1901-03-19

Hon. JOHN COSTIGAN (Victoria, N.B.) moved:: That that portion of the 49th rule which limits the time for receiving petitions for Private Bills be suspended in reference to the petition of the Grand Falls Water Power and Boom Company, presented this day ; praying for an Act to extend the time for the completion of their works, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the seventh report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. N. A. BELCOURT (Ottawa) moved :: That the petition of John Mather and others for an Act of incorporation under the name of the Alaskan and North-west Railway Company, be referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders for further consideration.


Mr. URIAH WILSON (Lennox).: I wish to know for what reason this motion is made. When this Bill was before the Committee on Standing Orders we had no evidence that it was properly advertised, or that the promoters had in any way complied with the rules of the committee or of the House. Unless there is some good reason this Bill should not be sent back.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The reason is a very good one. The gentleman who had charge
16G3

of tlie Bill before the committee had not in his possession the newspapers containing the advertisement, and my hon. friend (Mr. Wilson) was the means of having the Bill rejected on that account. The publication was made in a Dawson paper and every one knows the difficulty of getting Dawson papers here at this time of the year. Since then the papers containing the advertisement have arrived, and we are ready to show that the publication has been made.


Uriah Wilson: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) should be able to show that the advertisement was published during the


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 78) to incorporate the Union Railway Company.-Mr. Demers (St. John and Iberville).
Bill (No. 79) respecting the Lindsay, Bob-eaygeon and Pontypool Railway Company. -Mr. Vrooman.
Bill (No. 80) to incorporate the St. Mary's River Bridge Company.-Mr. Dyment.
Bill (No. 81) respecting the Algoma Central Railway Company, and to change its name to the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Dyment.

[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.
["Both. Our provincial government finds it necessary, because of this large influx of ignorant and uneducated people, to bring in a compulsory educational Bill at this session of the legislature and it is not right that they should be compelled to incur a largely increased expenditure for this purpose, that they can ill afford, on account of the policy of the Minister of the Interior. And I hope in this connection that this government 'will hand over to the province of Manitoba the school lands and the school funds now held in trust for that province and properly belonging to it, to be administered by the local authorities for educational purposes, as they are in a much better position to do so to better advantage than the Dominion government can possibly hope to be.\nIt has been claimed by our opponents that the days of the exodus are past, and our people no longer seek homes in the country to the south of us. But, I find on looking at the Trade and Navigation Returns that settlers effects to the amount of $1.0yj,53ii, were exported from our country during the last year, which is a pretty good index that the exodus against which they declaimed so loudly in years gone by, is still in existence.\nRailway subsidies and steamship subventions which came in for so much denunciation at the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite when they were on this side of the House, I notice are still being voted as in the days of the Conservative administration only more so. Millions of dollars of public funds are annually voted for railways without any adequate return to the people, which has possibly done more to create that agitation for government ownership, an agitation that first arose in the progressive province of Manitoba, and which is gaining force every day in other portions of the Dominion, than almost any other act of the government.\nIn the matter of steamship subventions, our farmers were told that the country was bonusing vessels to ply between Australia and Vancouver to bring into unfair competition with our mutton the mutton from the Australian colony. They did not tell the farmers that before a pound of that mutton could be landed on Canadian territory it had to pay a duty of 35 per cent under Conservative administration. Actually Liberal campaginers hawked auout cans of Australian mutton as an illustration of the unfair competition our farmers were being subjected to. After carrying on such a warfare you would imagine these gentlemen, on coming into power, would have taken the first opportunity either to abolish the steamship subventions or at least to raise the duties, and thus give more protection to our farmers.\nDid they do so ? Why, on the contrary we see that steamship subventions are continued as much as they ever were in the past ; and not only that, but, mutton is being imported in increased quantities under the tariff which gives a preference of 33J per cent. In looking up the Trade and Navigation Returns, I found that in 1S9G we imported into Canada 22,299 pounds of mutton, the duty being then 35 per cent. Last year, ending 30th June, 1900, we imported the enormous quantity of 565,401 pounds, which paid a duty reduced by 331 per cent. So, if our farmers were suffering and burdened by this keen competition in 1896, how much keener must that competition be when thirty times as much mutton is being imported under the reduction of 331 per cent. When the tariff was submitted to the House in 1897 by the present government, it created a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the western people, and even among the western representatives, because they knew the pledges upon which they had secured their seats. They knew that promises were held out to the people that they should get their raw material free. When the tariff was brought down the Liberal speakers had to do what they could to let themselves down easy. They told us that, of course, we could not expect the government, at one feel swoop- to use a favourite expression of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright)-to give us free trade. We were to have free trade on the instalment plan. But year after year lias gone by, and now instalments are overdue. No further instalments have been paid, and free trade- on the instalment plan has not been effected, and is not the shibboleth of the Liberal party to-day. Free agricultural implements was the cry of the past. We heard denunciations of the rebates on duties paid to the manufacturers of implements to enable them to send machines to farmers living in foreign countries thousands of miles away, to enable them to buy those implements cheaply, and to compete with our own farmers at an advantage. I find by the return brought down in response to a motion presented by myself that these drawbacks are still continued, and that, for the year ending 30th June last, they amounted to 8245,151.46. Now, I might go on and comment upon the extravagance of the government, but that point has been so fully covered that I need not occupy the time of the House. We all know that the public debt, which, we were promised would be reduced, has been increased by $7,000,000 : that the expenditures which were to have been reduced by one, two, or three millions, have gone up by fourteen millions; that the taxation of the country, which was to have been cut down has also been increased by", 'several millions-and still tlie carnival of extravagance goes merrily on. It is time tliat this government should call a halt to the useless waste of public money. If they are not able, during a time of great prosperity, when we have great expansion in our imports and our exports, when the trade of the country has been leaping up as it has been-if they are not able, notwithstanding that millions of dollars have been wrung out of the pockets of the people as a surplus by unnecessary and unjust taxation, to reduce our expenditure or to apply any portion of the surplus to reduce the national debt, how can we expect to effect such a reduction when we are sliding down the wave, upon the crest of which we now are, according to the Finance Minister. In the time of prosperity wise statesmen prepare for adversity. Otherwise the reaction that is sure to set in will create a commercial panic, and already there seems some sign of an approaching period of depression. While we are not pessimists-and, in that respect we differ from hou. gentlemen on the other side, for we do not believe in decrying the fair fame of our country for the sake of gaining a petty political advantage-yet, as citizens of the country, when we see the government drifting recklessly along, it is our duty to warn them of the approaching storm so that by cutting down their expenditure, and by judicious admiuistratiou, they may fortify the country against commercial disaster. In accordance with my usual custom, I will not trespass long upon the patience of the House, but will content myself with these remarks, seeing that the subject has been so thoroughly threshed out.\nMr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) moved the adjournment of the debate.']
Mr. B. RUSSELL (Hants).: Mr. Speaker, for the statement which I am about to make, I have probably tbe same kind of authority as my hon. friend (Mr. Wallace), who last addressed the House, had for a number of statements which he made in the course of his speech. My statement is that I have received confidential communications in regard to a conference that took place between the hon. leader of the opposition and the advisory board that assists him in conducting the affairs of this House-


Mr. HENDERSON.: Oh, how clever.
Mr. RUSSELL-and that it was arranged among them that my hon. friend who addressed the House last night should visit North Bruce in the capacity of a peacemaker, for the purpose of setting at rest all racial, religious and discordant cries and all disturbing controversies which would otherwise have agitated that community. It was represented to him that the subject of the preferential tariff would come up for more or less discussion in the course of this debate ; and as he had given utterance to some equivocal expressions on that subject on the occasion of its first intro-


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: duetion into this House-expressions which might be represented as an approval of it, if divested as it is at present of those features connected with tbe Belgian and German treaties, it was not desirable that he should interpose in the present discussion of the subject; moreover, that bis presence as a peacemaker in the county in which an election is now being run would be of infinite value to this country ; and, in view of that circumstance, and in view of those negotiations and advices, my hon. friend had prepared a discourse marked by those characteristics of mildness, and breathing that spirit of sweet reasonableness with which he so frequently delights this House; containing those very amiable references to his antagonists, those complimentary allusions to tbe lion. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and those pleasant remarks as to the right hon. gentleman who leads this House, so free from anything in the nature of innuendo ; those kindly observations with reference to tbe Minister of Finance; and all suffused iu that tone of Christian charity of which he is so admirable an exponent in this House. These things were not intended for this Chamber at all, but were intended for North Bruce; but, in some way that has not been explained, but probably will be later on, the hon. gentleman's connections failed, and so lie did not get to North Bruce, whether on account of the snowstorm or for other reasons which may be supposed, and he was thrust upon this House, and was obliged to turn on the tap. He had no speech on the budget or on the preferential resolutions ; he had not prepared himself to discuss any of the questions which might legitimately come before the House; and, therefore, he was obliged to give us, very inappropriately, tbe speech which was intended for the electors of North Bruce. That is the only explanation I cau suggest for at least one of the features of the address he has given us-for the fact that in the main he steered entirely clear of the subject under discussion ; and it also illustrates the exceptionable reasonableness and sweetness of tlie discourse he gave us. I rejoice, and this House must rejoice, that we have in the public life of this country a gentleman who brings that tone into our discussions. The hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil) desired that this should be a parliament of peacemakers. We have one of those peacemakers present ; we have had from him an illustration and an assurance of what is to come : and I trust the hon. member for Bonaventure will fold the hon. gentleman to his bosom. I must confess. Mr. Speaker, that I am very largely dependent upon tbe assurances which the hon. gentleman has himself given to ns in the course of his speech, for taking that view of his remarks ; otherwise. I would have been inclined to recall n story which was told by the late Wendell Phillips, in

connection with the anti-slavery agitation. Mr. Phillips was under the impression that the southern slaveholders, when crying out against those who were continually disturbing the peace of the country, were themselves the principal disturbers of the country's peace ; and by way of illustrating and clarifying his views, he was fond of telling a story of an old court crier who, when engaged in liis official capacity in one of the courts at Massachusetts, used to fall asleep. When the voices of the counsel who were addressing the court rose to a louder tone than usual, the crier was aroused from his slumbers, and cried out at once, ' Silence iu the court,' and immediately resumed his slumbers. This had occurred a few times, when the judge got tired of this interruption of the proceedings, and burst out in a somewhat indignant way, ' Crier, you are the only one disturbing the court, and if you will only stay asleep, there will be no more disturbance.' Iu the same way, if by some providential means, the hon. member for West York could be put into one of these slumbers which a gentleman down on Sparks street produces, I do think there would not be quite so much discord or trouble, noise, clamour and controversy as there happens to be from time to time in this community.
I endeavoured to follow the hon. gentleman in the course of his remarks last night, and I shall endeavour more or less to-day to follow them, but I am bound to say that his route was altogether too circuitous, it covered too wide a field to allow the possibility of my doing so. The discussion of all, or even one-half, of the topics the hon. gentleman saw fit to introduce in the course of his oration last night would occupy all the time at my disposal, or at the disposal of this House, from now probably until the end of the session, because there has been no subject under discussion in this parliament ever since it opened on the Gtli February last, that my hon. friend did not import into this debate. I shall therefore endeavour, not to follow him all the way round, but to confine myself as much as I possibly can to the subject immediately under discussion. My hon. friend threw absolutely no light on this subject, although he imported a great deal of heat. It was heat without light. It was certainly of no purpose for him to repeat over and over again, as he did, and as he also did last year, the platitude that it would be an excellent thing for us if we could secure free admission to Great Britain of our grain and the imposition of a hostile tariff against the grain of other countries. If we could secure admission for our grain products into the markets of the old country free of duty and have all others excluded or subjected to a discriminating, and if possible prohibitory tariff, that would be a capital thing for us. I am sure it never needed any dis-53	'
cussion or elaboration whatever to make good this contention and when the hon. gentleman repeated that platitude for the twentieth time he did not throw any light whatever on the question which this House is called upon now to consider, under the amendment of the leader of the opposition.
The hon. gentleman was asked how we could get that concession from the mother country-and that was the real point, surely, of any discussion that could be made on the subject. He was asked :	How are you
going to secure that concession ? and he answered at once : We can secure it because Mr. Chamberlain said that he was willing we should have it. Then he read-I wonder if the House will believe it without my verifying it-he actually read, in support of his statement, a paragraph from the very speech from which the right hon. leader of the House quoted the other day for the purpose of proving-as he did prove beyond all shadow of doubt-that Mr. Chamberlain had not expressed any such willingness and was entirely convinced of the impossibility of any concession of the kind being given. These were the words which my hon. friend from West York read :
Let the offer

My hon. friend did not tell us what offer it was to which Mr. Chamberlain was referring.
Let the offer, said Mr. Chamberlain, come voluntarily from them, and I believe It will be considered in this country, not in any huckstering spirit, but will be entertained as part of a greater policy intended to unite in the closest bonds of affection and interest all the communities under the British flag and all the subjects of Her Majesty throughout the empire.
Those were Mr. Chamberlain's expressions, but in that very speech my hon. friend will see, if he takes the pains to read it, and I hope he has read it-but, no, I hope he has not, because, if he has, it would be extremely disingenuous conduct on his jiart to read the passage he quoted without reading the passages in which Mr. Chamberlain pointed out the impossibility of our having any such concession made to us under the conditions existing to-day. I shall read Mr. Chamberlain's expressions, which I only repeat because it has become necessary to do so in consequence of the turn the discussion has taken and the contentions made by my hon. friend. Mr. Chamberlain was discussing three possible solutions of the question of preferential trade within the empire.
The first proposition he discussed was that the colonies should abandon their duties, which were all in the nature of protective duties more or less. He said this proposition is not a hopeful one because not one of the colonies is prepared-they are certainly not all prepared-to abandon the tariffs they now have and which involve more or less a protectionist element, more or less an element which can be used, incidentally in



some of them, purposely in others, for the protection of colonial industries. That was a proposition therefore which Mr. Chamberlain felt bound to d smiss from practical consideration. He went on to say :
There is another proposition, and that is that the colonies should keep their tariffs as they are to-day, but that the Imperial government should so arrange its tariff that a duty should be placed on foreign wheat and corn coming into the British islands, while the colonial tariffs remain as they were.
Mr. Chamberlain said no, there is no possibility of that ever being adopted. That is a result to which the workingmen of the mother country could never be induced to submit. And therefore the second proposition was dismissed as impracticable and impossible.
He said, there is a third proposition. That is the proposition of a zollverein not exactly like the German zollverein because that was a zollverein between conterminous countries, but a zollverein, with such modifications as might be capable of application to tbe condition of things in our colonies. He said that is a hopeful proposition, hut it involves the colonies abandoning all their tariff imposts which are of a protectionist character. In other words, the colonies would have to abandon all their tariff im. posts which are unlike those of tbe mother country, that is to say which either, directly and purposely, as is the case in some of the colonies, or incidentally ns is the case in * ours, involve protection to colonial industries.
The right lion, gentleman who leads the House (lit. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has shown us conclusively that it is absolutely impossible for tbe two parts of tbe resolution of my bon. friend the leader of the opposition to hang together at all, under the doctrine laid down by Mr. Chamberlain. My hon. friend insists that we must have a protective tariff applicable to the industries of this country, and in the same breath he undertakes to say that we may have that which, according to Mr. Chamberlain, is absolutely inconsistent and diametrically opposed to it, namely, a preference in the markets o'f the mother country. The right lion, the First Minister has pointed that out so conclusively and luminously that I am not going to further impose on the patience of the House by discussing a point so absolutely clear and which so entirely disposes of the resolution submitted to us by tbe leader of tbe opposition.
But tbe bon. member for West York retorts: that may be all right from our point of view, but bow is it from your point of view ? You profess that you have not a protectionist tariff, but a free trade tariff, and therefore there is no inconsistency in your going to the mother country and asking that which, it is quite evident, we would be entirely estopped from asking from the Imperial government. Well, now I want Mr. RUSSELL, (Hants).
to know who ever said we bad a free trade policy in this country. I want to know who ever said we had a free trade tariff, if I may use that expression, in this country. I do not think that anybody ever said we bad free trade in this country; I am prepared to say we do not have it.
My bon. friend has discussed this matter as if there were only two kinds of tariff, of fiscal policy, a policy of free trade, and a policy of protection. He certainly is altogether at sea when he makes a suggestion like that. We have not free trade in this country, we have not a free trade policy in this country, nor have we a protectionist policy in this country. We have in this country to-day substantially the policy with which we set out in the year 1807; that is to say, that instead of there being two kinds of fiscal policy as my hon. friend suggests, there are really three kinds, clearly and easily distinguishable. There is first of all-if I may take four or five minutes to explain a matter which is so entirely elementary-there is first of all a protectionist tariff, purposely and ostensibly framed with the object of excluding foreign goods coming from other countries, and which does exclude those products in so far as it successfully operates as a protective tariff. It is levied on goods which can be produced and which are produced in the country, and of a kind that are and can be produced in the country, levied upon them for the purpose of compelling the population to use those articles produced in the country, and for the purpose of excluding those which are produced in the foreign and competing country. That is a protectionist tariff. There is opposed to that what I may properly call a free trade tariff, such a tariff as they have in the old country, a tariff which carefully eliminates any elements of that sort, which is carefully designed for the purpose of ensuring that every penny of taxation that is paid, every penny of money taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers, is taken solely for the purpose of going into the treasury of the country. It is a tariff levied upon things, not which can be produced in the country, but which cannot by any possibility be produced in tbe country ; that I call a free trade tariff, the very opposite of the one I spoke of previously.
Then there is between these two a tariff such as we had in this country in 1867 down to the fiscal revolution of 1878, and which we are endeavouring to work our way back to, and have in a large measure worked our way back to, under tbe reformed tariff introduced by my bon. friend the Minister of Finance, a revenue tariff which is designed to exclude as far as possible the element of protection; because, as Mr. Mackenzie pointed out many years ago, in our tariff there always was an element of incidental protection, and in our tariff today there is an element of incidental

protection. But, as tlie Minister of Customs has often pointed out, that is an incident to the main purpose of the tariff, which is the collection of a revenue, and is not the protection of native industries. Now, then, this is the kind of tariff that we have to-day, and this is the kind of tariff, a revenue tariff with incidental protection, under which Mr. Chamberlain said it would be impossible for us to go to the mother country and ask for anything like a zollverein, or anything like a preference, or anything like such a scheme as is outlined in the resolution of the hon. leader of the opposition. The present tariff does afford incidental protection, that is to say, it does give a certain degree of assistance to native industries, it presents a certain obstacle to the foreign competitor, it does give a certain measure of advantage to the home producer as against the foreign competitor in the same manner as freights, insurances and other charges prevent an obstacle to the foreign competition and an advantage to the native producer. But it has for its chief purpose the collection of a revenue.
As I have said before, Mr. Chamberlain proved it impossible for us to go to the mother country and ask for preferential trade so long as we continue to maintain a tariff like that. We are prepared to stand upon that tariff, we are prepared to adhere to it. Our hon. friends opposite say it is really their own tariff, it is really their own policy, and I suppose therefore that they are also prepared to maintain and adhere to it. We all agree that it is impossible to adopt any other fiscal system or to abandon altogether all duties that could be made operative for the encouragement of native industries, and for that reason, I say again, it is absolutely impossible for my hon. friend to ask that we should accept his resolution, or to ask Mr. Chamberlain or anybody else to give us the benefit of a preferential arrangement in the English market, as matters stand at present. What may happen in the future, what may happen later on under the development of advanced Imperial ideas, what may happen in the course of a number of years, after this matter has been under consideration of the people of England and after it has been under the consideration of the people of Canada, opens up too long a vista, is too far remote for us to consider ; it is too far in the dim and distant future to be a matter of practical politics or command the consideration of practical men in a practical age, and in a businesslike parliament such as 1 understand this to be.
But my hon. friend thinks it is a very easy thing. He can make a budget for the English Chancellor of the Exchequer just as simple as rolling off a log. If you take part of the duty off tea, take a part of the duty which is now paid by the Englishman on his tea, and every penny of which goes 53}
into the treasury of the country, and put it on the competing grain coming in from the United States, you have the whole thing done in a jiffy, no difficulty about it at all. He says that when you do this the workingman of England will have to pay no more than at present, he will be simply paying the same tax as now, and you will have this brought about by one stroke of the pen, by one item in the tariff propositions in the budget speech of an English minister. Very well, just let us analyse that for a moment. Of course if the discrimination against the foreign wheat was great enough, if the tariff charge was high enough to keep it out of the English market altogether, and if we could produce enough colonial cereals to feed the population of the British isles, then it is obvious there would be no tax collected from wheat at all, no tax collected from corn ; no tax collected from grain, and the consequence would be that the English taxpayer, the English workingman would have to make up that deficit by submitting to the imposition of a direct tax. But if it did not do its perfect work, and it would not do it for it could not possibly keep out the foreign grain altogether, not for years at all events, or until we were able entirely to supply the requirements of the country, then until that tariff which my hon, friend is going to give to the British Chancellor, is imposed and does its perfect work, then there will be a certain amount of corn brought into the British islands, there will be a certain amount of corn from Canada. Well, what would be the effect of that ? The price would be raised to the English consumer. Of course that goes without saying ; and my hon. friend agrees that this duty will be paid by the English consumer. He was somewhat in doubt about that, but I think there can be no doubt about it-the duty will be paid by the English consumer. But my hon. friend says that makes no difference, because he will only be paying on his breadstuffs, the same tax that he is now paying upon tea ; that it is only as broad as it is long to him. it will make no difference to him whatever, so long as he is paying the tax. upon what article or product he is paying it. But my hon. friend forgets that apart from the duty, apart from the increment of the price that would have to be added to the foreign corn on account of the duty payable upon it. there would also be the increased price at which he would have to pay for the corn which was produced in this country. I am certain that if he makes that proposition to any intelligent workingman in the old country, he will get his answer straight from the shoulder, so clear that it will be absolutely impossible for him to misunderstand it.
Mr. Chamberlain every time that he has had occasion to discuss this question, and he has discussed it in numerous speeches- I was going to say in innumerable speeches

in the old country, he 'has discussed it in these foreign and colonial speeches that have been quoted in the debate-has presented this difficulty so straight and clear that I cannot understand how it is that my hon. friend, or any other hon. member on his side of the House who has a practical head upon his shoulders and practical sagacity and wisdom, can over and over again present this proposal which has had the bottom knocked out of it so many times. The hon. gentleman compares this case with the case of Australia. He says that the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) is about to go to Australia in a few days and that if he goes there he will find a country that is about to have a protective tariff imposed on it. I believe that it is likely enough that it will have. All the signs go to show that a moderate protective tariff will probably be the fiscal system of the Australian Commonwealth. He says, notwithstanding all that, are you not going to ask for a reciprocal arrangement between this country and the Commonwealth of Australia. I hope we are, and I hope, more or less confidently, that we will be able to obtain it and that by virtue of the arrangement that may be made by this government with the Australian Commonwealth a growing and profitable business may be built up between the Dominion of Canada and that new Commonwealth. My hon. friend says : If this is possible with Australasia, why not with England ? Why not ? Because there is no analogy whatever between the two cases. If Australasia were a country such as England is, a small country in its extent, or relatively so, with an enormous population, with a population of from forty to fifty millions ot' people, absolutely dependent upon their foreign trade, and upon the extent to *which they can push their manufactured products in foreign countries and obtain payment for them ; the foreign trade of which, as Mr. Chamberlain says, is the very breath of its life, and engaged in a life and death struggle with other and competing countries with enormous resources and enormous capital ; the centre of a vast and delicate financial organism which it would be fatal to disturb-if the Australasian Commonwealth presented such conditions as these, then, he would have a similar proposal to deal with to that which he is presenting to the consideration of the House and which we are asked to commend to the consideration of the British minister. The situations are so entirely different, there is such a failure of analogy between the two things that I am amazed-if I may use a word which has gone out of fashion since the leadership of the opposition has been changed-I am surprised, not to say either amazed or astounded, that either the hon. leader of the opposition, or the hon. member for West York, who has held a position in the cabinet, who has held not


Benjamin Russell: only a position in the cabinet but one which brought him into close touch with questions of this character, should have presented an analogy of that sort that had no possible bearing on the question which is under deliberation by the House at the present moment.
Well, Sir, there is one other subject to which the hon. member for West York referred, and with which I will deal very briefly, the subject of bounties. He discussed the iron and steel bounties as if these bounties were being given, not for the benefit of this whole country at large, but from some partiality for the capitalists, for the individuals, and for the corporations that are engaged in the work of producing iron and steel. Was there ever a greater mistake made ? Was there ever a greater sophistry presented to the House for its consideration than that ? The hon. member the other night referred to the bounties as if there was something inconsistent between the maintenance of bounties and opposition to a protectionist system. I have always thought, and I have always said, that if there is any way at all in which it is proper for the government to grant encouragement to one industry at the expense of the general public, the peculiarly and pre-eminently proper way to do it is by means of bounties. Why ? If you pick out any particular industry and say that it is desirable and in the interest of the country at large that that industry should be established and if you set yourself to the task of establishing it and do so by means of the imposition of a protective duty, what are you doing ? You are admitting that it is a matter of consequence to the country as a whole, you are admitting that it is a matter of public interest, that it is a matter in which the whole public are concerned, or else, you have no business to be dealing with it at all. and. making that admission, you are, nevertheless, taxing the cost of establishing that industry only upon a narrowly limited circle of people who are to bear the burden of the tariff imposition which you have imposed. Is not that so ? I say it is very obvious, and af we come to the conclusion, as this country came to the conclusion years ago, that it is to the advantage of the whole Dominion that the iron and steel industry should be established, not for the benefit of the dealers in iron and steel at all, but for the benefit of the people at large, then, I say, that the peculiarly and pre-eminently proper way to do that is not by the imposition of a tariff which will be borne by a particular class, or a narrowly limited circle of people, but which will be borne by the people of the country at large and in common. Therefore, I say that there is all the difference in the world between a bounty and a protective duty for the purpose of establishing an industry, and that much can be said in favour of the granting of a bounty which
would have absolutely no application at all if one were dealing with the question of the imposition of a customs duty. That disposes then of what the hon. member for West York says in regard to lead. It may come to be considered in this country that lead is in the same position as iron and steel, that it is equally in the interest of the country to establish the lead industry, and if the government come to the conclusion that it is there will be no impropriety in granting a bounty on lead smelting, as they have granted a bounty on iron and steel production, provided that the money can he spared, because we are not bound to do two things at once. It may be very true that the lead smelters may be able to make out as perfect a case in favour of a bounty as the iron and steel men have been able to make out, and yet the government of this country may be compelled to say, under the circumstances, that they have exhausted all the surplus at their disposal, that they have pledged the resources of this country to as great an extent as they are able to do for the purpose of encouraging industries of that sort and that the lead men must bide their time. I was glad to hear the hon. Minister of Finance say that the matter had not been finally disposed of ; that it is still under consideration. I am certain that whatever resolution may be come to on the subject will be in line with the suggestions I have made and in accord with the principle to which I have just referred.
Now, I think I will not undertake to follow the hon. member for West York any further in the somewhat, if I may be permitted to say so, rambling and very circuitous route that was mapped out for us in the course of his speech on the tariff. I am certainly not going to follow him in those unamiable, unpleasant and undesirable topics which he thought it necessary to import into this debate. I have not the talent for them, I have not the genius for them, I have no liking for them, I have the most positive disgust for them, and I absolutely decline to enter into any controversies of the kind. I listened to the mover of the amendment (Mr. Borden, Halifax) with a great deal of interest to learn what it was possible for him to say in answer, as I know he must have felt, as a lawyer, it was incumbent upon him to answer, the difficulties that have been suggested from time to time, difficulties that have been so clearly presented by Mr. Chamberlain, who is his greatest friend in this matter, the greatest friend of this country, and the warmest advocate, in any exalted sphere, that has been found of the policy of a preferential tariff in favour of the products of Canada and of the colonies of the empire throughout the world. I say, that I did listen with a great deal of interest and earnestness to my hon. friend to ascertain what new thing the hon. gentleman was going to be able to say that would throw any light whatever upon this
question of the preferential tariff, which I suppose is the central feature of the resolutions which he has presented to the consideration of the House. He is a very industrious man-we all know that. And I was quite sure that if there was anything in the whole compass of literature, ancient or modern, that could be brought forward in support of his resolution, my hon. friend's industry would enable him to find it. And what did he find ? Not a single statement, I undertake to say-not a single one-of an encouraging character from any English statesman of the first rank or even of the second rank. He did not even get as much as our lamented former colleague, Mr. McNeill, who rexiresented North Bruce in the last parliament, used to get. He gave us scraps from newspapers and other periodicals. He quoted an utterance from the Saturday Review. I think one of the most encouraging of all was from a financial organ, admitting that there was a possibility that at some time in the future-twenty years from this, if I caught the phrase correctly-there might he a possibility of some change in the fiscal arrangements as now established between the mother country and the colonies. The hon. gentleman has undertaken to play the role on this question that used to be assumed by Mr. McNeill. That role is entirely unsuited to him. He is too hard-headed and practical a man to fill that role successfully-he has too much common sense and altogether too little imagination. He cannot indulge in those moonlit and mystical dreams with which the former member for North Bruce used to entertain this House. In spite of all his scraps from newspapers and his disjointed clippings from Mr. Chamberlain's speeches, though they were all patched together in a bag, he could not make the bag stand upright as the former member from North Bruce seemed to do. As hon. gentlemen will remember, it was a saying of Poor Richard, that you could not make an empty bag stand upright. This inter-imperial preferential trade bag is absolutely empty and there is not a possibility of making it stand upright. As a former Minister of Railways in this country used to remark. ' there aint nothing to it. Our friend, Mr. McNeill, used to build himself- and rightly-upon Mr. Chamberlain. And the leader of the opposition, if he has anything in this new thesis of his of Imperial preferential trade, must also build himself upon Mr. Chamberlain : because Mr. Chamberlain is the most advanced statesman in the British Empire to-day who has given the slightest encouragement to a proposition of that kind. If you do not find anything in favour of inter-imperial preferential trade in this volume (Foreign and Colonial speeches) you will look for it elsewhere in vain. Mr. Chamberlain has discussed this subject with a wideness of range, and an accuracy of detail unexcelled by any other

statesman, either Imperial or colonial. If with the genius, the ideas and the courage of William Pitt, it is impossible for Mr. Chamberlain to hold out any encouragement but such as he has given- the extent and force of which we now know, as presented by the right hon. premier yesterday-it is idle and purposeless, it is a sheer waste of time to seek for that encouragement in the utterances of any other Imperial statesman. I dismiss, therefore, that proposition, so far as it has been given us by the leader of the opposition and enforced by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) as one in which there is absolutely no substance, and upon which it is not worth our while to occupy ourselves further under the present circumstances of the country.
But there is another* element in the hon. gentleman's resolution, another article in this new opposition' creed. I believe they are revising their creed, as the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) said the other night that his church were revising theirs.


Mr. MACLEAN.: Somebody else ought to do the same.


Benjamin Russell: We are always ready to revise our creed when good reasons can be shown for it. I refer now to the last branch of the resolution, the proposal, if I understand it aright, that we should retaliate on all countries that do not treat us fairly :
This House is further of opinion that equivalent or adequate duties should be imposed by Canada upon the products and manufactures of countries not within the empire in all cases where such countries fail to admit Canadian products and manufactures upon fair terms, and that the government should take for this purpose all such available measures as may be found necessary.
We are asked by this resolution to retaliate in all cases. Yet, if I understood the remarks of the leader of the opposition, he was going to except from it our great neighbour, the United States, which certainly does not treat us with that degree of fairness, or generosity, at any rate, in the matter of tariff regulations, which we might reasonably expect. He is going to except the United States and apply the resolution to Germany, and to Germany alone. Now, one word as to retaliation. Of course, the temptation to retaliate when injured is one of the first instincts of our brute nature. We instinctively resort to the lex talionis which demands an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But while the first impulse, the brute instinct of the natural man is to retaliate, the civilized man pauses to reflect. He does not obey his immediate impulse. He first asks himself the question whether he is likely to accomplish by retaliation any useful purpose. Now, I think I can suggest why the hon. leader of the opposition excepted the United States, not in


Benjamin Russell: the terms of his resolution, but by his comments, from the intended operation of this principle of retaliation. We did retaliate on the United States some years ago. Our policy of 1S78 was professedly founded, in part, upon the idea of retaliating upon the United States-of giving the United States, as It was pleasantly put, that sin-cerest form of flattery which consists in imitation-we would retaliate upon them for their conduct towards us almost continuously in recent years. But what did we get for our retaliation ? What was the consequence of our national policy ? Why, I do not need to refer to any higher authority than the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), who addressed us the other day, for any answer to that question. He described the consequences very eloquently, indeed, very forcibly. It led to a condition of things in this country which was anything but pleasant for us, a condition of things under which we were losing our population, a condition of things so entirely the reverse of prosperous, that he could see no remedy but reversion on the part of this country to the principle of free trade. So, I suppose, this is the reason why we are not asked to retaliate against the United States.
Coming for a time to the remarks which the hon. member for Pictou addressed to the House, I was struck, as other hon. gentlemen must have been, with the fact that two speeches-I trust I shall not he considered presumptuous if I say twro excellent speeches-one by the hon. member for Pictou, and one by the hon. member for South Wentworth (Mr. Smith), were entirely destructive of each other on some of the main contentions presented to the House. It occurred to me that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden (Halifax), with his keen perception for logical fallacies ; with- his strong, clear and logical brain, must have reflected when he heard these gentlemen ; How happy could I be with either were the other fair charmer away. Each of these supporters of his made a good speech, but the speech of one, to a large extent, nullified the speech of the other. The thought occurred to me at first that these two gentlemen could not have consulted together before taking such divergent views on the preferential tariff, but on reflection it seemed more probable that they did compare notes. They had instructions from their leader of course to oppose the preferential tariff. This was common ground. But they must not both oppose it on the same grounds. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) was retained to oppose the preferential tariff on the ground that it was going to interfere witli our manufacturing industries, and the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith) was retained to oppose it on the ground that it was not really a preference at all, and that it did not do any good to the people of the mother country. And so the hon. gentleman from Pictou (Mr. Bell), I
presume, said to tlie hon. member for Wentworth : You know there are many Imperialists in Canada and there is a strong British feeling which heartily welcomed and cordially supports the preferential tariff, so you tell the people of the country, through the House of Commons, that this tariff makes no concessions whatever to the mother country, and that before the government brought in this tariff, which professes to give concessions to Great Britain, they took good care to raise the general tariff on the articles to which the preference would apply, and to raise it so high that the preference was only such in name, and no benefit was left to the mother land. And then said the hon. member (Mr. Bell) : I will play on the other string ; there are a lot of manufacturers in Canada who are nervous about their gains. They are afraid that they will not have such an easy time during the next few years as they have had in the past, and so I will say : This preferential tariff gives such concessions to the people of Great Britain that it is going to ruin the industries of Canada. And so these two hon. gentlemen played their two discordant tunes, the speech of the one completely nullifying the speech of the other. Which is right? My hon. friend from Pictou belauded the men who introduced the national policy in 1878. These, he said, were men of blood and iron like Bismarck, and they went on with their task without sentimental considerations. These were the men, quoth he, who said : If this tariff is not good for British connection, then so much the worse for British connection. These were the men who said : Driven out of the markets of the civilized world, the mother land is compelled to force her wares upon savages at the point of the bayonet. They did not allow any sentimental considerations to interfere with the maintenance of the industries of Canada, as this government has done by its preferential tariff. This was the drift of his reference to the subject. He argued that the time was coming when, in consequence of the concessions given to the manufacturers of Great Britain by this preferential tariff, many of the manufacturers of Canada would be driven out of existence. His remarks were quoted by the right hon. the Prime Minister the other day, and in consequence I need not make a more explicit reference. But look at what the member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith said, and you will find that he took an entirely different tack. He says :
I can gather no inference from the figures I have quoted but that the preference we have given to Great Britain only places her on a par with or in a worse condition than the United States, because before this preference was given hon. gentlemen opposite raised the duties to a large extent on the class of goods we import from Great Britain.
We, therefore, see that these two followers of tlie leader of the opposition, speaking in
this House on the same day and on the same subject, give such diametrically opposite views as to the operation of the preferential tariff, that it is absolutely impossible for a plain man like myself to know what to think about the matter at all. They presented the same differences of opinion in regard to details that they presented in regard to the main issue. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) said that relatively, under the operation of the preferential tariff, the trade of England had increased as compared with the trade of the United States and of other countries ; while the hon. gentleman from Wentworth (Mr. Smith) proved to his own satisfaction that England did not hold her own in the Canadian market with either the United States or Germany, in spite of the preferential tariff. What can a plain man who sits here at the feet of these oracles for the purpose of learning the truth, what can he believe in view of this divergence of opinion between them. All that is left for me to do is to go to the trade returns, and there I find, and I am bound to make the admission, that the trade of the old country, even under the preferential tariff, has not been able to hold its own relatively with the trade of the United States or of Germany ; certainly not relatively with the trade of the United States. But, supposing that to be true, what is the vital question which remains to be answered ? If in spite of the preferential tariff that we have given Great Britain ; if notwithstanding that the United States and Germany are handicapped by a tariff discrimination against them ; if in spite of that handicap in favour of the old country she has still a life and death struggle to preserve her own in our markets against the United States, is it not a vital question for Englishmen to ask themselves : Where would we have been were It not for that preferential tariff ? Surely the response to this question is a conclusive answer to the argument, that we have done England no good by the enactment of our preferential tariff. This much, at all events, we have succeeded in doing. If you look at the actual importation of dutiable goods, you 'will find that they reached the nadir point in 1897. You will find that the importation of dutiable goods from Great Britain to Canada reached absolutely its lowest figure in 1897, and since that it has been absolutely upon the ascending scale-I do not say relatively to other countries, hut I do say that it has been on the ascending scale since 1897. If you look further to what is a more interesting set of figures than this ; if you look at the percentage of imports from England and the United States, and take the percentage of the dutiable to the total imports-the percentage of dutiable goods that we get from Great Britain compared to our total dutiable importations into the country, and the percentage we get from the United States of duti-

able goods compared to the total dutiable goods imported into this country, you 'will find this very striking fact to be demonstrated, that we began in 1867 with nearly 65 per cent of our whole dutiable imports from Great Britain and only about 23 per cent from the United States, and that ratio has been continually declining as against Great Britain and continually ascending as in favour of the United States ever since the year 1867 down to and until the year 1897, when the percentage of dutiable goods imported from Great Britain went down to 30J per cent, and the percentage of dutiable goods imported from the United States ascended to 46 per cent and a fraction. So that down to 1897, our percentage of dutiable goods from the old country was continually declining and our percentage of dutiable goods from the United States was continually ascending. Then, if you examine the figures of 1898,' 1899, and 1900, you will find-and you may attribute it to whatever you please-I attribute it to the preferential tariff-that the declining ratio in one column and the ascending ratio in the other column were arrested in the year 1897. I think that is a conclusive demonstration of the operation of the preferential tariff-not as conclusive a demonstration as we would like to see of its operation in favour of the old country, but proving conclusively that it has operated in favour of the old country and that but for its operation the declining ratio I spoke of would have been reduced to zero and there would have been hardly any proportion of dutiable goods imported from Great Britain into this country at all. Well Sir, what does all this prove ? If it be true' as my hon. friend from West York and other bon. gentlemen opposite have said, that in spite of the preferential tariff England is not holding her own in our markets with the United States or with Germany what does it all prove ? It proves what Lord Rosebery discovered, and told the English people in solemn tones the other day, that they are at this moment engaged in a hand-to-hand and life-and-death struggle with the people of the United States and the people of Germany.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear; free trade against protection, and the protectionists will win out.


Benjamin Russell: What I say is, if, considering the position we hold towards the mother country, and considering all that the mother country has done for us, we are not prepared, when we can do so without detriment to ourselves, and even though it were as we contend that it is not with detriment to ourselves, to give the mother country a preference, I want to know what sort of Canadians we would be if we had not a strong impulse to assist the mother country in that hand-to-hand struggle to preserve her trade from the incursions of com-Mr. RUSSELL (Hants).
petition from the United States and Germany.
My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) complained that there was no originality or inventiveness in this government, and no originality or inventiveness displayed by the Finance Minister in his budget speech or in his tariff. Well, Sir, whatever complaints might be made of the hon. gentleman himself. I think no one will deny to him the merit of originality and inventiveness. He has invented a variety of fictions, which he presented to us the other day. The first he invented was as to the permanence and stability of the Tory tariff. Assuredly that was an invention, or at least a discovery- that the tariff which existed in this country from 1879 down to 1897 was a permanent tariff. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance very properly claims as a merit of the tariff that was enacted in 1897, that it has remained on the statute-book ever since practically without any change [DOT]whatever-I believe absolutely without a single change ; so that merchants and manufacturers know what they have to depend on, and can make their arrangements accordingly. My friend Mr. McClure, who was in this House last session, showed me the changes which were made by the Conservative party in their tariff, and they ran up into the hundreds. I fail to remember accurately the very groat number of changes that had been made in this permanent and inelastic tariff, which was introduced In 1879, and the permanence and stability of which has been the discovery of my hon. friend from Pictou.
Another discovery wTiich my hon. friend has made is that of the grievance on the Bart of the wool men. Now, I have looked through our tariff to find out what grievance the man who deals in wool has. The hon. gentleman suggests that it is wrong to encourage the manufacturers of the old country by placing a burden upon some particular class of people in this country ; and the particular class of people in this country upon whom among others he says we have placed a burden by the preferential tariff are the men interested in the manufacture of wool. Now, I am not very much of a hand at tariffs


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Benjamin Russell: That is correct; I am like my hon. friend the leader of the opposition -this is not my trade. I have heard a story told, I think of Richard Brinsley Sheriden, that he was coming home from his club one night a little under the influence of a certain kind of excitement to the physical and nervous system, when he saw a friend of his lying in the gutter slightly inebriated. With the instinct of humanity, the returning club man tried to lift his friend out of the gutter, but found that it was absolutely impossible to do so: so he said, ' My good friend, I cannot lift you out, but I will do the next best thing-I will
lie down beside you.' My hon. friend the leader of the opposition is not an expert in tariffs any more than I am. I would be 'glad to help him out of his scrapes; but as 1 cannot do that, I will do the next best thing-I will get in alongside of him.
But 1 can read common ordinary print, and I looked at this customs tariff in the Canadian Parliamentary Guide and scanned it carefully with the purpose of finding out what is the peculiar and special grievance under which the dealers in wool and the manufacturers of woollen goods are labouring. And so far as I understand, every one of them is put on the* highest ad valorem tariff which is to be found in the whole list. 1 cannot find one of them under 35 per cent ad valorem, from which, If you deduct the one-third preferential rate, you get down to 23 per cent. And, looking at the figures presented a year ago by the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), I find that, averaging the importations of wool into this country, they were the highest in the whole list. So that these people stand in our tariff in the most favoured position, and if there is any protection in this tariff-and I have admitted that incidentally there is-they get the fullest benefit of it. If there is any discrimination at all, it is in their favour, because they are put on the highest scale, and besides, they have, as others have, the freights and the insurance in their favour, and all the other obstacles which foreign competitors have to encounter. And. if, in addition to all that, they want something *which nobody else has in this country, it 1s absurd to talk of their being subject to 'any exceptional burden. The case is just the opposite. It is the case of a particular class of people.asking that we should burden all the rest of the community in their favour. My hon. friend must perceive that, I am sure he sees it. and I shall not waste time by discussing the point any further.
The hon. gentleman made another discovery and one which is greatly to the credit of the present Finance Minister. He discovered that twenty years ago-quite a long period in the history of a ministry or the history of a man-twenty years ago there was a Finance Minister in this country who was as good as the one who now administers our financial affairs.


William Findlay Maclean: A great deal better.


Benjamin Russell: My hon. friend has discovered that there was a better Finance Minister, but he has not discovered that ever since Sir Leonard Tilley's day down to the present administration, there was another Finance Minister in that whole period of twenty years worth mentioning at all. He has to go back all of twenty years to find any Finance Minister who can at all compare with my hon. friend who now controls that department. I say that that is a high compliment to jiay to my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding), but it is not a high compliment to pay to the hon. gentleman who filled that position in the late government (Mr. Foster). I know that the ex-Finance Minister is not a persona grata to the hon. gentlemen on the other side. We do not often hear his name ; they never speak of him. But to return to Sir Leonard Tilley twenty years ago. Twenty years is a long time, half the time that the children of Israel were wandering in the wilderness. These hon. gentlemen are fond of going back to history. I remember that when Mr. Foster went down to the town of New Glasgow to deliver a speech in my hon. friend's (Mr. Bell) own riding in my hon. friend's interest-and I think that when Mr. Foster put himself out so much to accommodate my hon. friend, the hon. gentleman might have had some kind words to speak of him in this House-when Mr. Foster went to Pic-tou to deliver a discourse, which, I think, was entitled a discourse to the young men about to enter on their political studies- a discourse addressed to the callow fledglings of the Tory nest down in the town of New Glasgow-all his address was occupied with historical reminiscences. These hon. gentlemen all go back to history, no doubt for the reason that the best part of the Conservative party is underground. Its best part is historical, and the only life it has left is its historical life. Its epitaph has come to be written. There was a story told of two gentlemen who were discussing the rival merits of New York and Philadelphia.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Dispense.


Benjamin Russell: I do not know whether the story is worth telling or not, but I tell it, not for the intrinsic merit it may have, but because of its applicability to the situation. After each one had cited the merits of his native city, the Philadelphian made his final boast that the Quaker City was better laid out than New York. Well, retorted the Now Yorker, when New York is as dead as Philadelphia it will be just as well laid out. Well, Mr. Speaker, whenever the Liberal party is as dead in this country as the Conservative party, we expect it to make as comely a corpse and hope it may have a more creditable history.
My hon. friend, referring to this great Finance Minister who existed twenty years ago, said that Sir Leonard Tilley had so managed the finances of his day that lie reduced the net debt of Canada from $3(5.17 per head to $35.75 per head, and the net interest from $1.61 to $1.50 per head, thus diminishing the annual impost on every individual by 14 cents. And contrasting that with the performance of the present Finance Minister, he said that the debt had increased from $153.33 per head, which it was when the late government left office, to $64.75 per head, and the net interest from $1.42 to $1.78. But the point on which I would desire enlightenment Is how it came to pass that this debt, which Sir Leonard

Tilley had reduced to $35.75 per head twenty-years ago had been increased to $03.33 per head by his successors among hon. gentlemen opposite ? Why is this thus ? Of course, it must be due to the bad management of those incompetent Finance Ministers which these hon. gentlemen had as successors to Sir Leonard Tilley. Surely if it was a great credit to Sir Leonard Tilley that he reduced the debt to $35.75 per head, it is a great shame to his successors that they should have increased it so prodigiously and rapidlv to $63.33.
Mr. Foster used to understand this matter pretty thoroughly, and I spent considerable time last year over his speech on this very subject. He made a far better presentment to the House than any of these hon. gentlemen opposite have made this session, and when X contrast Mr. Foster's effort with theirs I can realize how they must have sighed :
For the touch of a vanished hand,
And the sound of a voice that is still.
I can appreciate their feelings when they came to discuss the finance question and had to come from the Hon. George Eulas Foster down to

I pause. I have no desire to say anything that could by any possibility be considered as unpleasant. But Mr. Foster made this calculation-a calculation more favourable to the Conservative party, I am bound to say, than the hon. member for Pictou made in regard to the debt. It is common ground, however, that the debt during the eighteen years of Conservative rule had been increased $118,000,000. My hon. friend (Mr. Bell, Pictou) made it out to be increased very much more than that, but he was several millions mistaken-it was only increased $118,000,000. But Mr. Foster said : It was all right to increase our debt by I that enormous figure, because we were building our house and had to incur large capital expenditure. He went into the expenditures for which this debt had been incurred, and showed to his own satisfaction that they amounted to $142,000,000. He said : There is what you have to show for your debt. It is true you have a mortgage of $118,000,000, but look at the splendid edifice we have put up for you. Then he went on to contrast the capital expenditures under Liberal rule, and showed that we had only made a capital expenditure amounting to $11,000,000. But Mr. Foster did not attempt to draw any conclusion from what he had said, nor did my hon. friend on the other side. When I was at school, I used to study the rule of three, and my hon. friend, no doubt, did the same. The method, as he will remember, was to multiply the second and third terms together and divide by the first. Calculating according to that rule you will find what debt would have been put upon the country had the same ratio as under Conserva-Mr. RUSSELL (Hants).
tive rule been maintained. And, if you work it out you will find that, according to the highest financial authority that ever sat on the other side during the Liberal regime, in proportion to our capital expenditures we added less to the debt than did the Conservative government. If you put $142,000,000 as the first term, $118,000,000 as the second term, and $11,000,000 as the third term, and work it out, you will see that we had a right to impose a debt of $9,102,008 before we could be called to account by those who favoured this expenditure by the Conservatives. And we did not impose any such debt upon the people. My hon. friend himself states the amount at $7,000,000. As a matter of fact, I believe it was stated last year allowing for about $2,500,000 used to pay floating debts of the previous administration at only $5,250,000. I care not what figure you take-as I have already said, I have no skill in figures. But in any case whether you take the larger or the lower figure we are some millions of dollars within the debt we would have a right to pile up against the people of this country before our record could fairly be challenged by those who approved of the record of Conservative rule.
Now, there was one other discovery the hon. gentleman made, but it is so stale and so hackneyed and shop-worn that I am almost ashamed to allude to it. That was the statement that we had blundered into the preferential tariff, that we did not know anything about the German and Belgian treaties, that we constructed our preferential tariff in such a way as to run up against these treaties without knowing they were there. If there was an intelligent schoolboy of ten years of age who did not know all about these German and Belgian treaties, he ought to have been whipped. Surely, every one in this country knew about these treaties; and nothing could be clearer than that the administration and the leader of the government knew what was to be encountered in connected with them. They not only knew, but calculated upon it. As has been explained ad nauseam, they said :	We will
take chances. We shall never get rid of these restrictions upon the commercial freedom of the empire until we challenge these treaties and have the matter fought out. They framed their preferential tariff with that idea implicitly contained in it if not explicitly stated, and they fought the matter out. I shall not waste the time of the House by going into a long discussion over that. Everybody knows that it was this expedient and this expedient alone that led to the abolition of these restrictions on the commercial freedom of the British Empire. The hon. gentleman tells us that the seeds were sown by Sir Charles Tupper in the various interviews he had with the Imperial government and the articles he pub-
lislied in tlie Nineteenth Century and the London magazines. Well, as the right lion, premier said last year of some other seeds sown by the former leader of the Opposition, these seeds were absolutely sterile ; They never produced any result. It was only when this government took issue with the Imperial government and compelled the consideration of the subject that the result was	brought about.
And when the measure was brought down, we were told that it was absolutely impossible to bring about that result. But it was brought about, and it was by no other agency than the introduction of the preferential tariff of this country. I will simply read one short historical review In the London Times of 1897-and with that I will take my seat-for the purpose of showing that this measure and this alone was the cause of the abolition of this restriction upon the commerce of the empire. This was written not during the controversy, but when that controversy was cold and dead, and when the writer could review it with the knowledge and impartiality of the historian :
The Dominion parliament met on March 28, and on St. George's day, April 23, a tariff Bill was introduced, of which the effect was speedily felt throughout the empire. The principal feature of the Bill was that it adopted one tariff as the general tariff of the Dominion and another preferential tariff for those countries which showed a desire to trade with Canada upon terms of reciprocal commercial advantage. Whatever the duties imposed by the general tariff, the duties of the preferential tariff should be reduced in proportion to them for one year by 12i per cent and after one year, by 25 per cent. As Great Britain and the British colony of New South Wales were at the time of the introduction of the tariff the only communities trading on the required terms with Canada, the tariff Bill became in effect a Bill for the preferential treatment of British trade.
Surely this is an answer to the remarks made on the other side of the House on this subject.
The Bill, which was received with enthusiasm in this country, gave rise to a keen discussion as to the power of the colonial government under the existing treaties of Britain with Germany and Belgium to extend to the mother country any commercial advantages which was not given to these countries, and to all others having a claim to the most-favoured nation treatment. Legal authorities in this country were understood to hold the view that the treaties did, as a matter of fact, preclude all British colonies from giving to Great Britain preferential advantage over most-favoured foreign nations, and to that extent constituted an interference with the fiscal freedom of the empire. The theory of the matter was not put to the test of authoritative decision. In recognition of the strong public feeling which existed on the subject, the treaties were denounced in July, and an irksome barrier to the possible commercial union of the empire was thus, on the initiative of Canada, removed.
Sir, this is absolutely conclusive that if , we are now in a position in which we can,
with any possibility of success, approach the question of inter-imperial preferential trade, the fact that we are in that position is exclusively due to the proceedings taken by this government on St. George's day, L897.


Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).: In rising to support the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition, I will take occasion to refer to certain matters which have been brought up in connection with the introduction of the budget. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Bussell) does not appear to be so strong a free trader as the right lion, the leader of the government. Now, Sir, permit me to draw the attention of those hon. gentlemen who have strong free trade proclivities, to the fact that out of our imports, which amounted last year to $189,622,513, $76,678,617 are free ; therefore, to that extent we have free trade in this country. Those free imports amount to 70 per cent of the dutiable imports, consequently there may be some comfort to the extreme free trader in contemplating these figures. I was somewhat disappointed yesterday afternoon in listening to the defence which the right hon. leader of the government made in reply to the speech of the leader of the opposition. I had thought that the experience of the right hon. gentleman in his responsible position as leader of the government, his experience in matters which came before the Joint High Commission which met at Quebec and later at Washington, would have taught him that the geographical position of this country demands a stable protective tariff, that without it this country cannot prosper, and that the attitude of our friends to the south of us is such that at all times we must of necessity protect our industries against their aggressive tariff policy. The right hon. gentleman, referring to the amendment, said :
As time went on statements were made in the press that this new policy would surprise the government and stagger the Liberal party as soon as it was announced. We have it now, fresh and brand new, from the lips of my hon. friend, and lo and behold, it is the same old national policy.
Now, Sir, what could the right hon. gentleman expect we would have brought down ns an amendment ? Did he think we could shift and change our policy with every new moon ? I am convinced that this country will never accept anything but a protective policy : that our hon. friends opposite need never look for any essential change in our tariff policy ; that we must of necessity always have a protective policy in this country. The right hon. gentleman proceeded :
Our first consideration, in imposing duties, is to produce revenue, and if, as an incident, the manufacturers derive advantage, they are welcome to it. But gentlemen on the other side

1G88
impose duties, not with a view of levying a revenue and putting money into the treasury, but of putting money in the pockets of private individuals.
Now, Sir, that sounds a good deal like those old speeches we used to hear a good many years ago. I say I am disappointed, and X am sorry that such sentiments have been given utterance to on an occasion of this kind, and after such an experience as wc have had. Then, the right lion, gentleman went on to say :
But what we have said again and again is that while we believe in free trade as a theory, we know that we are bound to raise a revenue by a customs tariff, and it will take many years before we can have free trade as it is in England.
Further :
You would have, as we had under the late government, an incessant procession of tariff tinkerers from the different cities of Canada to the office of the Minister of Finance. There never was a year from 1879 to 1896-or at least there never was a period of three years-when there was not some tinkering of the tariff. One man would find that some invention in the United States or Great Britain had lowered the price of the products he was making, and instead of exercising his enterprise and ingenuity to overcome the difficulty, instead of putting more money into his business, he came to the Finance Minister and obtained some modification of the tariff.
Now, Sir, I submit, on behalf of the manufacturers of Canada, that this is a most extreme view to take of this question. 1 believe that the right lion, gentleman does not do the manufacturers of this country justice in making such a statement as that upon the floor of this House. I would like to know if the manufacturers of this country, when at any time in the past they found it necessary to come to this government to point out the difficulties under which they were labouring in connection with competition from foreign countries, had not quite as good a right to come here as any other citizens of this country. When you consider how many men there are in this country whose highest ambition it is to feed at the public trough, and who are constantly making pilgrimages to the various governments, I would like to know why the manufacturers should he singled out for reflections such as the right hon. gentleman has cast upon them. Sir, not only those who feed at the public trough come here, but a great number of others are constantly making pilgrimages to this government from time to time, seeking for blocks of work, without tender, work which they can get from the government. We see them in the lobbies of this House, on the streets of this city ; and yet. knowing that such men come here in great numbers, and for such purposes, the right hon. gentleman has chosen to refer to the manufacturers in the way he did yesterday. Then, there are another class of people who come here, we


Albert Edward Kemp: see them about the corridors of this House and ou the streets of this city, coming from various parts of the country, some of them millionaires and multi-millionaires, coming here for subsidies to assist them in various enterprises, for subsidies to railways and other purposes ; yet we have not heard any one rise in this House and refer to those gentlemen in any sucli terms as the leader of tlie government employed in referring to the manufacturers. I say, Sir, that the manufacturer coming from his little town or the manufacturer coming from the city, who employs labour to a lesser or greater extent, has quite as good a right to come here and lay his ease before the government as these wealthy speculators and subsidy-hunters ; they are just as important in the community in which they live, and they have just as good a right to claim the consideration of the government as any others.
Now, Sir, I take the ground that it should not be necessary for the manufacturers to make constant pilgrimages to this government in order to make representations in respect of the tariff ; I take the position that the policy of protection in this country should be so well established that people would not require to ask for changes. I think it would be a good thing for the government to employ a competent official, who would take the Trade and Navigation Returns and go through them carefully to find out what articles are coming into this country from foreign countries in competition with similar articles produced in this country : and to inquire if those goods can be produced here, giving employment to our own capital, our own labour and our own energy. I say this government should pursue a policy of that kind, that is the policy which we on this side of the House intend to pursue; and then there would be no necessity for manufacturers to make pilgrimages to this government to ask for tariff changes. I say that our proximitv to the great industrial centres of the United States renders such a policy necessary on our part, and if that policy is not pursued here, you will depopulate this country, and drive our people into the United States.
There is no great gulf, no great sea between this country and the United States, and when you remember that we are just on the fringe of the United States as it were and consider how easy it is for our people to go there, you will see how much more necessary it is that we should have adequate protection. The hon. Minister of Finance, in 1S08. made a statement in this House which T could not understand, and I would like to read it. In his budget speech of that year, he said :
What a world of good might have been accomplished for the true interests of manufacturers in the Dominion of Canada if all the time energy, labour and money that have been expended in the last twenty years in tariff watchings and wire-pulling at Ottawa, had been ex-
pended in the factories, in the development of business, in the discovery of new inventions, in finding means for the use of labour-saving machinery, in learning what might be done with waste products, in dealing with all those forms of industrial progress which had to be dealt with by the manufacturer when he has keen competition. We would therefore say to the manufacturer that if he desires permanency in the tariff, he must never expect permanency until the tariff gets down to a moderate point. Today there are duties In the tariff so high that I am sure the government are not prepared to treat them as part of a permanent tariff. I say this in no spirit but that of friendliness to the manufacturing interests. While the manufacturers are in a fairly good position to-day, it would be a mistake for them to fail to realize the fact that Canada has turned her face away from the high tariff policy, and, though we may proceed slowly, whatever progress we make from this time forward, must and should be in the direction of greater freedom of trade.
These observations correspond entirely with the observations that fell from the lips of the right hon. leader of the government. Now, I want to say that the inference to he drawn from that speech to which I have just referred and from the speech which we heard from the right hon. leader of the government yesterday, is that the government are travelling in the direction of free trade. I do not think that in this country you could find a banker of any standing, a financial magnate of any standing, a man engaged in any great financial enterprise, or any important merchant, who would endorse any such proposition, irrespective of his politics. I wish to congratulate the hou. Minister of Finance upon occupying the position which he does during a period of great prosperity, and I also want to congratulate the ministry upon ruling over the destinies of Canada during a period of great prosperity shared by every civilized nation in the world. I shall not attempt to go into statistics in regard to the debt, or to the revenue and expenditure of this country, hut there is one thing I would like to refer to, and it is that while the revenues have been ample, while we have been going through a period of inflation of values, this, coupled with the present ad valorem duties, has brought to the government very largely increased revenues. These revenues have been many millions greater than they were per year in any previous case, and yet we find that the government found it necessary not only to spend every dollar of these increased revenues, but that the debt of this country has increased during this period of great prosperity to the extent of about $7,000,000. At the opening of this parliament, I was very much interested in hearing the right, hon. leader of the government ask this side of the House a question. The question that he asked was : What is your policy ? I thought then of a resolution which was brought into this House in the year 1878 by the Rt. Hon. Sir .Tohn A. Macdonald, and which the right hon. leader of the government read yesterday in his speech. Therefore, I need not refer to that resolution, because every one is conversant with it. However, Sir, I would like to refer to a resolution which was brought into this House exactly ten years later, and to which the right hon. gentleman gave his support. It was introduced into this House by the hon. gentleman who now occupies the position of Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright). It is as follows :
That it is highly desirable that the largest possible freedom of commercial intercourse should obtain between the Dominion of Canada and the United States, and that it is expedient that all articles manufactured in or natural products of either of the said countries, should he admitted free of duty into the ports of the other. Articles subject to duties of excise or of internal revenue alone excepted.
That it is further expedient that the government of the Dominion should take steps at an early date to ascertain on what terms and conditions arrangements can be effected with the United States for the purpose of securing full unrestricted reciprocity of trade therewith.
I would like to ask hon. gentlemen opposite: which of these policies do they adhere to ? Do they adhere to the one laid down by Sir John Macdonald, or do they adhere to the one which was introduced at that time by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce ? There must be either one or other of these policies that they adhere to. Now, reference was made in the speech of the hon. Minister of Finance, to the fact that we brought into this country from the United States a very large amount of raw material which was used by our manufacturers, and that we brought it in free of duty because it suited us to do so. and quite properly. At the same time, I would like to point out that we also brought in from the United States $60,819,752 worth of manufactured goods, and that we are bringing from Great Britain about half that amount. It seems to me that the time has come when we ought to consider in what way the people of this country can benefit themselves by producing these articles which we import from the United States. I would like to know what benefit it is for an American commercial traveller to go through this country from one end to the other trying to sell American products. The only benefit that this country has from that kind of thing is the man's hotel hill while he is in the country ; he in no other manner assists in maintaining this country. I would like to ask hon. gentlemen to consider in what way we can so increase our tariff and so alter it that these goods which come into our country can be made in this country to a greater extent than they are at the present time. I am quite prepared to admit that you cannot shut them all out, and I am not in favour of a prohibitive tariff. But, we are harassed by the over-production of the United States. I have often been asked the question : Cannot your manufacturers

in Canada compete with the United States V 1 have invariably answered : Yes, we can on equal terms, but not in the ratio of seventy millions of people to six millions, not when we are handicapped. I would point, hon. gentlemen, to the fact that Canadians who have had to leave this country because of the great inducements held out in the United States of employment, because of the great opportunities there and the great scope, have been able to compete in the United States with the citizens of that country, that they are able to occupy responsible positions and that we are proud of them. Therefore, I say that the question is irrelevant, that it does not cover the case and that the question should not be considered from that standpoint. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has stated that the United States tariff is 50 per cent higher than ours.


Mr. CHAKLTON.: No, no

their's is 50 per cent and ours is 25 per cent.


Albert Edward Kemp: That would be 100 per cent -double ours. While a good many people tala about reciprocity in tariffs, i quite agree with the remarks of the hon. gentleman opposite who said we should regulate our tariff to suit our own conditions, irrespective of what other countries do.


John Charlton: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon; 1 misunderstood him. It is 50 per cent on the basis of percentage on the relative, duties, higher than ours; but I understood him to say 50 per cent on duties higher than ours; that is to say, if ours is 25 theirs is 75.


Albert Edward Kemp: I thi^u. the House understands the position and I will not refer to it any further. While a great deal of time is taken up both in the House and in the country discussing the extent of our foreign trade, little or nothing is said with regard to our interprovincial trade, and I think the Minister of Finance might very well have dealt with that feature of our commerce in his budget speech. I speak of our interprovincial trade which moves from east to west and vice versa, which our railways and transportation companies are designed to accommodate, and which is the chief reason for the existence of our manufacturing industries. That interprovincial trade has been built up enormously within the last twenty-five years, and in connection with it I would quote to the House an extract from a speech delivered by the Hon. George Brown in the Senate on the 22nd of February. 1875. The Hon. George Brown said :
An! nowhere can he found a more gratifying illustration of the grand results which flow from commercial freedom than we have in the progress of our Dominion since the accomplishment of confederation. Though the customs barriers against inter-traffic between the British North American provinces have only been removed


Albert Edward Kemp: since July, 1S67, the united foreign commerce of the provinces has arisen from an annual average for thirteen years before confederation of 1)00,000 to the enormous amount in the seventh year after confederation of $210,000,000.
The Hon. George Brown in these words refers to the importance of our interprovincial traffic, and he also indicates taut wnen we have prosperous interprovincial traffic we also have large exports and imports. This much we may be sure of, namely: that if we are prosperous within ourselves, we will also be prosperous in our trade to and from foreign countries. I desire to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is no class of people in this country who have applied themselves more diligently to their business and more faithfully to the task set before them of studying new process for creating new enterprises than have the manufacturers of Canada. I therefore repeat what I said in opening, that the language which has been used by some hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to our manufacturers is unworthy of being heard in this parliament. 1 believe, Sir, that we ought to encourage in every way possible the manufacturers of this country in their efforts to give employment to our people in all legitimate enterprises.
Now, Sir, as to this matter of preferential trade which has been spoken of time and again in this House, and in connection with which the right hon. the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister referred to what had taken place at a meeting of the Chambers of Commerce in London last summer. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) told us that the only important matter in reference to preferential trade that had occurred recently took place at the meeting of the 4th Congress of the Chamber of Commerce in London last year, and in view of what has been said upon that question, I think it well to correct the statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite lest they should create a false impression abroad. It is a very easy task for a member to get up in this House and tell of the difficulties in the way of securing preferential trade within the empire, but it is a very difficult task to bring forward a scheme which will remove these difficulties, and which would be in the line of what I might call constructive politics. I may state that the Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain was honorary chairman of the Congress of the Chambers of Commerce which met in London in 1896, but owing to his numerous duties and to the fact that the Imperial parliament was in session he was unable to occupy that position last year. His place was taken by his under-secretary, Lord Selborne, who is now First Lord of the Admiralty. Extracts from the speech of Mr. Chamberlain in 1896 have been read, and I may be pardoned if I present to the House a few of the utterances of Lord Selborne. I quote from his speech :
There was a time when no one who took an interest in these fiscal questions, whether he was a member of the Cobden Club or an ardent protectionist, could discuss them without assuming an air of absolute infallibility. There has been more assertion of dogma in this question of free trade and protection than ever has been current among theologians. I believe free trade not to be a religion, but to be a policy.
Again, in speaking of the difficulties which had been overcome in bringing about the federation of the different Australian colonies, he said :
In Australia difficulties have been overcome, and therefore it does seem to me that, probably .in a different way, they may be also overcome in the empire. Union in any political sense is one of the problems of the future.
The lit. Hon. C. T. Ritchie, who was then president of the British Board of Trade, and who is now the Home Secretary, said on that occasion :
I hope Australia will follow the example of Canada and do what she can to promote British trade. We also hope that this is only the beginning of some closer commercial action in the future. I myself believe that the days of the strict Manchester free trade school are passing away.


Mr. HEYD.: Give us the rest of his utterances at the same time; give his explanation.


Albert Edward Kemp: 

States increased 13-90 per cent, and from Great Britain 13-75 per cent. Germany discriminates against the products sent to tliat country by our farmers. On wheat the discrimination amounts to 50 per cent, as compared with the duty charged on wheat from the United States. On oats the discrimination is 40 per cent, and on rye 50 per cent. Yet, the United States tariff against German products, I believe, is 50 per cent higher than that w'hich we impose upon German proucts. At the opening- of this session, I asked the government for the correspondence between themselves and the Imperial government with reference to this question. The government have been aware of this discrimination on the purt of Germany. The boards of trade of Montreal and Toronto have drawn attention to it. When the right hon. leader of the government was in Toronto last fall he was approached on this subject, and he told those who waited upon him that the matter should have his careful attention, and that everything possible should be done. I think it is the duty of the government, before this session closes, to tell this House what they are doing, and to bring do wn the correspondence which has passed between them and the Imperial government on this matter. I do not think it is the temper of the Canadian people to be used by Germany in this way, and I think the government would be upheld in taking steps to straighten the matter out. We have the case in our own hands. I feel confident that if any nation in the world were to do against the United States what Germany is doing against this country, it would take the American people a very short time to arrange it and retaliate if necessary. They would put such a tariff in effect against German products as would bring Germany to an understanding of what her position was. I do not think that because we are part of the British Empire, and that the people of Great Britain are easy going in trade matters, we should submit to this injustice at the hands of Germany. We ought to have every market for our farmers that we can obtain. Book at the position of the United States on this question as compared with ours. The exports of Germany to the United States amount to $103,456,554, while the exports of the United States to Germany amount to $197,603,400-nearly double the exports from Germany. We have very much the same kinds of products to sell as the United States supplies to Germany, yet our exports to Germany, instead of being double our imports from that country, as is the case with the United States, amount to only one-eighth, and even that trade has dropped off to almost nothing at all. Germany enjoys the run of the British market, and of the market of every British colony, on the same terms as British producers; yet, because we give the mother country a preference, we are treated in this way. I urge upon the Mr. KEMP.
government to consider this matter, and to offset this injustice which Germany has seen fit to put into effect against this country.
We have been told by the Minister of Finance that we are on the crest of a wave of prosperity. I hope that his pessimistic view of the matter may not be realized. It looked as if the hon. gentleman was trying to prepare a sott place for himself to fall on. What has this administration done since 1896 ? Great professions have been made in reference to transportation facilities, and to the great good the country was to receive by the solution of this transportation question. I would like to ask hon. gentlemen opposite if there, are any improvements they have made in the transportation facilities that have given the producers of this country any cheaper freight rates than existed when they came into power ? I would like to have them point out any advantage that we enjoy that we did not enjoy before they took office. And I would like to direct the attention of the House to /this fact, that in this province of Ontario, which produces the great bulk of the exports that go from this country, the freight rates are higher 'than they have ever been in the past. Unless the people of Ontario get an outlet along the great lakes, unless they tan participate in the traffic of the canals, we shall have no relief.	It may
be a matter of local importance, but it is one of very wide importance as well-we have repeatedly urged the improvement of the harbour of Toronto in such a way as to allow the vessels of 14 feet draught, that use the St. Lawrence canals, to be able to come into the harbour ; we have shown that Toronto is a great distributing centre, that more freight tonnage comes into and goes out of Toronto than comes into and goes out of Montreal ; and yet we cannot get the government to move in this matter. We find all kinds of policies in regard to transportation, we find expenditures in all parts of the country, and yet the centre of the part of the Dominion where the exports are produced, and where they are gathered for export, is left without necessary improvements. There is another feature of the transportation problem, and one that I referred to a few days ago. That is, what I might almost call the calamity to the St. Lawrence route, of the transference by the Grand Trunk Railway of its terminus from Montreal to Portland. I do not know what the opinion of other members of the House may be with regard to this question, nor do I care. When I referred to it the other day, I was accused by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) with introducing politics into the discussion of this question. I should be sorry to create such a precedent. But, I venture to say that the very liberal manner in which the government dealt with the Grand Trunk Railway when it took over the Drummond
County Railway, had the effect I said it had. Calculated at 34 per cent, the payments by the government of $140,000 a year, and $500,000 given to assist them in Improving Victoria bridge, was in effect, a payment to the Grand Trunk Railway of $4,500,000, and this money the Grand Trunk Railway used to side-track Montreal, and to make Portland in the United States their terminus. I say that the government, when the Grand Trunk Railway stated publicly that their policy was to make Portland their terminus in summer as well as winter, should have inserted in their bargain a condition that would not tolerate that sort of thing, and I believe they could have prevented it.
Now, what do we find in the discussion of this transportation question ? We find the Grand Trunk Railway are taking steamship line after steamship line away from Montreal, and they will continue to do so. Let me remind the House that every steamer that loads and unloads In Montreal, employs in labour and in the purchase of supplies for that purpose a sum of between $4,000 and $5,000; and the men who do that work come from various places down the St. Lawrence to work on the docks in Montreal, and the money is distributed among them. I say therefore, that instead of these men earning that money, it will be earned by aliens if the Grand Trunk make their terminal in the United States, as they intend to do. The government could have prevented this misfortune, and in neglecting to do so they have not shown ordinary business foresight. We have lost the German market, and we are not getting other markets which I think we should have. Now. Sir, we are sending to France only $1,372,359, while we are taking from France $4,464,938. The position of the trade of the United States with France is very much the same as that of Germany in respect of this matter. The United States Import from France $72,781,212, and they export to France $82,553,335. Their imports are 90 per cent of their exports. The same conditions apply to Belgium and to Holland. We have also heard this session something about our trade with Italy, which amounts to only $400,000, while that of the United States amounts to $64,000,000 a year. I think it is the duty of this government not to rely altogether on the markets of Great Britain, but to seek out new markets. I would like to ask hon. gentlemen opposite what they have done in the last four years to open up new markets for the produce of this country as the United States have been doing. We have got direct steamship lines with Germany and Belgium and we should not remain in this position.
Then, there is the question of the effect upon our workingmen in the woollen and other industries by the operation of the preferential tariff. I think the government made a mistake in not propounding some policy to the people before the last gen-544
eral election. I remember when the right hon. gentleman came to Toronto to address our people on political questions, and when he was so well received. Sir, I am proud of the way the Prime tyflnister of this country is received when he comes to Toronto, and I hope he will always receive the same courteous and enthusiastic reception from the people of that city. He said there was then no burning question before the people of this country. I contend that there has been time in the history of this country when we should not have had a burning question up for discussion between the political parties. Still, that does not excuse the government for their inaction. Instead of simply marking time, I would like to have them look out for new markets, to see if they cannot increase our exports to Germany, to Belgium, to Italy, and to France. 1 would like to see hon. gentlemen opposite, instead of criticising our policy for mutual preference within the empire, urge upon the mother country and urge upon the colonies, upon Australia, which furnishes so great a field for our exports, the advantages of a policy of preferential treatment within the empire for the products of the empire. I hope that we will be able to secure With Australia a treaty affording each country a mutual preference. If this country and Australia were to join hands in such a manner, it would have a very beneficial influence upon the mother country, and help them to appreciate the advantages which they might derive from a policy of mutual preference within the empire.
I am in full accord with a remark that fell from the lips of the hon. leader of the opposition yesterday when he referred to the present position of the Conservative party in opposition. I do not consider that it should he the highest ambition of a political party to hold the reins of power, but rather to be on the right side of public questions. I would rather see the Conservative party of this country adhere to their principles, adhere to an aggressive policy for the development of the great natural resources of this country, the development of our industries in various lines, though they may happen to he temporarily excluded from power. I hope, Sir, that this government will make some movement in the direction which I have pointed out, instead of simply contenting themselves with marking time, and that in the future these questions which I have endeavoured to advocate will receive support from the opposite side of the House, and even a more effectual advocacy than I have been able to give them.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at Eight o'clock.


Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington).: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), who concluded the

delivery of his speech just as the House rose at six o'clock, is not now in his seat, hut, that fact need not prevent me from stating that I listened with great interest to his remarks, and I trust that the hon. member will take it in good part if I tender to him my congratulations upon the manner in which he acquitted himself. It may seem, perhaps, something like the display of a patronizing spirit on my part to tender my congratulations to that hon. member, when, I myself, have had no greater experience in the debates in this House than he has had, but, I certainly felt quite as fully as he did the strangeness of the situation and passed through the trial which he must have passed through this afternoon, in attempting to address the House for the first time. While I do offer him my sincere congratulations, I cannot approve of many of the statements which he uttered, or many of the sentiments which he expressed, and I certainly disagree entirely with many of the conclusions which he reached. I had never the privilege of listening to a budget debate before the present debate was brought on, but I had always understood that the discussion upon the budget debate was properly confined, more or less, to matters appertaining to the finances of the country in particular, and to matters of trade and commerce, more particularly as such matters were affected by the fiscal policy of the country and ns these matters themselves had an effect upon the finances of the country. But, Sir, I have been enlightened during the past few days as to the scope which is allowed in the discussion of these questions in this House. I do not propose to follow the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House through all the matters to which he made reference In his speech. I do not think that one is called upon to do so at this time. I believe there are other occasions when an hon. member can more properly discuss questions of transportation, questions as to the Montreal harbour, questions as to the improvement of the Toronto harbour. All matters of that kind he can discuss more properly at other times. However, upon matters appertaining to the trade of the country and upon matters appertaining to the finances, there is no doubt that the discussion was quite relevant to the debate which is now in hand. In my humble opinion, whatever may have been thought, or whatever may be thought, of the amendment which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) saw fit to move, one thing, at least, mav be said for it, and it is that it served for' the time-being, at all events, to rescue the discussion from the position of insignificance, to which his own followers were fast consigning it. The hon. member for East Toronto opened his remarks by expressing his keen disappointment at the remarks of the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) during the course of this debate. If there has been disap-


Hugh Guthrie: pointment on that side of the House, there have been other matters during the course of this debate which have given rise to disappointment on this side of the House. I think I express the sentiments fairly of this side of the House when I say, that, apart from the remarks of the hon. leader of the opposition himself, the discussion of this question by hon. members opposite has given rise to no slight feeling of disappointment, a disappointment which has arisen from the manner of discussion, from the criticism and the manner of criticism, because, hon. gentlemen seem to have failed in raising this discussion to anything like the level of a budget debate, to anything like the traditional dignity and importance of such a debate. The disjointed and apparently aimless criticism which has been indulged in by some lion, gentlemen opposite has upset all the preconceived ideas of some of us as to what a budget debate ought to be, to the ideas which were formed, not by actual participation in such a discussion, but more from the pages of parliamentary history in Great Britain, or from the pages of parliamentary history in our own country-from the pages of parliamentary history in Great Britain from the days when the Great Commoner assailed the budgets of the administration of a Walpole, or later on, when the younger Pitt, Canning, Burke, and Fox, did not think it beneath their dignity to give their best time and their best thought to the discussion of the principles of finance. It was on the occasion of the budget debate that these principles were discussed, and not mere petty details. Later still, when men of the stamp of Sir Robert Peel, and Lord Derby and Richard Cobden and John Bright, gave their time to the discussion of the financial policy of their country, they employed their best thought and effort in elevating the debate. Throughout the past century and a half at least of British history, the occasion of the budget debate has been an occasion for the discussion of broad financial principles, and not the discussion of mere petty details, and also, I think, it has been so in our own House. We may go back to the days of confederation, we may pass onward from that time until twenty-four years ago, when the late Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald moved his celebrated resolution in this House, known as the national policy resolution. While we may disagree as to the principle of that resolution which he then moved, we agree that his resolution was one which Involved the discussion of a broad principle. It was a discussion worthy of the occasion, and so it has been down through succeeding years in budget debate. Hon. members who then occupied the opposition benches discussed the question from the standpoint of financial principles. So it has been through succeeding years, right down, one might also say, to the present year of grace when we were treated, not to a dis-
cussion of these broad principles, hut to a rambling discussion of the details of government, covering almost the whole of this vast country. Having these matters before us, is it any wonder that we did suffer a little disappointment on this side of the House when we noticed lion, members opposite, in their discussion and in their criticism, degenerating into the merest kind of commonplace, what, all our preconceived notions led us to look forward to as a veritable battle of giants. I am free to admit that it may be to some extent my own lack of information in regard to the details of the finances of this country which has rendered me incapable of appreciating either the force or object of the criticism which has been levelled at the present financial statement. I have not been able to make up my mind whether the object of the critic was to detract from the credit which is due properly to the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) for his admirable financial statement, or whether the real object was one of self-indulgence, of a little self-glorification over some real or imaginary achievement which took place in the early days of the Conservative party. If the object of hon. gentlemen be the first of these at which I have hinted, namely, to detract from the credit which is due the government for their statement as to the finances of Canada, the weakness of the assault which they were able to make has only served to magnify the exceptionally strong position which the government is able to occupy upon that subject, but, if, on the other hand, their object be merely self-glorification over their own greatness of years ago. I am sure that every one in this House will admit that it is the prescriptive and undoubted right of an opposition to extract all the consolation it can from the memory of vanished greatness. But, there is a limit to all things, a line must be drawn, and the time comes when the House demands something more substantial than reminiscences of the last fifteen, or twenty, or twenty-five years.
I believe I have the right to inquire : Upon wliat principle this question is being discussed by hon. gentlemen opposite. If a principle at all is involved ; what is the principle ? Do they charge that the government in its past management of the finances of this country or in its proposals for the future, has violated some recognized economic principle ? If so, what is the principle that has been violated ? Do they charge that the government in its management of the finances has committed some fundamental error ? Then, what is the error ? Do they charge that the government has been reckless and extravagant or worse ? If that be the charge, then, as a matter of common justice, the government is entitled to have the charge laid in detail in order to be able to meet it. But, failing any charge of that kind, failing any criticism upon any principle, economic! or otherwise, is it to be wondered at that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), as far back as Friday last, threw out a mild hint in this House that if hon. gentlemen opposite had nothing more substantial to offer in discussion than had been contributed up to that time, the debate might as well be brought to a close because further discussion was not only unnecessary but a positive waste of the time of the House. There is no doubt in my mind that the timely hint from the hon. minister (Sir Richard Cartwright) was an incentive to the bon. leader of the opposition to put forth some effort to rescue his followers from the humiliating position which they were likely to occupy, and as a result of that effort we have the amendment which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) saw fit to move. It would be charitable to say that that amendment is a creature of unfortunate circumstances. It is a sort of emer

gency ration which the leader of the opposition has laid before the House. No one can claim that it is an amendment born of any present financial condition in Canada, or justified by any trade condition now existent. When I read the first clause of that amendment I was struck with the idea that the draughtsman, by the language which he had employed, had gone beyond any meaning which he himself intended to convey. But when we remember that the draughtsman was none other than the leader of the opposition himself whose practice of the legal profession has long accustomed him to the use of language, and the use of it precisely and concisely ; we must conclude that the language of the amendment probably expresses his own ideas upon the subject. In order that we may understand each other the better, let us examine that first clause. Does it mean, as I believe it means, that there is not sufficient or adequate protection in Canada to-day ? Does the hon. gentleman mean by the words 'pronounced protection' that the tariff now in force does not afford sufficient protection ? If that is his meaning we can argue it upon that hypothesis. Is it the insinuation of the language he has used that there is not sufficient assurance or encouragement to industries in this country. If that be the meaning we can argue it upon that hypothesis. Certain it is that if such be the real meaning of the first clause of the amendment, it is nothing less than an absolute refutation of the statements made by him and by his followers in this House and in the country. Is it not a fact that for the past four years the Conservatives have charged that the tariff which is in force to-day is what they call the grand old national policy ? Has it not been charged by the gentlemen opposite in this very debate, that the tariff now in force is a thoroughly protective policy? Has it not been charged on the platform and in the press, that the Liberals were unable or unwilling to make a

tariff of their own and that they boldly adopted the tariff of the Conservative party? Do we not remember those stories about the stolen clothes ? Was our memory not refreshed a few days ago by the reference of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) to the footpad and the stolen purse. Has it not been the whole claim of the Conservative party up to the time this amendment was moved, that the present tariff in Canada is the tariff inaugurated by the Conservative party and is a protective tariff. Well, if it be correct that it is a protective tariff and that the Conservatives are responsible for it, is it not reasonable to suppose that they thought it adequate and sufficient when they brought it into being and kept it in force so long ?
But, Sir, there is a wide difference of opinion upon the question of the tariff in this country, though it may be that the difference perhaps is more over a name or over language than over any real matter of greater account. I believe that with very slight change in the language of clause one this amendment could be made such a one as would commend itself to the judgment of every hon. member in this House. Strike out, if you will, the words 'pronounced protection,' which are objectionable to members on this side of the House. Do not say that we have a revenue tariff as we claim on this side and do not say that it is a protective tariff, as is claimed on the other, but merely make your amendment to read : That by the continuance of the present tariff policy adequate protection is given to the industries of Canada ; and then you will have a fair expression of the best opinion of hon. members on both sides regarding the tariff. I do not know that anything in the politics of the country has ever been so persistently and so inconsistently misrepresented as the position of the Liberal party upon the question of the tariff. Hon. members opposite surely must know better than they say in regard to this. Hon. members opposite surely by this time have learned what is the Liberal position upon the question of the tariff. T did not know that the Liberal tariff policy went back as far as confederation, but I have heard to-day that ever since the year of confederation the policy of the Liberal party upon the question of the tariff has been, that we should have a tariff but it should be a tariff of revenue. We on this side of the House realize that we require a certain amount of money each year to conduct the affairs of the country. For the coming year it is to be about $46,000,000, but every year a large amount of money must be provided and the simple question is : How is that money going to be raised ?
There are various methods of raising money for national purposes. It might be raised by the imposition of a direct tax ; it might be raised in other ways ; but the policy of the Liberal party and the present Mr. GUTHRIE.
government is that the money necessary to be raised each year to conduct the affairs of the government shall be raised by means of a tariff, and that tariff shall be so adjusted as to produce sufficient revenue. That was the policy of the Liberal party away back in 1872. It was the policy of the administration of the late Alexander Mackenzie, and in the closing years of that administration, at a time when there was not enough revenue to meet the requirements of the public expenditure, it was proposed to increase the tariff-why ? Not certainly for the reason suggested by hon. gentlemen opposite, in order that a certain degree of protection might be given, but solely to provide the Finance Minister with sufficient revenue'to carry on the affairs of the country. That was the policy of the Liberal party then, and when they went out of power in 1878 they did not change their policy. In succeeding years the policy of the Liberal party on the tariff was the same. They said, we will maintain a tariff, but it will be a tariff for revenue and not for protection. The hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) quoted some articles on unrestricted reciprocity. It is true, at one time the Liberal party did advocate the principle of unrestricted reciprocity ; but that was quite consistent with their advocacy at the same time of a revenue tariff; and I believe it is the uniform opinion in Canada to-day-and in this I believe hon. members opposite agree with me-that a very large measure of reciprocity between Canada and the United States in matters of trade is a most desirable thing, in the interests of both countries. But throughout, the policy of a revenue tariff continued. Then, Sir, in order that there might be no question at all about what their policy was, the Liberals of Canada from one end of the country to the other met in Ottawa in the year 1893 and solemnly laid down their policy in black and white, and spread it broadcast throughout the country, making- it so plain that all men could understand it; and in that declaration they said they would have a tariff for the purposes of revenue. Did they not carry out that pledge within a few months after they came into office ?
All these facts are just as well known by hon. gentlemen opposite as by hon. members on this side of the House. If that be so, why is there this persistent misrepresentation of the Liberal position on the question of the tariff ? I could point out without any very great difficulty some Conservative inconsistencies with regard to the same matter. I can certainly point out inconsistencies in the Conservative view of the Liberal tariff. Why, Sir, when the hon. Finance Minister introduced his tariff in the spring of 1897, hon. members opposite almost to a man stood up and denounced it. They said, you have produced a ruinous-

tariff, the attack being led by the hon. gentleman who then led the opposition. He said : You will bring ruin to every industry of Canada if you maintain a tariff of that kind. That was their first position. But when they saw that the industries of the country were going to prosper under the new tariff, that there was going to be no stagnation, but advance and improvement, they changed their song, and said : You have stolen our clothes ; you are maintaining the old policy of protection.
Now, Sir, is it not a reasonable thing to ask that the present tariff and the policy of this government upon the question of ' the tariff should be judged by its fruits ? I submit that if you judge it merely as an academic problem, or by the results which it has produced in this country, you must come to the same conclusion, that the government are justified in maintaining it. 1 do not go so far as to say that the tariff is complete, that it is entirely without error. I know some details myself which in my judgment ought to be corrected. But, Sir, it would be a wrong thing at such a time, when trade has become established on certain lines, for any government to interfere with the details of a tariff which would cause unrest throughout the business community. One thing that the present tariff has given to the country, which it never enjoyed before, is stability in the duties levied upon the various articles.
The hon. leader of the opposition said, how can you argue that you have a revenue tariff when you have a surplus? and to back up his theory that a revenue tariff and a surplus are inconsistent, he quoted some utterances of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) away back in 1882, and read some newspaper articles of 1882 which he attributed to the hon. Minister of Finance.
To my mind there is absolutely no inconsistency at all in having a surplus with a revenue tariff. The hon. gentleman knows precisely how a surplus comes about. He knows that the revenue of the country is estimated before it is collected. He knows that the Finance Minister makes a careful estimate of his expenditure and his revenue, and there can be little doubt that if the Finance Minister wished, he could so adjust his tariff that there would not be much of a surplus. I do not think he could come exactly within the figures, but he could come relatively nearer to the exact amount required than he has come this year. But why not have a surplus? Why not be on the safe side in your finances ? If all the money that was required in this country were merely the common annual expenditure of the country, then it would be a wrong thing to have a surplus under a revenue tariff. But we require far more money than we get. Far more money is spent in Canada
than is represented by the annual expenditure. Take this year for example: The hon. Finance Minister says he expects to spend about $46,400,000; that is the ordinary annual expenditure. In addition to that, he expects to spend about $10,500,000 on permanent public works and improvements. That brings the expenditure up to about $57,000,000 ; yet all he expects to receive during the year is $53,000,000 He could have pruned his duties to have brought his revenue down to the $46,400,000 if he had so desired. Then he would either have had to abandon the public improvements or he would have had to go and borrow the whole amount necessary to make them. Which course is he to pursue ? The course the government adopts is : We will permit the accumulation of a reasonable amount of revenue, and when it accumulates we will spend it on the public works of the country. We will carry on these public works, and if the surplus is not sufficient to pay the cost, then the small balance will be the amount by which our debt will be increased. I submit that that is good financing. I submit that it is right to provide a small surplus annually, in order that we may expend it in this way. Far better that we should do that than borrow the whole amount we may require and pay interest. That, at all events, is the plan which the Minister of Finance has adopted, and there is nothing whatever in that plan inconsistent with the maintenance of a revenue tariff.
I have also heard it charged that ours is not a revenue tariff, beceause we grant bounties, and bounties are the most extreme form of protection. Well, Mr. Speaker, the bounty system, I admit, is a protective system, and admit also that I am not opposed to the bounty system so long as it is kept within reasonable bounds That, I think, is the principle on which the present government is working. Here, for instance, is a particular industry which needs assistance, and is going to become a permanent improvement and of great value in the development of the country, and to this industry the government agree to pay a bounty. No doubt, that is a principle of protection, and I am so far a protectionist that I agree with that prinicple so long as [DOT] it is kept within reasonable bounds. I was glad to hear the Minister of Finance declare, iu reply to the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace), that the subject of lead bounties was under discussion. Personally. I see no objection to a reasonable amount being expended in the development of the lead industry, just as such an amount is being expended in the development of the iron industry.
But, what objection is there, on the other hand, to charging these bounties against capital account ? One of the charges made by the hon. member for West York was.

that we were charging these bounties against capital account and not against annual expenditure. Is not that the proper way ? Are these bounties an annual expenditure V Are they not precisely in the same position as railway subsidies ? Does not parliament vote railway subsidies solely on the principle that they are going to develop the country and will be permanent improvements ? If parliament does not vote them on that principle, parliament should not vote them at all. They are voted on the ground that they are going to develop the country, and are in the nature of permanent Improvements. Where is that money charged ? It is charged to capital account. Where did the hon. member for West York charge such subsidies when in power 7 He charged them to capital account. Where did every government that was ever in power in this country charge railway subsidies they charged them to capital account. Then, why not charge bounties to the same account. They are not in the nature of expenditure going on from year to year, but will only go on for a few years and then cease. They go to improve the country in a permanent way and should be charged to capital account and not to annual expenditure.
These are matters whicn struck me during the course of this discussion, but there is one other to which I wish to refer before leaving the subject. I think it was the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) who said that the policy of the government was driving people out of the country, and that men were actually leaving Canada for want of employment. Is not that entirely contrary to the facts ? Is it not within the knowledge of every hon. member here that men have come back in large numbers from the United States during the past four years ? Is it not a fact that there has been such great mercantile and commercial and industrial development in this country that more labour was necessary than has been employed, and a great portion of the additional labour consists of Canadians, who were expatriated a few years ago but have now returned to Canada ? In proof of that statement, take the wail of the New England millowners, that they cannot get operatives for their mills. And' what reason do they give? They say that so many French Canadian operatives have gone back to Canada that the mills are short of hands. Take the farms of Michigan, which have been abandoned, and the lumber mills, which cannot get hands, and what reason is given for this lack of labour ? It is that the men have gone back to Canada. Is it not within the knowledge of every hon. member, in the particular locality in which he may happen to reside, that many men have come back to reside in their own town who had gone from Canada to the United States in the last ten or fifteen years?
As between Canada and the United States,
the movement of population has been entirely in favour of this country. It has caused serious talk on the other side of the line, not only on the question of population, but also on the question of the export of our food products to the old country.
I will not occupy your time further, but will merely advert to the remaining sections of the amendment, and shall do so very briefly indeed. If there is one thing for which I admire the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ivemp) it is his courage and persistence in carrying on the debate on that question of preferential trade within the empire, after the manner in which the fallacy of that clause of the amendment had been exposed during the past forty-eight hours in this House. We admire courage and persistence, but I noticed that it was all courage, and nothing to back it up in the shape of reason, because I failed to recognize a single new fact which the hon. member brought to the attention of the House while he endeavoured to convince us that we should give our support to the second clause of that amendment.
Are hon. members opposite sincere in their desire to have Imperial or preferential trade between Canada and Great Britain, as is proposed by the amendment ? If they are sincere in that view, they snould stop their denunciations of the one act of the Canadian parliament which has brought that greater question within the range of possibility. I refer to the preference which we now give to the goods of the mother land. I have heard it stated here, time and time again, during the course of this debate, that the preference we give Great Britain is no preference at all, that our imports from Great Britain have not increased, that our exports have increased, but not to a greater extent than those to the United States. That may be true, but there is reason for it. The recent increase in exports of the United States to Great Britain is not in connection with goods which Canada produces, but in connection with goods which the United States export and Canada does not. It is in connection with the production of iron and steel probably that the greatest increase is noticeable. But that is an infant industry in Canada, which is rapidly rising to be a great industry. But where we have disturbed our competitors and where the benefit of the preference is noticeable in Canada, is with regard to the agricultural or finished food products which we are exporting to Great Britain. In the matter of cheese, bacon, butter and the like. Canada has far outstripped the United States since the preference was inaugurated, and nobody recognizes that fact more plainly than our friends to the south.
I heard the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) express the most earnest solicitude on behalf of the Canadian farmer.


Hugh Guthrie: I was surprised to hear the hon. member tor West Toronto do so. He seemed to think that the government of Canada had committed a grievous wrong on the Canadian farmer, because, one result of our preference to Great Britan was a discriminating tariff against Canada on the part of Germany. That may be one of the results. But did not the hon. member for West Toronto realize what a relatively small quantity of goods from this country seeks German markets and what a tremendously large quantity finds its way to British markets? Does he think the Canadian farmer is mourning over the condition of affairs now so vastly improved over what it was a few years ago ? Why, if he had expressed his solicitude for these poor farmers, as he put it, five or six years ago, I have no doubt the farmers would have appreciated his sympathy. He has not a single farmer in his constituency, I am persuaded. But he did honour the constituency which I have the honour to represent by sending up some seed grain prior to the last election. That, at all events, is my information on the subject.
Now, is there anything more manifest than this-that the farmers of Canada are in a much better position than they have been in any time in the last fifteen years ? Is there any better satisfied portion of this community than the agricultural population ? I can tell the hon. member for West Toronto that if the appeal of the government in November last had been solely upon its financial policy and only to the farmers of the country, the result would have been that the ruin which has been wrought in the ranks of our opponents would be as nothing to the ruin which would have followed an appeal limited to the farmers of Canada. The farmers are prosperous, the farmers are satisfied. They do not want parliament or the government to interfere with that preferential arrangement in favour of the goods of the mother land ifor the sake of a few paltry hundreds or thousands of dollars thalt might have found their way into the German market on even terms with the rest of the world. I prefer to leave that question of German discrimination as the Prime Minister left it. 1 think that the mode suggested by the Prime Minister to the leader of the opposition was accepted by that hon. gentleman as the proper one for dealing with this question. It should not be brought up here for discussion ; we should not get into heated debate over it, until the government has exhausted all its powers of bringing about a satisfactory arrangement with the German Empire. Until that time, I think, our discussion is out of place. But this reference to the German tariff is not more out of place in this discussion than other clauses of the amendment are out of place. Is there any reason why there should be a change in the fiscal policy of the country ? It is true there are
some manufacturers that would like better terms. The hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) felt very sore that any one should mention that the manufacturers had been coming to Ottawa to ask that changes should be made in the tariff. But it is a fact that they have been coming-numerous deputations have come. Manufacturers are only human beings and, like other men. they want to get all the assistance and all the preference they can. And if their coming to Ottawa has the result of securing for them special terms, they will continue to come, but they must not complain if some of their requests cannot be granted. Such sensible business men as the hon. member for East Toronto should not take offence at a mere reference to the class of which he is an honoured member. There is nothing in the affairs of this country, financial, commercial, or otherwise to justify any change an our fiscal policy ; but, on the other hand, I submit that if you will judge this tariff, the revenue tariff of the present administration by the results that have been brought about, one and all will say that the government is perfectly justified in maintaining that tariff.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that on this side of the House no fault will be found with the remarks made by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). I certainly think both sides will thank him very cordially for the lecture he has read the House on the proper method of conducting debate. He started out by telling us that there should be a higher standard of debate in this House, and in a rather eloquent burst he portrayed the greatness of English parliaments in the past in which there had been Cobdens and Brights. I presume his modesty forbade him, in the presence of the ministers, instituting a comparison between those hon. gentlemen and the giants of the English Liberalism of the past. But he did make a striking reflection upon the ministers who were present and listening to him. when he held up Bright and Cobden as men who were always martyrs to principle. Certainly he could not lay i,t at the doors of these ministers that they had ever been true to any principle. Principles they may have known, buit principles as things to be suffered for were put behind them long ago. Nature has been kind to them. They are like the famous American politician who said :
A merciful Providence fashioned us holler,
In order that we might our principles swaller.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) early in his speech spoke in this high and lofty strain, and I would have thought that, coming from the constituency he does come from-South Wellington, a very grand constituency-he would have represented these high principles of propriety and of elevated

public life there as lie does here. But I notice that the other clay a banquet was- very worthily no doubt-tendered to him, and he did not condescend to tell the people there of the high state of morality which should exist in politics and the high standard to be maintained; but he did ted the people that they were led up as sheep to the shambles. He explained that the reason why the constituency did not go Liberal in 1896, was because the Liberals had carried on a campaign of cash and wind


Hugh Guthrie: 1 hope the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) will excuse me for in-terupting him, but I desire to say that I used no such expression.


William Humphrey Bennett: I will read from the Toronto Globe


Hugh Guthrie: I have read that report- it is wrong.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman spoke somewhat late in the evening and no doubt this banquet having been in the town of Guelph was not a cold water affair. He is reported as saying that in 1896 the Liberals of South Wellington had fought a campaign of wind and cash, but that his campaign had been one of hard work and hence success. If he was reported correctly, he paid a poor tribute indeed to the intelligence of his constituency in intimating that it was up for bargain and sale. In his speech of this evening the hon. gentleman went on to discuss the policy of the present administration-if policy it may be called. In one thing the hon. gentleman is to be congratulated. He has no unhappy past to look back upon. He is not like the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) or the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding)-he has nothing to apologize for, because he has not been committed to any principle. He has taken his stand, and, I think fairly well. He is a protectionist as long as the protectionist policy is favourable, but the moment it becomes otherwise he is willing, like the ministers, to set his sails to any varying wind. I propose to deal for a little time with some remarks he made with reference to some questions of the debate. He commenced by commenting on the amendment which has been moved by the leader of the opposition. He said he wished to know from this side of the House where this party stood. Well, if the hon. gentleman will take pains to read the resolution he will find where this party stands. He asks if this party is prepared to increase the protective duties on any particular articles; if they are, he says, here is the time and place to do it. Now, let us see what the resolution says :
That, in the opinion of this House, the welfare of the country requires a pronounced policy of adequate protection and encouragement at all Mr. BENNETT.
times to the labour, agricultural, manufacturing, mining and other Industrial interests of Canada.
Surely there is no uncertain sound about that. It says the country requires a pronounced policy. From this side of the House no apology need go forth as to the past of this party. For over twenty-five years it has stood for a policy of pronounced protection. But here is this marked difference between us and hon. gentlemen opposite, that while we have to a great extent adopted and fallen in line with a protective policy, they have at all times intimated, and by insinuation threatened, that at the earliest possible moment this policy will be cut in twain, or shorn of much of its strength. But it is to be noticed that these hon. gentlemen always have an attachment in the shape of some friendly manufacturers of the same political faith, and the result is that these gentlemen remain protectionists in certain lines and relative to certain industries. Now, there can be no more marked line of conduct mapped out than there is in that resolution stating that the policy of protection must be a pronounced policy. And now we have the warning note that has been sounded by the Minister of Finance, when he told the people of this country, and more particularly the manufacturers, that the time has arrived when they must take in sail, that a commercial storm is coming on. That is a declaration not only to the manufacturers of this country, but to the labouring classes and the agricultural interests as well, and indeed to every interest, because every interest is dependent on the manufacturing interests of the country. I say in view of all these facts it is time for the country to see where the present government stands. If this government is honest in what it says, why have they not the courage to take the tariff as it stands to-day ? The First Minister said yesterday in the House that there was a certain amount of protection on many items, and to his mind that protection should be lessened and reduced. The Minister of the Interior speaking the other day made this remark :
When we give a preference if it is to be at any one's expense, it is at the expense of the manufacturer and workingmen of Canada. We go a little further and say that it is the policy of the Liberal party of Canada to reduce the duties and to remove to some extent the burdens of the excessive tariff which was imposed upon imported goods by the late Conservative government.
He shows that there are dozens of cases where goods are coming in from the United States, and from that country alone, where the duties are to-day exactly what they were under Conservative rule. Then in the name of all that is honest when these gentlemen denounce that protection, why have they not the honesty to attack
it and reduce the duties ? But they do not rest there. The Minister of Finance, speaking in the House a couple of years ago-I think it was on the occasion of the announcement of the preference-said that the manufacturers of this country must take notice from this time forward thalt they were not promised immunity from cuts in the tariff, that this might take place on any occasion, and that they should take heed. As I already remarked, the First Minister yesterday made the statement that there was already tariff protection beyond what there should be. I say, then, in face of these statements of these hon. gentlemen, it is time for us and for the country to understand where both parties stand. The amendment moved by the hon. gentleman who leads the opposition states clearly and explicitly that we are going to adhere to a pronounced policy of adequate protection, and there is not going to be on this side of the House from one quarter and from one section a defence of protection, and from another quarter hon. gentlemen standing up in their places and denouncing that policy, as they are doing on the government side to-day, and from different ministers of the Crown we hear these statements and insinuations that they believe that that policy should be cut in two. But, Sir, it is in keeping with the profession of hon. gentlemen ; they think one thing and they do directly the opposite.
Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman then dealt with the question of a tariff for revenue only, and he went over the old song that this was only a tariff for revenue. Why, Sir, fancy a city council or a town council yearly striking their rate, and at the end of the year having a surplus of $8,000 or $10,000. Would it be said that they had simply struck a rate for revenue and for revenue alone ? The fact of the matter is that these gentlemen are so held up by certain political friends of their own that they are bound in obedience to the wishes of those friends to maintain a high protective tariff on many goods coming into this country from the United States, and that is the reason for the high revenue that has been produced. There are other reasons no doubt for that revenue, one has been the increased values ; and no doubt falling values in this country is one reason why the Minister of Finance saw fit to sound the warning that he did the other day. Another point the hon. gentleman dealt with at considerable length was this: That the time had arrived in this country, in view of affairs as they stand, that we should endeavour to negotiate with the United States a reciprocity treaty. Well, I can only say that the hon. gentleman cannot have read the debates, and particularly the speech of his leader in this House, I think a year or two ago, when he made the statement that the time had gone past
in this country for any reciprocity with the United States, that our markets was the market of Great Britain, and not the market of the United States alone. That is a difference between the hon. gentleman and his leader which they will have to reconcile between themselves.
But the hon. gentleman was happy in one thing : He laid down as his political belief and entire honesty of opinion that he was in favour of iron bounties. He was not like the Minister of Trade and Commerce, hampered with a past ; he had not stood up in the House and on public platforms year after year and denounced the policy of giving iron bounties. But the hon. gentleman goes further to-night and says that he is not content to give a bounty on iron only, but he proposes to give bounties on lead as well. That is another point in respect of which the hon. gentleman is to be congratulated on the fact that he has not a political past.
Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman said that we should endeavour to restrict ourselves to questions of trade and commerce, leaving out what might be termed extraneous matters, and I propose briefly to discuss some matters in that line. The First Minister yesterday drew a line between our policy as enunciated by our leader, and the policy of the government, in the course of which he made this striking statement.
We agree with them that the revenue of the country ought to be levied by means of customs duties; but there is this difference between us, that while they would levy those duties only for the benefit of individuals, we levy them for the benefit of the revenue, first and foremost.
Now, if customs duties are only levied for the purpose of raising sufficient money to carry on the affairs of the country, then in the name of reason why do they tax people $8,000,000 more than is necessary for that purpose ? He went on to say :
Our first consideration, in imposing duties, is to produce revenue, and if, as an incident, the manufacturers derive advantage, they are welcome to it. But gentlemen on the other side impose duties, not with a view of levying a revenue and putting money into the treasury, but of putting money into the pockets of private individuals.
Now, let us take the tariff as it stands to-day, and more particularly in reference to the articles which are imported from the United States, hardly a dollar's worth of which comes in from Great Britain, and consequently do not get the benefit of the preference. What does the Minister of Trade and Commerce say 'to his leader's proposition ? He almost admitted that the duty on furniture is the same as it was prior to these hon. gentlemen coming into power ; and will the Minister of Customs contend to-night that the duty on furniture is levied for the purposes of producing a revenue ? If it is levied simply for the purpose of

protection and not for revenue, why do hon. gentlemen not cut down the duties on furniture, let us have less revenue from that source, and let us have the benefit of the lessened price ? Take the question of carriages ; if there was any one part of the population to which these hon. gentlemen, when in opposition, did appeal, it was to the farmers of the country. How the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce and the hon. Minister of Customs used to cry over the woes of the farmers ! The duty on coal oil was an abomination to them. If the hon. gentlemen only came to power there would be a revolution in trade matters, and the way in which the hon. Minister of Customs, who is present to-night, and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, hope to relieve the farmer is by increasing the duty on the cutter that he is bringing in from the United States. Was that to raise the revenue ? If taxing the farmer's cutter was for the purpose of raising the revenue, why did not the hon. Minister of Customs tax the jewellery of the rich in order to produce revenue ? The hon. Minister of Customs may follow in this debate, and it will certainly be amusing to hear the hon. gentleman try to reconcile himself to the position, that when he wants to raise the revenue, he does not increase the duty on the jewellery of the rich but increases the duty on the farmers' cutters. These hon. gentlemen wanted to increase the revenue, and as a result they have taxed the tobacco of the poor man, they have taxed the sugar of the poor and the rice of the poor, raising upwards of $2,000,000 of revenue by the increase on those articles. They are taxing the boots and shoes and some other articles which are not imported at all from Great Britain, upon which no preference is obtainable, but which come in from the United States, and these hon. gentlemen are not at all imposing these duties simply for the purpose of raising a revenue, but they are giving what they have to give, and what I am glad they have to give- protection to the manufacturing industries of the country. Ilad these hon. gentlemen been true to their pledges prior to 1890. they would have been swept out of Ontario and out of the whole Dominion on the 7th of November. The hon. member for South Wellington spoke of these hon. gentlemen having principles. We have found that their only principle is the principle of distributing amongst themselves loaves and fishes and hanging on to their salaries. If there was one question above all others that these hon. gentlemen have waxed eloquent over, it was the question of the duty on coal and iron. One could turn up in the newspapers of the time speech after speech delivered by the hon. Minister of Customs himself, in which he pointed out to the farmers that their agricultural implements were too high in price because of the duty on coal and iron. He said that Mr. BENNETT.
high bounties were paid to the producers of iron, and for that reason agricultural implements were too dear. He said that if these men could not maintain themselves without these bounties and high duties, let them go to the wall. Now, the hon. Minister of Customs knows that he made that statement time and time again ; he knows that he waxed eloquent over it. The hon. gentleman sits there now, smiles benignly, and draws his salary, while he is false to his principles. There is another feature of this question, and it is that if these hou. gentlemen were afraid that by lessening the duties they would diminish the revenue, there was a good way for them to get out of the difficulty, and that was by making good the pledges of economy which they gave to the people. Why, they made the welkin ring from one end of the Dominion to the other. In regard to the number of cabinet ministers, they pointed to the example of the United States, where there is a less number of ministers, and they said : When we come into power there is going to be a lesser number of ministers, and all along the line lai'ge economies are to be practised. The hon. Minister of Customs knows how well that pledge was kept. As soon as the government achieved power, he was advanced from the position of a controller to that of a minister, and they paid him a year and a half of back salary, or, as an hon. gentleman says, two years salary. These gentlemen, who are compared with Cobden and Bright, with men who were willing to go out of office at any time by reason of adherence to their principles, have nothing in common with such statesmen. There is nothing in common between the two ; all their principles have vanished and gone to the winds. The hon. member touched upon the question of the British preference, but he touched that rather gingerly, and very little was said in reference to it. As the question is an important one to the people of the country, 1 intend to take up the time of the House for a few moments in regard to it. Where do the political parties stand on the question of the British preference ? The right hon. leader of the government was yesterday assailed by the hon. leader of the opposition in this, that he went before the electors, and, notably in his speech in Dondon. committed himself to the policy of preferential trade with Great Britain. What can be meant by preferential trade if not a mutual preference conceded on either side ? These hon. gentlemen, realizing that this policy was a popular one, adopted it in the elections prior to 1890. went to the country, and told the people they were favourable to a preferential duty. We all know that at that time there was a strong feeling being worked up in England in that direction. Mr. Chamberlain's utterances on different occasions pointed to that fact, and when the movement was blooming, it
was all swept away upon the occasion of the fateful trip of the right hon. leader of the government to England, when he declared in London, at the celebrated meeting of the Cobden Glub, that Canada did not want a preference at all. So, these hon. gentlemen are in this position that they are averse to having a preference for Canadian products in the markets of Great Britain, while we stand committed by the text of this resolution to the principle of a mutual preference between this country and Great Britain, and by that policy we are prepared to stand. In the same connection, I would refer to the question of trade with Germany, and I beg to state that we are here to-night to say, and the Conservative party are a unit on that, I believe, and not only the party here, but, I believe, a very large number of Liberals throughout the country, are in accord with the sentiment, that any country, Germany, or whatever it. may be, which pronounces against us by an antagonistic tariff, will be met by us, that we are not going to lie under such a rebuke, but that we are going to hit back, and hit back with double force. That proposition should be doubly favourable in me dominion of Canada, by reason of the fact that everybody knows that under this so-called British tariff, which is a sham and a delusion, there is no counti'y which is getting greater benefits in Canada than Germany itself. What is the position of hon. gentlemen opposite on this question 7 When they first came here with that policy they made the statement that the policy would work out all right, that Canada would only import British goods ; but it was pointed out that the British market was being invaded by German, Belgian and other European goods, and that we would of necessity be importing these goods under the British preference tariff. It was then stated that a considerable portion of the work on these goods must of necessity be done in Great Britain before they would be entitled to the preference. It was easy to, tell the House that, but a difference arose in the minds of the appraisers of customs at different ports of Canada as to what really was a considerable portion of the work, and the result was that hon. gentlemen were forced to announce a new proposition, and that was, that so long as 25 per cent of the work upon these articles was done in Great Britain, they would get the benefit of the preference. To-day, as a matter of fact, the preference is not upon 25 per cent in favour of Great Britain, but upon 75 per cent in favour of Germany. While Germany is prepared to strike at us, I say it behooves the people of Canada to strike back, and, speaking for myself, I say that I believe that the interests of the artisans and the manufacturers of Canada should stand higher with any governemnt of Canada than the interests of Great Britain or any other country. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) made
some very wild statements as to the beneficial effect on Canada of sentiment in Great Britain. He told us that our exports to Great Britain had gone up by leaps and bounds by reason of this preferential tariff, but if he had taken the trouble to consult the statistics he would know that the reverse is the case. He told us that we exported more cheese to Great Britain than we did a few years ago, but in that he was mistaken. He does not seem to know anything about it. Here are the actual figures on that score. In 1898 we exported to Great Britain 196,220,771 pounds of cheese, and last year we exported 185,759,750 pounds, a decrease in round numbers of 11,000,000 pounds. Where does the question of sentiment come in there ? In 1898 we exported 8,429,249 pounds of ham, and last year we exported only 2,793,078 pounds. We do not seem to have sold more hams because of the sympathy in Great Britain for our preferential tariff. I might go on and quote further to show that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) was far astray when he talked of sentiment increasing the trade between Canada and Great Britain. Why, the fact is, and every common-sense business man knows it, that the Britisher will buy the necessaries for himself and his family in the cheapest market, and he will not pay half a farthing a pound more for sentiment. I contend, Sir, that the preference to Great Britain is not in the interests of the people of this country as a whole. Experience proves that we import from Great Britain such commodities as are not used by the masses of the people, but rather by the classes, and therefore whatever benefit there is in the preference is a benefit to the more wealthy of the people of this country. Look at the Trade and Navigation Returns to prove that. In 1898 of silk and manufactures of silk we imported $1,413,973 worth, whilst last year we imported $3,151,697 worth. There is a marked increase in an article that is used by the wealthy classes of this country, and as a result the rich instead of the poor are getting the benefit of this preference. Take the importation of jewellery. In 1896 we imported $295,141 worth, and in 1899 we imported $578,785 worth. If you go through the returns it will be shown that . the articles which are imported from Great Britain to a great extent are not used by the masses, but by the wealthy classes. The Minister of Finance in his budget speech announced that the time had arrived when the people of Canada should take heed as to the future. Any one who looks around the country and sees the existing conditions will know at a glance there can be no doubt as to that. In the town of Almonte a large woollen mill has been closed down. There are other woollen industries in the province of Ontario closed down to-day, and you cannot go into any

town in the province, more particularly in towns where there are manufacturing enterprises, that you do not see signs of depression. In the once thriving town of Paris in South Brant there is advertised a house for sale with a recommendation that it would be a desirable summer resort. Has it come to pass that the once manufacturing town of Paris is reduced to a summer resort ? In South Ontario, the once thriving town of Whitby, where the Joseph Hall agricultural implement works were, has a place advertised as a desirable summer residence for people living in Toronto. All over, the fact stares you in the face that the time has arrived when we have got to do what the United States are doing, namely, make for ourselves a protective tariff and by that protective tariff stand or fall.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Humphrey Bennett: There can be no doubt in the public mind as to where the two political parties stand on this question. The Conservative party stands where It always did stand, and that is : That so long as the great people of the United States are manufacturing as they are, there is only one recourse for the people of Canada, and that is to maintain a high protective tariff. Now, Sir, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) made the statement that had there only been the question of the policy of the government brought into the last elections in Ontario, the government would have made a better showing. He did not assign any reason why the gov-erenment did not have a larger following from Ontario, but he must know very well why the Liberal saddles were emptied in that province. Year in and year out for eighteen years the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) .and others of their ilk, proclaimed for commercial union at one time, for free trade at another time, for unrestricted reciprocity with the United States at another time, but they were always the undying foes of protection in every shape and form. They pictured to the farmers that they were being bled white for the benefit of the manufacturers, and that they were bearing the heat and burden of the day, while the manufacturers were growing rich. The farmers took them at their word. They believed they were honest men.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


William Humphrey Bennett: The farmers listened to them for years and believed them, but when the opportunity came these gentlemen deceived the farmers. The Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) knew the storm was coming. He saw the last Speaker of this House (Mr. Bain) quit politics because he had not the hardihood


William Humphrey Bennett: to go into his riding after his party friends had violated ail their pledges, and that riding is represented to-day by a Conservative. Where is the former member for North Wellington (Mr. "McMullen), who posed throughout all Canada as the apostle of economy. He too has been buried with the Liberal dead. I could go along those benches opposite and name the member from Ontario who year after year denounced extravagance and iniquity when in opposition, but who, when in power, practiced what they denounced. And where are they to-day ? Well, some of them who for years in this House denounced the Senate as charnel house for dead and decayed politicians, have been fortunate enough to secure a resting place in the Upper Chamber ; others have got comfortable positions in the government service, and the balance are trying to get there. The government met us in the fight and they defeated us.
But there is no man knows better in his heart than the premier himself that this government has got the greatest slap that any government ever got in the province of Ontario. The reason they got that slap was that the people of Ontario were prepared to take these hon. gentlemen at their word, and they were weighed in the balances, and were found wanting. The hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) the other night said: ' If we have lost in Ontario, remember we have captured Quebec.' The hon. gentlemen are quite welcome to have Quebec on the terms they- got it. They conducted a campaign of race and religion in the province of Quebec ; and wherever they could introduce the same campaign in the province of Ontario, they did so, and did so successfully. They introduced it in Glengarry, which has a large French population, and that is the reason they carried that county. They introduced it in the two ridings of Essex, where there is also a large French population, and that is the reason they carried them. I was amused at hearing the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil), in seconding the address this session, express the hope that these cries of race and religion would be buried and put out of sight. That hon. gentleman was in my riding in 1897, when there was a by-election. I had been unseated. At that time the French Canadians-and there are about 500 voters in that locality-were sympathizing very keenly with their fellow-countrymen in Manitoba, who they thought were deprived of their school rights. The hon. member for Bonaventure came there. He did not appear in the English parts of the constituency, but he could be found in the French settlements day in and day out. And the hon. gentleman never came back to redeem the pledge which he made on that occasion. The pledge was this : He first asked that
the government might he excused for not having passed a Remedial Bill in their first session, on the ground that they had not time ; but he said there was a session coming on in 1897, and if a Remedial Bill were not passed then, he would come hack there and denounce the government at the earliest opportunity. The hon. member has not been there since. He will be like all the Liberal speakers who come into that part of the riding, firing the heather, as they do, with incendiary speeches on race and religion. I do not presume that he will ever come back. If he does, he will be the first of the kind who ever did. They always come with the same old story. Wherever they find a French Canadian population in Ontario, they are found making these incendiary speeches.
The hon. gentlemen have brought this fight on themselves. They have done it all through the province of Quebec, and I believe that as the people of Quebec rejected the Mercier government for pillaging the country, in the same way they will reject this government. These hon. gentlemen have won, but how have they won ? They have won by setting province against province. They have lost in the province of Ontario ; they have won in the province of Quebec. True, they have gained some advantages in some of the other provinces; but from the banner province of Ontario they have come back disorganized, broken up and battered in a way that no political party ever came from that province before. And when these hon. gentlemen again pass in review before the people of this country, then we shall be prepared to leave the issue to the people ; and the great issue that must divide the two parties in the next general election, so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, must be that Canada shall have, if it is in the power of a Liberal-Conservative government to grant it, that measure of protection to the artisans, the merchants, the manufacturers and the agriculturists, which will make Canada the happy and contented country that it has been under the benign influence of the national policy which was introduced by the Liberal-Conservative party in 1879.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose I should add much to the dignity of this discussion, if I were to follow the example which has just been set by my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) who has just taken his seat. The strength of the blow which the government received in Ontario, or the manner of their victory in Quebec, or anything appertaining to the elections which recently took place, are matters very far removed from the subject of the debate. I am not aware that the fact that there is a summer residence to let in the town of Paris has much to do with the great question now engaging our attention. But I take exception to one statement which the hon. gentleman made, that the British preference was of no use to the people of this country. If it has been of no other use than to reduce the burden of taxation by 25 per cent on all British goods, that in itself would be a justification for the introduction of the preferential tariff. It not only brought about that reduction, but it also reduced the cost price of all goods with which imported British goods come into competition. But I do not desire to enter into that phase of the discussion. I wish to confine myself to the question before the House. I am quite willing to leave the foraging around amongst elections and the history of Canada since confederation to our friends opposite, and try to deal with subjects which are germane to the conditions by which we are surrounded.
I desire, before I address myself to the resolution, to find a little fault with some remarks that fell from the leader of the opposition-not because they were grave in themselves, but because they assume a gravity coming from one who occupies the position he does as one of the leaders in this House. He stated-and he appeared to reproach us for it-that our trade with the United States was assuming larger proportions every day. Now, I do not think there is any reason why he should feel sorrowful because our trade with the United States is growing larger every day. A trade that is growing larger, no matter with whom it is being conducted, results to the benefit of those who engage in it, or they would not continue it for a single day. Our people do not import largely from the United States because they especially like goods from the United States. We buy there, because we can buy there cheaper than we can anywhere else in the world, and cheaper than we can produce the goods for ourselves. The fact that we imported from the United States last year a hundred million dollars worth of goods is not a matter of regret to me, but one of great satisfaction, which would be only enhanced were the amount two hundred million of dollars instead of one hundred million. No trade can be carried on between nations that is not mutually profitable ; and the mere fact that the trade exists between the United States and ourselves is the best evidence that it is profitable, or it would not be continued. I go still further, and say that if we bought from the United States large quantities of goods and they did not buy a single cent's worth from us, there would be no evidence that that trade was not profitable to us ; because it does not matter with whom we do trade, it is always bound to be profitable. Let us take the two items of coal and corn. The United States is the only country in the world where we can buy coal and corn as cheaply as we buy



There is not an English statesman that has given any greater encouragement than that: We may give you free trade, but that is the only basis on which we can even discuss tne matter. Are we prepared to discuss the mutual preference on the basis of free trade? Is there a man on either side of this House who would accept a mutual preference of that kind And is there the faintest possibility of Canada getting a preference of any other kind than one based upon the principles of free trade '! I challenge any lion, gentleman on either side of the House to mention the name of a British statesman who has ever given them the slightest encouragement to believe that they could get it on any other terms. The only man who has said that it was capable of being discussed even on the basis of free trade is Mr. Chamberlain himself. Lord Rosebery is against it. Sir -uiehael Hicks-Beach. the Chancellor of the Exchequer is against it, the president of the board of trade is against it. All the great leaders of public opinion have spoken against this preferential policy; they have said that it would ruin the empire, instead of making it stronger ; they have said it would be a standing menace to the nations of the world and would array against Great Britain and her colonies the powers of the world in a commercially hostile attitude. I can quote the words of Lord Rosebery and of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Mr. Ritchie, the president of the board of trade. And 1 will quote his words in order to set my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) straight. To-day. I asked that lion, gentleman to read all of the address from Mr. D. Ritchie. He did not have it handy apparently or he did not want to read it. I will read it now, in order that the House may understand exactly what Mr. Ritchie did say :
He thought that the strict Manchester school was passing away, and although England would never depart from her free trade policy, she might arrange a closer connection with Greater Britain. How this was to be done he did not indicate.
That is what the hon. gentleman said on that occasion, and what was read to-day. But he said more than that. His language was considered by some who were present to have given encouragement to the idea that a preference would be given to some of the colonies; and, later on, at the same meeting he craved the indulgence of the audience to disabuse their minds of any such idea :
Mr. Ritchie subsequently asked leave to say that he in no way favoured the imposition of duties on any manufactured article imported into this country. It seemed to him impossible to conceive that a 5 per cent duty on our foreign imports would help the colonies, and he strongly supported the fundamental principles of free trade. So that his remarks about a possible plan for a zollverein was. a mere pious wish.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: That is a portion of Mr. Ritchie's speech that the hon. member for East Toronto did not read, and the impression that he tried to convey to this House that the president of the British Board of Trade was in favour of this, was misleading, because be did not give us that gentleman's opinion, who says himself that he is opposed to Interfering with the principles of free trade. Vv nat does Lord Rosebery say ?
Of all the mad things we have heard in our days, the re-enactment of the corn laws is the
maddest we can possibly conceive.
What does Mr. Chamberlain say V
But the principle which I claim must be accepted if we are to make any, even the slightest, progress is that within the different parts of the empire protection must disappear.
What does Mr. Mulkall say, the great statistician who has just passed away ?
Mutual trade preference in favour of the colonies of the empire would be ruinous to the latter, and would ultimately break up the empire.
We have here the testimony of the men of Great Britain who speak with authority, and who state that they cannot discuss the proposition except on the basis of free trade. We have the authority of such men as Rosebery, Mulhall and others that it would be ruinous to the empire. Yet in face of these strong declarations of these men who speak with authority, whose position in the political world of Great Britain gives significance to whut they say, our friends opposite deliberately introduce a resolution which they know is entirely impracticable, because it would be injurious to the people of Canada. They know that we can get no preference in Great Britain on any principle but that of free trade. Are they prepared to accept that ? Not one of them has the courage to say that they value a preference in Great Britain high enough to he willing to destroy the manufacturing interests of this country.
1 am quite willing to accept any trade advantage that any country is prepared to offer us, but I am not willing that the industrial establishments of this country, which have been encouraged and built up with great labour and at great sacrifice, should be destroyed in trying to get free access into the British markets. I am hostile, as a Canadian, to an arrangement of that kind.
I believe that tlie future has iu store for us a better fortune than to be limited in our trade, even with Great Britain and the islands beyond the sea. I believe that the development that is taking place in this country of ours gives promise of a condition of affairs that will enable Canada to take a more important place in tlie trade, not of the empire only, but of the entire world. It is only recently that we are beginning to realize tlie tremendous potentialities of tills Canada of oui-s, tlie magnificent natural re-
sources that are the heritage of the Canadian people from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It is only now that capitalists are beginning to discover the magnificent mineral wealth stored up in the womb of nature, and they tell us that they are in a position in reference to steel, the great trade regulator, apparently, the great trade barometer of the world, where we can manufacture it $5 or $0 a ton cheaper than it can be made at Pittsburg. Within a short period of time we will be among the principal iron and steel producers in the world. Should we not halt before we tie ourselves up to a little bit of an arrangement that will stimulate our trade slightly with the islands beyoml the sea, and will lose to us the tremendous possibilities that appear to be so near us in the future ?1 I say yes. I say let Canada have her liberty. Let us keep the right to make what trade arrangements we like with Great Britain. Let us, if we choose, give to Great Britain a preference, and let us *take it away if we find it to our interest. Let us make trade arrangement's with Germany, if necessary, that will advance the interests of our own people; let us make trade arrangements with the .United States, if necessary, that will add to the comforts and happiness of our people; but do not let us tie our hands with entangling alliances, even with Great Britain and those other Britons beyond the sea. I am a Canadian first, I want this Canada of ours to prosper. I do not want to be crippled in our liberty to do the best we can by nationality or by any other tie.
Now, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to say a few words more upon this question, but having quoted the testimony of those distinguished men that you have heard, that there is no possibility of getting a preference except upon the basis of free trade, it would be a waste of time to give my own opinion; and X would not have quoted those men but for the fact that they occupy positions so eminent as statesmen of Great Britain. It is simply a dream on the part of our hon. friends opposite to try to get through the second part of the resolution.
But what about the third part ? Let me examine that for a few moments.
This House is further of opinion that equivalent or adequate duties should be imposed by Canada upon the products and manufactures of countries not within the empire in all cases where such countries fail to admit Canadian products and manufactures upon fair terms.
Now, that is a resolution that appears quite reasonable, that is a resolution that I most heartily endorse. But, I claim it is a resolution that is not necessary to present here to-night. That is the law of the land today. Three or four years ago that was made the law of the land. That is exactly what we have been doing. But our friends opposite have been sleeping during the past four years, and now they trot out a resolution that they want us to endorse, and 55i
say that we should have two tariff ptolicies, one for the people who use us well, and one for the people who do not. Why, that is the policy of the present government, that is what gave rise to the preference. We realized that Great Britain was the only country in the world that had been treating us as we thought right by admitting our goods free within her borders) and we selected her out from the world to enjoy a special benefit under our double-headed trade policy, a benefit that now amounts to 33J per cent. Our hon. friends opposite remind us of ltip Van Winkle who slept for so long a time. They have been sleeping for four years, and now they try to make us believe that they have discovered a remedy for some of the ills that we are supposed to suffer from. No, this principle has been in force, it is the law of the land now; its wider applicability will doubtless engage the attention of the government. I am satisfied to leave our case in the hands of the government who, for the past four years, have managed our affairs with signal ability, with great fidelity and in the Interest of the people. X have not the slightest doubt that the negotiations that are going on between our government and Germany will result in more good than the speech that was made by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) to-night on that same question. I am prepared to assist the government, I am prepared to leave the destinies of the country in their hands, and my reason for it is that during the past four years this country has been so exceptionally well governed that we can look forward with confidence to a continuation of that kind of government, and a continuation of that prosperity which this country has enjoyed from the time the present government took control of affairs until the present moment.

I have heard Liberal members of this House tell tiie farmers that the duty has been reduced from 35 per cent to 30 per cent or 25 per cent on what kind of articles ? Shovels, spades, pronged forks, and other small articles in which the farmers invest only a few cents every year ; but of these large items, in which they invest a great deal of money, there has not been a single dollar's worth brought in under the preferential tariff, but they are subjected to duties ranging from 25 per cent to 35 per cent.
Now, passing from the trade question. I desire to discuss another feature of the government's policy. The government, and especially the Minister of the Interior, have taken great credit for what they are pleased to term the inauguration of a vigorous immigration policy. But wherein does their policy differ from that of their predecessors?
Wliat new feature has been introduced of a meritorious character that would warrant them in claiming special credit for their efforts in this direction ? If spending about twice the amount of money as their, predecessors did for immigration purposes ; if by largely increasing the number of agents and affording comfortable berths for numerous political friends ; if in order to pad out the immigration returns to make as good a showing numerically as possible for this large outlay, it is desirable to have the country flooded with thousands of Southern European immigrants who are totally unfitted for pioneer life in a new country, and who have in many instances become a burden on the public treasury ; if the system in vogue lor calculating the number of immigrants who become permanent settlers in our country is the one formerly condemned by those now in power, as one entirely misleading and unreliable; while no reliable method has been adopted to ascertain accurately the number of settlers who have actually remained in Canada ; if, I say, these are tlie features on which the government and its friends base their reasons for claiming that they are entitled to the approbation of the electorate, for this so-called .vigorous immigration policy, then X am quite willing they should be judged on those grounds, and am not in doubt as to the verdict.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I wish to call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that he is going somewhat outside of the question, and I may be permitted to state now what the rule is. When the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means is before the House, any question may be discussed ; but when some amendment has been moved, only the subject mentioned in the amendment can be discussed. If we turn to Bour-inot, at page 549, we see the rule well stated :
When an amendment has been moved to the question for the Speaker to leave the Chair, discussion should be propqrly confined to its subject-matter.
This rule has always been observed in England and has always been observed here also. I do not find anything in the amendment under which the question of immigration could be brought up.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: Would you mind reading the.amendment, Mr. Speaker ?
Mr. SPEAKER read the amendment.


William James Roche: I think my remarks are quite germane to that motion, which deals with the question of protection to our labouring classes.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The immigration policy of the government and the question of protection are two different questions altogether. The rule has been observed so far, and I think it would be well not to bring into discussion any other questions than the
questions which are dealt with in the amendment.


Mr. MONK.: Surely-if you will allow me, without taking exception to your ruling-it is possible to refer to the condition of the labouring classes under the question of the protection of the labouring classes, which is mentioned in the amendment. Is it not possible for my hon. friend, under that part of the amendment, to refer to the classes in the North-west whose condition has been rendered so difficult by the importation of all these aliens into the country ? There is,
I	think, very great latitude given to those who address the House on an amendment to the motion to go into Supply or into Committee of Ways and Means. In fact, it has been the custom in the past, certainly since I have been in parliament, to allow the very greatest latitude on such occasions. We have perhaps drifted away from the rules in that respect, but we have discussed almost every grievance imaginable under such motions, and unless we depart from that custom, whether it; is the rule or not,
I think we should allow some latitude.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would not like to make any rule contrary to what has been the practice in previous years. In fact. I have looked over the authorities on the question, and it is very clear to me that when an amendment is moved to the motion that the House go into Committee of Supply, the question which should be discussed then is only the question which is mentioned in the amendment. Besides, I think the hon. member is quite mistaken when he says that it has been the custom in late years to discuss general questions under an amendment. The question was discussed in 1878 and in 1885, and it was decided in those instances in our Canadian parliament that when an amendment is moved, the discussion should be confined to the subject-matter of the amendment.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Of course, my hon. friend could wait until you put the main motion, and then repeat all the remarks lie is making at present.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Certainly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is for that reason, perhaps, that so much latitude has been allowed in the past, because my hon. friend would merely have to suspend his remarks until the main motion was before the House.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there will be no question as to the accuracy of the ruling you have rather suggested than given. It may be that having called the attention of the House to the rule, you will not press it too closely, because the amendment is a somewhat broad one. While I know that the rule has been departed from, so far as I have any suggestion to offer, it would be that it

should not bo pressed too closely now, but that you should be content rather to state it as a reminder to the House. There can be no question, however, that the rule which you have laid down is a good rule, and that the more closely we keep to it the better it will be for the order of the House.


Mr. SPROULE.: After the budget speech has been disposed of, and amendments are made to motions to go into Committee of Supply, my recollection is that we have been kept closely to the rule ; but until the budget speech has been disposed of, we have been allowed to discuss different questions. But when the budget speech is disposed of and a specific amendment made, then hou. gentlemen must coniine themselves to the amendment.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is the case now.


Mr. CLANCY.: You have not made a ruling, Mr. Speaker, but merely suggestions. It seems to me that my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche) is fairly within the rules in discussing that special part of the resolution which relates to the labouring classes. He is pointing out that these classes are not being protected as it is suggested by the resolution they should be. And as an instance of the "want of protection, he is pointing out that a very undesirable class of people are being brought into this country to displace our own labouring men.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I merely wish to point this out to hon. gentlemen. Since the amendment has been moved, I have noticed that, in some instances, there has been discussion on matters which certainly do not come within its scope. I know that every member of this House is anxious to observe the rules as much as possible, and I thought it well to state the rule so that every one should do his best to follow it as closely as possible.


William James Roche: I shall certainly try to keep within the rule, Mr. Speaker, and will make my remarks as brief as possible. In fact I would have concluded them by this had I not been interrupted. I was merely going on to point out that a large number of foreigners have been brought into this country to enter into unfair competition with our labouring classes and that many of our trade societies have been passing resolutions asking the government to cease this policy.
I wish to draw attention to the number of immigrants brought in during this past year and the unfair competition to which the people of Manitoba have thus been submitted. I find, according to the immigration returns, that during the past year 41,499 immigrants were brought into Canada. Of this number there were 15,916 Galicians. Doukhobors, and miscellaneous nationali-Mr. FIELDING.
ties, leaving but 25,583 of the better class of immigrants. These have cost Canada nearly half a million of money, or $434,562.61.
Mr. MeCREARY. What are you quoting from ?


William James Roche: I am quoting from the report for the year ending June 30th, 1900.
Mr. MeCREARY. There were no Doukhobors brought in then.


William James Roche: The report also claims that 14,215 settlers came in from the United States, but when we turn to the list of homestead entries, we find that there were only 1,307 entries made by people from that country and allowing 3J persons to the family, which has been the custom in the past, that only accounts for 4,182 settlers, leaving upwards of 10,000 unaccounted for. And according to the evidence given before the Agricultural Committee by the superintendent of immigration, there has been no method adopted by which the department is aware whether those people remained in this country or not. As soon as they cross the boundary line the bonus of three dollars for every male over eighteen, two dollars for every female over eighteen, and one dollar for all under that age, has been earned and the check which the conductors keep of those people is the only evidence that they are supposed to become permanent residents. These people might stay in this country but a month or two, and then go back to the United States and we would be none the wiser.
To maintain the large staff of officials we have in the immigration service in the United States, Canada paid $86,171.18 during the last fiscal year. That is what those settlers from the United States cost us. We have over 400 agents on commission or salary, and when we take into consideration the large number of Doukhobors and Galicians, and miscellaneous nationalities amounting to 15,916, the greater portion of whom, notwithstanding what hon. gentlemen opposite may say to the contrary are totally unfit for pioneer life in a new country-


Mr. KENDALL.: Did you ever see a Doukhobor ?


William James Roche: Yes, the hon. gentleman does not resemble them at all. In my own constituency where several thousand of those Galicians are located in colonies, where they were dumped down so that they may retain their old habits, and refuse to become assimilated with the general public, there was, during the late campaign, no feature of the government policy which came in for so much denunciation at the hands of the electors, both Liberals and Conservatives as this feature of their immigration policy.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: Doukliobors or Galicians ?


William James Roche: Both. Our provincial government finds it necessary, because of this large influx of ignorant and uneducated people, to bring in a compulsory educational Bill at this session of the legislature and it is not right that they should be compelled to incur a largely increased expenditure for this purpose, that they can ill afford, on account of the policy of the Minister of the Interior. And I hope in this connection that this government 'will hand over to the province of Manitoba the school lands and the school funds now held in trust for that province and properly belonging to it, to be administered by the local authorities for educational purposes, as they are in a much better position to do so to better advantage than the Dominion government can possibly hope to be.
It has been claimed by our opponents that the days of the exodus are past, and our people no longer seek homes in the country to the south of us. But, I find on looking at the Trade and Navigation Returns that settlers effects to the amount of $1.0yj,53ii, were exported from our country during the last year, which is a pretty good index that the exodus against which they declaimed so loudly in years gone by, is still in existence.
Railway subsidies and steamship subventions which came in for so much denunciation at the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite when they were on this side of the House, I notice are still being voted as in the days of the Conservative administration only more so. Millions of dollars of public funds are annually voted for railways without any adequate return to the people, which has possibly done more to create that agitation for government ownership, an agitation that first arose in the progressive province of Manitoba, and which is gaining force every day in other portions of the Dominion, than almost any other act of the government.
In the matter of steamship subventions, our farmers were told that the country was bonusing vessels to ply between Australia and Vancouver to bring into unfair competition with our mutton the mutton from the Australian colony. They did not tell the farmers that before a pound of that mutton could be landed on Canadian territory it had to pay a duty of 35 per cent under Conservative administration. Actually Liberal campaginers hawked auout cans of Australian mutton as an illustration of the unfair competition our farmers were being subjected to. After carrying on such a warfare you would imagine these gentlemen, on coming into power, would have taken the first opportunity either to abolish the steamship subventions or at least to raise the duties, and thus give more protection to our farmers.
Did they do so ? Why, on the contrary we see that steamship subventions are continued as much as they ever were in the past ; and not only that, but, mutton is being imported in increased quantities under the tariff which gives a preference of 33J per cent. In looking up the Trade and Navigation Returns, I found that in 1S9G we imported into Canada 22,299 pounds of mutton, the duty being then 35 per cent. Last year, ending 30th June, 1900, we imported the enormous quantity of 565,401 pounds, which paid a duty reduced by 331 per cent. So, if our farmers were suffering and burdened by this keen competition in 1896, how much keener must that competition be when thirty times as much mutton is being imported under the reduction of 331 per cent. When the tariff was submitted to the House in 1897 by the present government, it created a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the western people, and even among the western representatives, because they knew the pledges upon which they had secured their seats. They knew that promises were held out to the people that they should get their raw material free. When the tariff was brought down the Liberal speakers had to do what they could to let themselves down easy. They told us that, of course, we could not expect the government, at one feel swoop- to use a favourite expression of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright)-to give us free trade. We were to have free trade on the instalment plan. But year after year lias gone by, and now instalments are overdue. No further instalments have been paid, and free trade- on the instalment plan has not been effected, and is not the shibboleth of the Liberal party to-day. Free agricultural implements was the cry of the past. We heard denunciations of the rebates on duties paid to the manufacturers of implements to enable them to send machines to farmers living in foreign countries thousands of miles away, to enable them to buy those implements cheaply, and to compete with our own farmers at an advantage. I find by the return brought down in response to a motion presented by myself that these drawbacks are still continued, and that, for the year ending 30th June last, they amounted to 8245,151.46. Now, I might go on and comment upon the extravagance of the government, but that point has been so fully covered that I need not occupy the time of the House. We all know that the public debt, which, we were promised would be reduced, has been increased by $7,000,000 : that the expenditures which were to have been reduced by one, two, or three millions, have gone up by fourteen millions; that the taxation of the country, which was to have been cut down has also been increased by

several millions-and still tlie carnival of extravagance goes merrily on. It is time tliat this government should call a halt to the useless waste of public money. If they are not able, during a time of great prosperity, when we have great expansion in our imports and our exports, when the trade of the country has been leaping up as it has been-if they are not able, notwithstanding that millions of dollars have been wrung out of the pockets of the people as a surplus by unnecessary and unjust taxation, to reduce our expenditure or to apply any portion of the surplus to reduce the national debt, how can we expect to effect such a reduction when we are sliding down the wave, upon the crest of which we now are, according to the Finance Minister. In the time of prosperity wise statesmen prepare for adversity. Otherwise the reaction that is sure to set in will create a commercial panic, and already there seems some sign of an approaching period of depression. While we are not pessimists-and, in that respect we differ from hou. gentlemen on the other side, for we do not believe in decrying the fair fame of our country for the sake of gaining a petty political advantage-yet, as citizens of the country, when we see the government drifting recklessly along, it is our duty to warn them of the approaching storm so that by cutting down their expenditure, and by judicious admiuistratiou, they may fortify the country against commercial disaster. In accordance with my usual custom, I will not trespass long upon the patience of the House, but will content myself with these remarks, seeing that the subject has been so thoroughly threshed out.
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 20, 1901.