infliction on the House, but on the member who tries to deliver a speech.


Mr. A. S. KENDALL (Cape Breton).: Mr. Speaker, I regret that at this late hour it is incumbent upon me to make a few remarks, particularly on the resolution of the hon. leader of the opposition. But representing as 1 do one of the leading constituencies of the Dominion, the county of Cape Breton, the greatest coal mining county in the Dominion, and the site of the new iron works, and representing as I do a large labouring element in that constituency, I feel that I should not give a silent vote. Let me say that I am a free trader. From the day I first took the hustings five years ago, to this day. I have never ceased to preach that doctrine. The resolution of the hon. leader of the opposition calls for more protection. I regret that to-night I have to curtail the remarks that I had hoped to address to the House, so I shall at once come to the subject of which I wish particularly to speak. Away back in the seventies the coal trade of the county of Cape Breton was no doubt in a desperate condition. Hon. gentlemen opposite appealed to the country on protection, and a duty of 60 cents a ton was put on coal. Following the imposition of that duty came a rapid increase of the coal trade of the country. I admit that; but 1 want hon. gentlemen opposite also to admit this, that coincident with the introduction of that duty came a rapid lowering of the freight rates. In the seventies the rate on coal from Cape Breton to Montreal was $2.50, $2.75, $3.00, and $3.50 a ton. Soon after the introduction of the national policy came a rapid lowering of the freight rates down to $2.00 and $1.50 and $1.00 until in 1S97 the rate fell to from 65 cents to 90 cents a ton. Now, I ask hon. gentlemen opposite, if the imposition of the duty of 60 cents a ton was of value to the establishment of that trade, how much more beneficial was this great Reduction of the freight rates ? 1 claim that the coal barons of Cape Breton took the whole advantage of the duty and put it in their pockets. I claim that they overcharged the consumers of coal in Montreal and other places, and kept the labouring men of Cape Breton and other parts of Nova Scotia labouring for from 80 cents to 90 cents and $1 a day. These are facts. Now, Sir. I wish the record of the Conservative party on the coal trade in the Mr. PUTTEE.
province of Nova Scotia to be well known in this House. We found in 1890 and 1891 that the home market was no longer able to absorb the output of our collieries. We were told on the hustings in 1891 that what we proposed was a fatuous policy-that it was impossible to send coal to any other market than the home market. In this House in 1889, Mr. McICeen, now senator, quoted letters from a gentleman in Boston stating that our coal was so sulphurous that the Americans would not take it; at any rate, the commercial conditions were snc-h that no matter how good the coal was it could not be got in there. Some Liberals took a different view, notably the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), and the Prime Minister of Nova Scotia (Mr. Murray). Which policy was to prevail ? The one based on the ideas that only a restricted market was available for the coal trade of Nova Scotia or the policy of expansion 7 In 1893 the Minister of Finance brought a resolution into the Nova Scotia legislature providing for the equipment of the collieries of Nova Scotia, in a way they had never been equipped before, and with the object of forcing our coal into other markets.


William Findlay Maclean: Was not that the national policy.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: No, it was not. The national policy is a policy of restriction Ours is a policy of expansion. What happened ? In 1893 the measure brought down by the Minister of Finance was fought by the Halifax Herald, and by every Tory influence that could be brought to bear against it. Even in Cape Breton, which would be most benefited by the policy, the candidates of the government were defeated by the opponents to the measure.
We were told that the coal would not go abroad. Well, mark the results. In 1896 some 200,000 tons went into the United States. Last week from the port of Louis-burg some 29,000 tons went into Boston. And this year, in all probability, we will send between 800,000 and 1,000,000 tons into that country.
I wish to point to another fact. The great difficulty years ago in the Cape Breton collieries was the fact that they only had work during seven or eight months of the year. The restricted' home market did not require a sufficient output to work our mines all the year round, but with the policy of expansion since adopted, we have work for every miner, not only throughout the summer months, but every day in the year, and we could employ a thousand more miners if we could get them.
Let me remind hon. gentlemen also that the Conservative party in Nova Scotia sent demonstrations to Ottawa to-endeavour to thwart this movement of the Finance Minister who was then premier of Nova Scotia. We therefore have the records of the two parties before us, and we find that

while the country was depressed under this great protective policy, called the national policy, it is to-day thriving under the policy of expansion.


William Findlay Maclean: And iron bounties.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I am speaking now of coal. Last year there was more money expended in the equipment of the collieries, independent of the iron business, than was ever expended in former years. The hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) the other night, intimated that my colleague and I and several others of the maritime provinces were sent here through the money furnished by the Dominion Steel Company. I am going to refute that charge. We are not here by the help of the corporations, but in spite of them, and I think 1 can convince the House that the statement I am making is absolutely correct. My colleagues and I were elected in 1897 to the local legislature of Nova Scotia. We then made certain pledges and carried them out. We determined, from the day we entered public life, that our main effort would be to destroy the hold which the corporations bad on the people of our country. We curtailed the powers of the coal companies, and when the new Dominion Iron and Steel Company came looking for a charter, we said to them: So far you shall go and no further. We had certain restrictions put on their charter which aroused their displeasure, and even Liberals in connection with that concern were anxious that we should not be elected to this House. If they had no other reason, they probably judged it advisable, in view of the possibility of the government being defeated, that the county should be represented by Conservatives. I wish once more to reassert that we are here today in spite of the corporations and not by their favour.
I shall not speak entirely from the Nova Scotian standpoint, because no man is worthy of being a member of this House who does not measure the interest of his province by those of others. But l snail now refer to the industries of Nova Scotia, and in doing so I will only be following the lead set by hon. gentlemen from the other provinces. I wish to bring a few facts to the notice to the hon. the leader of the opposition. Down in that hon. gentleman's province, there is an apple industry worth from ?800,000 to 81,000,000 a year. Can he show us how a protective tariff is going to benefit that business ? In wlint way would such a tariff help the apple grower to grow or sell his apples. There is also a gold mining business down there, worth from 8000,000 to $800,0)0 a year. How is protection going to assist the gold miner to get and sell his gold. There is a large pulp business and deal business in that province, the products ofi which find their way into the French, American and English markets, where they 744
have to light against the products from Norway and other parts of the world. How will protection benefit those industries ? Then there is the fishing industry, worth from 87,000,000 to 88,000,000 per year. How can protection help the fishermen, who have to send their fish to the United States, to the West Indies, South America, the Argentine Republic, the Mediterranean, and there compete against the fish from Norway and Sweden, from Newfoundland, and the bounty-fed fish of St. Pierre. Will he show us how a protective policy is going to benefit the 27,000 fishermen of his province? I would also point out that the very first cargo of iron manufactured in Sydney went to the United States, and that the next goes to Europe. Our main trade connections must be over the sea. Protection can only hinder, not promote our trade.
Let me congratulate the hon. the leader of the opposition on certain statements he has made. He has stated that questions of race and religion will never be raised by any one in his party with liis sanction or approval. He has stated also that it is in the interests of the Dominion and of the British Empire and the advancement and enlightenment of humanity that our relations with the great republic to the south should be of the very best and eveiy effort should be made to strengthen the good relations that now exist. But I commiserate him on this one fact, that the hon. gentleman put up to speak for him as the financial critic of the opposition took the ground that no further subsidies should be granted in Nova Scotia or any of the older provinces. I can well understand the difficult position in which he would be placed if he were to announce such a policy in the counties of Queen's, Shelburne or Lunenburg. I can well understand the difficulties that the leader of a political party has in meeting the constituents along the line from Shelburne to Louisburg.
One word more, and I shall sit down. I say that the policy for the maritime provinces-and I have heard the same policy *propounded in the lower part of Quebec, in parts of Ontario and the North-west-should be a policy of expansion rather than a policy of restriction. Hon. gentlemen opposite should recollect also that Sir John Thompson stated on one occasion that, in the development of industries under the national policy, there were certain mouldering branches which should be lopped away. Have we not instances of mouldering branches that require to be lopped away now ? I think that during the last few days instances have been produced showing that there are one or two industries of this country that cannot survive except at the expense of the other industries. That has become apparent. Now, speaking for the county I have the honour to represent. I wish to say that our labouring men will rely on their strong arms and the gifts that

God has given them to operate upon. And, having the opportunity to operate upon those gifts and the opportunity to freely exchange their products, whether with their next door neighbours or with people ten thousand miles away is the best way to protect them. They want opportunity to freely exert their energies and to exchange their products for the products of other labour, and this they think will be the best protection that parliament could give them ; and as far as parliament is concerned it can best exert itself in the interest of labour by favouring measures that have for their effect a fair division of the profits of industry.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Borden, Halifax) :
YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn,	Lancaster,
Ball,	LaRiviSre,
Barker,	La veil,
Bell (Addington),	Lefurgey,
Bennett,	MacLaren (Perth),
Birkett,	Maclean,
Blaln,	McCormick,
Borden (Halifax),	McGowan,
Boyd,	McIntosh,
Broder,	Monk,
Bruce,	Morin,
Cargill,	Northrup,
Carscallen,	Osier,
Clancy,	Pope,
Clare,	Pringle,
Clarke,	Prior,
Cochrane,	Reid (Grenville),
Culbert,	Richardson (Grey),
Earle,	Roche (Marquette),
Fowler,	Roddick,
Ganong,	Rosamond,
Gilmour,	Sherritt,
Gourley,	Simmons,
Hackett,	Smith (Wentworth),
Haggart,	Sproule,
Henderson,	Taylor,
Hughes (Victoria),	Tisdale,
Ingram,	Toltcn,
Johnston (Cardwell),	Vrooman,
Kaulbach,	Wallace,
Kendry,	Ward, and
Kidd,	Wilmot.-64.
NAYS :	
Messieurs	
Archambault.	Laurier (L'Assomption),
Bazinet,	Lavergne,
Belcourt,	LeBlanc,
Bernier.	Legris,
Bickerdlke,	Lemieux,
Blair,	Lewis,
Borden (King's, N.S.),	Logan, *
Bourassa,	Lovell,
Britton,	Loy,
Brown,	Macdonald,
Bruneau,	Mackie,
Bureau,	Maclaren (Huntingdon),
Calvert,	McColl,
Calvin,	McCool,
Carroll,	McCreary,
Champagne,	McEwen,
Christie.	McGugan,
Copp,	Mclsaac,
Costigan,	McLennan,


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Cowan,	Malouin,
Davies (Sir Louis),	Marcil (Bagot),
Davis,	Mareil (JBonaventure),
DSchene,	Martineau,
Delisle.	Matheson,
Demers (Levis),	Meigs,
Demers (St. John),	Mignault,
Desmarais,	Monet,
Douglas,	Murray,
Dugas,	Oliver,
Dyment,	Parmelee,
Edwards,	Paterson,
Emmerson,	Prefontaine,
Erb.	Proulx,
Ethiei,	Puttee,
Fielding,	Reid (P.estigouche),
Fisher,	Richardson (Lisgar),
Flint,	Roche (Halifax),
Fortier,	Ross (Ontario),
Fortin,	Ross (Rimouski),
Fraser,	Ross (Victoria),
Gallery,	Rousseau,
Gauvreau, .	Russell,
Geoffrion,	Schell,
German,	Scott,
Gibson,	Sifton,
Girard,	Smith (Vancouver),
Gould,	Stephens,
Guthrie,	Sutherland (Essex),
Harwood,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Heyd,	Talbot,
Holmes, [DOT]	Tarte,
Horsey,	Thompson,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.),	Tobin,
Hyman,	Tolmie,
Johnston (Cape Breton),	Tucker,
Johnston (Lambton),	Turcot,
Kendall,	Turgeon,
Lang,	Wade, and
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Wright-118.
PAIRS :	
Against.	For.
Messieurs	
Dobell,	Brock,
Cartwright (Sir Rich'd),	Tupper (Sir Charles
	Hibbert),
Angers,	Eell (Pictou),
Bourhonnais,	Lennox,
McCarthy,	McLeod,
Morrison,	Hale,
Charlton,	Wilson,
Maxwell,	Seagram,
Madore,	Kemp,
Muloek,	Corby,
Fitzpatrick,	Casgrain,
Galliher,	Robinson (Elgin),


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I must ask to have my name withdrawn from the division list, as the chief whip on the opposition side has called my attention to the fact that the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Cas-grain) Is absent on the assumption that he was paired with me.


George Taylor: The hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) has not voted.


William Rees Brock: I am paired with the hon. member for West Quebec (Hon. Mr. Dobell). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
House divided on motion (Hon. Mr. Fielding) :

Clancy,
Clare,
Clarke,
Cochrane,
Culbert,
Earle,
Fowler,
Ganong,
Gilmour,
Gourley,
Hackett,
Haggart,
Henderson,
Hughes (Victoria), Ingram,
Johnston (Cardwell), Kaulbach,
Kendry,
Kidd,
Pringle,
Prior,
Reid (Grenville), Richardson (Grey), Roche (Marquette), Roddick,
Rosamond,
Sherritt,
Simmons,
Smith (Wentworth), Sproule,
Taylor,
Tisdale,
Tolton,
Vrooman,
Wallace,
Ward, and Wilmot.-65.
YEAS : Messieurs
Arehambault,	Lavergne,
Bazinet.	LeBlanc,
Belcourt,	Legris.
Bernier.	Lemieux,
Bickerdike,	Lewis,
Blair,	Logan,
Borden (King's, N.S.),	Lovell,
Bourassa,	Loy,
Britton,	Macdonald,
Brown,	Llackie,
Bruneau,	Maclaren (Huntingdon),
Bureau,	McCool,
Calvert,	McColl,
Carroll,	McCreary,
Champagne,	McEwen,
Christie,	McGugan,
Copp,	Mclsaac,
Costigan.	McLennan,
Cowan.	Malouin,
Davies (Sir Louis),	Marcil (Bagot),
Davis,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
DSchene,	Martineau,
Delisle,	Matheson,
Demers (Levis),	Meigs,
Demers (St. John),	Mignault,
Desmarais,	Lionet,
Douglas,	Murray,
Dugas,	Oliver,
Dyment,	Parmelee,
Edwards,	Paterson,
Emmerson,	Prefcntaine,
Erb,	Proulx,
Ethie:.	Puttee,
Fielding,	Reid (RestigoucheX,
Fisher,	Richardson (Lisgar),
Flint,	Roche (Halifax),
Fortier,	Ross (Ontario),
Fortin,	Ross (Rimouski),
Fraser,	Ross (Victoria),
Gallery,	Rousseau,
Gauvreau,	Russell,
Geoftrion,	Schell,
German,	Scott,
*Gibson,	Sifton,
Girard,	Smith (Vancouver),
Gould,	Stephens,
Guthrie,	Sutherland (Essex),
Harwood,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Heyd,	Talbot,
Holmes,	Tarte.
Horsey,	Thompson,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.),	Trbin.
Hyman,	Tolmie,
Johnston (Cape Breton),	Tucker,
-Johnston (Lambton),	Turcot?
Kendall,	Turgeon,
Lang,	Wade, and
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Wright.-117.
Laurier (L'Assomption),
NAYS :
Messieurs
Lancaster, LaRiviere,
Lavell,
Lefurgey, MacLaren (Perth), Maclean, McCormick, McGowan, McIntosh,
Monk, ' Morin,
Xorthrup,
Osier,
Pope,


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: At this hour of the night, I presume there will he no desire to proceed with the business in committee, and I beg to move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: Would tlfe right hon. gentleman tell us what business the government propose to take up to-morrow ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: We will take concurrence upon some items of supply with regard to the St. Maurice, then Bills, and then supply.


Robert Laird Borden: WTiat items of supply will be taken up ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 4.10 .a.m.-Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Fhiday, March 29, 1901.