1902-03-20

Mr.   N.@: CHAMPAGNE (Wright) moved that the third report of the Select Standing Committee appointed to supervise the official report of the debates of this House be now concurred in.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I would remind the hon. gentleman that objection was taken lately in this House to motions to concur in reports being made on the same day that the reports were presented ; and it was thought advisable in future that a notice of motion
to concur should be given previously, and the motion could be made later on. The hon. gentleman, therefore, will understand that a notice of motion would he more in accordance with the rules.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 59) respecting the Ontario James Bay Railway Company.-Mr. McCormick.
Bill (No. 60) to amend the Canada Temperance Act and Acts in amendment thereof.- Mr. Flint.
Bill (No. 61) to amend the Criminal Code, 1892-Mr. McCarthy.


Mr. ALCORN asked :: For what retson is the opening of the public buildings at Picton delayed, as to the post office, as to the custom-house ?
When will the same, respectively, be opened to the public ?
Is a residence for the collector of customs to he provided in said buildings ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: In the absence of tlie Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) I would say that the building is now completed and the Post Office and Customs Departments have been notified.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Minister of Finance (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 he granted to His Majesty ; and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
['I suppose that is the way we all feel about these matters. The theory was very beautiful and the idea very grand; the whole thing was very pleasant to observe, but it is like these waters which are sparkling and clear to look on, but bitter when you swallow them. The trade preference with Great Britain, beautiful as it is on the outside, is beginning to pinch us hard, and we would like to get rid of it. However, I believe that to be an impossibility, and injudicious, and unwise at the present time. But I do contend, that the disadvantages should be met by the Finance Minister coming down with an extra measure of protection; a judicious addition to the protection that we now have, so as to bring it up to such a level that we can fairly compete in our own market for our own trade. We certainly cannot expect to compete with England abroad. I think if that were done, the people of this country would be contented. Probably my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Edwards) would not be contented, but I believe that a great majority of the people of this country would be. At any rate, if the government adopted this suggestion, it would be doing what is fair and right and just, and the government need never be ashamed of having done that.\nMr. RALPH SMITH (Vancouver), moved the adjournment of the debate.']
Mr. RICHARD BLAIN (Peel).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer a few observations on the question that is now before the House for consideration. In the first place, I wish to allude to the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) questioned some of the figures that were quoted in this debate by the leader of the opposition. When the hon. leader of the opposition was speaking, he was interrupted by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce :
I would like to know from my hon. friend what are those 'official statistics.'


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: The Year-book.



[Stage Direction]
I am sorry for my hon. friend if that is all the authority he has to adduce.
[Stage Direction]
Now when I heard that statement, Mr. Speaker, I thought it was a strange statement to come from an hon. Minister of .he Crown. I hold here the Year-hook, and 1 remember well that during the last session of parliament there was considerable discussion over an item that was placed in the estimates for the printing and circulating of this book. I wish to quote what the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) said in that discussion over this item :
This book is compiled from depart mental reports, which are generally ready for the public within six months after the termination of the year.
I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that if this book is to be of any value to the public, If it was right for parliament last, year to vote not only the sum of $3,000, but to increase the sum to $4,000, on the request of the Minister of Agriculture, for the production of this book, then I say we have a right to find in this book some information that any hon. gentleman can quote on the floor of this House. If this book is of no value to the parliament and to the ratepayers of Canada, then it is the duty, not only of the government but of this parliament, to strike out of the estimates that $4,000 a year, and discontinue the production of this book altogether. Now let us see if we can verify the statements made by the Minister of Finance from this Year-book. During this de bate the hon. Minister of Finance stated, page 1341, ' Hansard,' that the net debt of the Dominion of Canada in 1890 was $258,497,432.77. I turn to the Year-book to And out whether the statement of the Minister of Finance is correct, and I find in that book a statement of the debt of 1898 in exactly the same figure as quoted by the Minister of Finance. I continue for the years 1897, 1898,1S99, and 1900, and a comparison shows that the figures the Minister of Finance quoted on the floor of the House in this debate were also taken from the Year-book. Therefore, I say it is not proper for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to stand up on the floor of this House and cast any reflection on the figures quoted by the leader of the opposition. Non' it is generally conceded, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to have a good government it is important that we should have a good opposition in the House. I wish to read just one statement from the leader of the opposition, made in his closing remarks on this question :
We want .i policy of protection to cur labour, agriculturing, manufacturing an! other industries. We want a policy which will give to our people the advantage in their own market-a policy of Canada for the Canadians and Canada for Canadians means not the less, Canada for the empire as well.
While the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce was willing to make the statement that it was the same old policy of the Liberal Conservative party, as a new mem-
Richard Blain: ber, coming into the House for the first time, and as a Canadian, I am proud to say that the policy of the Liberal Conservative party as enunciated by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) in this House, is the policy of the forefathers of this country. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Iiichard Cartwright) ventured to lay upon the Table of the House, and the Table is now covered with them, returns in respect to the census ten years old. Away back in 1891 he made a very long reference to the census returns. I would like to lay on the Table also another statement which is a little more up to date for the consideration of the government and particularly for the consideration of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. Whatever discussion and public opinion there may be as to the correct taking of the census in 1891, I would remind that hon. gentleman, and I do it with no pleasure, because the Liberal Conservative party do not wish to state upon the floor of this House with any measure of gratitude that the population of this country is decreasing, and although there is a great deal said upon the other side of the House as to the splendid prosperity that the people of Canada are enjoying, as I have said, I would remind him that the census taken last year proves that the population, at least, in many of the central counties of Ontario, is fast decreasing. Let me give the hon. gentleman his own riding of South Oxford. It had a population in 1891 of 22,421. Under this wonderful prosperity that we have had for five years under this new government, the population has gone down until last year it was 21,797, or a loss of 624 of the population of the county that the hon. gentleman represents himself. Then, North Oxford, the riding which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) represents, has lost in population in 10 years 773 souls. South Ontario has lost-I will not weary the House with the figures. Halton has lost in population 2,409, Lennox 1,478, East Lambton 1,221, Kingston, the old city where the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce resides, 1,220, West Huron 1.243, South Huron 1,722, East Huron 1,599, North Lanark 1,086, West Lambton 1,427, Peel county 1,780, South Perth 1,523, Centre Wellington 2.824. North Wellington 1,156, North York, lying alongside of the great city of Toronto 1,497, Prince Edward county 1,025, making in all of these central counties a loss from 1891 down to 1901 of 28,469. That would be a document also to be laid on the Table that would be a little more up to date and would be worth the consideration of hon. gentlemen who are talking so much about the prosperity of this country.
But, now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say that the Liberal Conservative party are just as anxious as the great Liberal party of

this country that Canada should he prosperous. In the county I have the honour to represent we have been contributing to the prosperity of Canada like other counties. If we have a large measure of prosperity, as I think we have at the present moment, I wish to say that in that county, in the town of Brampton, Ont., we have the largest cut flower business in the Dominion of Canada, and the third largest on the continent of America known as the Dale Estate. The present manager being Mr. T. W. Duggan. That business has now fifty greenhouses with 300,000 square feet of glass, covering 71 acres. The largest houses are 840 feet long, and tne firm are now erecting 21 new houses. When these are completed at the close of this year, there will be 70 greenhouses, covering about 10 acres of land, and having a total area of glass of 400,000 square feet. This institution is three times larger than the next largest in Canada, which is Dunlop's, of the city of Toronto, and the firm employ from 50 to 70 hands, all men who are paid large wages. The output consists of roses, carnations, violets, chrysanthemums and smilax, and a portion of it is exported from the country to the cities of Chicago, Detroit, Rochester, New York and other large centres of the United States. The gentleman who inaugurated this great institution, Mr. Harry Dale, some twenty years ago, saw a future for Canada, and although he was cut off in the very midst of the development of this rose and cut flower industry, it is still growing, and I am delighted to be able to say that last year the output of cut flowers from that institution was $05,000 and that 90 per cent of that $05,000 was sent to the different centres and cities throughout the Dominion of Canada. So that the old story that Canada is the land of snows must be set aside because we are fast becoming a land of roses and cut flowers.
There has been a great deal of talk in this House and in the country in respect to the national debt. I wish to make a brief statement in respect to this question. The national debt stands to-day at $268,480,000, leaving out the odd cents. That leaves a net debt upon every man, woman and child in Canada of $50. We are paying, or we did pay last year, in interest upon this enormous debt, $10,800,000. What does that mean? It means that there is due out of the treasury of this country at the close of each day $29,250 to pay the interest upon this enormous national debt. That means that every hour that we are sitting here and every hour from the commencement of the year until the close of the year, including Sundays, there is due out of the treasury of Canada $1,218 to pay the interest on the national debt. Whatever may be in the reports and statements made by hon. gentlemen on the floor of this House as to the prosperity of Canada, I say that it should
be a note of warning to us when we are paying over $10,000,000 simply for the interest upon this enormous national debt. We have had a great many statements from hon. gentlemen opposite about this great national debt and we had a great many promises from them when they were in opposition. Let me quote the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), page 709 ' Hansard ' of 1893, when these hon. gentlemen were in opposition. That hon. gentleman said :
Where is the statesmanship of these men who said that they could hold the expenditure to that amount, and have allowed it to increase until it has reached the enormous sum of $36,000,000 ?
Perhaps I ought to read it up to date, and let me read it to this hon. gentleman and. say to the hon. gentleman himself and the members of the cabinet: Where is the statesmanship of these men who said they could hold the expenditure to that amount, and have allowed it to increase until it has reached the enormous sum of not $36,000,000 a year, but in the neighbourhood of $55,000,000 a year ? I suppose that it is well we should remind the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) of some of his old promises in connection with that matter.
The members of the Reform party in this House are constantly making the statement here that the tariff is highly satisfactory, and as an evidence of that they point to the increase of revenue we are receiving, and to the great trade that is going on in the country. I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that so far as I am concerned my opinion is that the present tariff is not at all satisfactory to the people of Canada. Let me give a few examples to account for the faith that is in me in this respect. When the people of Canada wish to send wheat to the United States-and we grow more wheat than we can use in our own country- when we wish to send a bushel of wheat into the United States, we are met with "a duty of 25 cents a bushel, while the Canadian duty is only 12 cents a bushel if the American wants to send his wheat in here. On oats the American tariff is 15 cents a bushel and the Canadian tariff is only 10 cents a bushel. On barley the American tariff is 30 cents a bushel, while the Canadian tariff is only 30 per cent, or 12 cents per bushel. On pease the American tariff is 40 cents, while the Canadian tariff is only 10 cents a bushel. On hay the American tariff is $4 per ton, and the Canadian tariff $2 per ton. On apples the American tariff is 75 cents a barrel, and the Canadian tariff only 40 cents. On potatoes, the American tariff is 25 cents a bushel, and the Canadian tariff 15 cents per bushel. On beans, the American tariff is 45 cents per bushel, and the Canadian tariff 15 cents per bushel. On butter, the American tariff is 0 cents per pound, and the Canadian


Mr. BENNETT.: He is out now.


Richard Blain: 
William Humphrey Bennett: He is the cheapest and best.


Richard Blain: Yes, and I find that H. Bourassa, M.P., secretary, drew $2,200. I need not enumerate these expenses further only to say that they had tips to servants during this good-time commission amounting to $407; they had rooms rented at Washington and at Quebec for which they paid $1,314, and they had entertainments,

banquets, fishing trips, &c., which cost $2,656.58. Now, Mr. Speaker, if I am not correct in this statement, hon. gentlemen on the other side can very easily rise and correct me. So far as 1 can gather that was the only record that the commission presented to the people of Canada, and that is all the people of Canada get from the promises which the Liberals made that they would secure reciprocity for us.
And now what about the preferential tariff. In so far as I am concerned, I wish to say that the preferential tariff is not at all satisfactory to the people. The Minister of Finance, after the preferential tariff was placed on the statute-book stated in parliament, I quote from ' Hansard,' page 2469, year 1899 :
Let us not for a mommt suppose that our new tariff has not been of substantial advantage to the British manufacturer which he understands and appreciates	the imports
of British goods have not been so large as we had hoped for.
These are two statements made by the present Finance Minister, and I wish to say that I do not accord with these statements. I would rather have a Finance Minister of this country place on our statute-book a tariff, that instead of being of substantial advantage to the British manufacturer which he understands and appreciates, would be of substantial advantage to the people of Canada which they would understand and appreciate. That is the policy the people of Canada desire, as against the preferential tariff.
Now, it is said that some of the manufacturing establishments in Canada are prosperous, even under this tariff.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Richard Blain: Some hon. gentlemen say ' Hear, hear,' and that undoubtedly is true; but there are living examples of the injury this tariff has wrought at different points in Canada. We know that in the town of Cornwall two of Canada's leading gentlemen, Lord Strathcona and Lord Mountstephen, who have great means at their disposal, invested large amounts of money in a woollen manufacturing establishment. Why is that establishment closed up to-day ? Is it for the want of capital ? Not at all; because these gentlemen have given of their means to many other institutions in Canada. Is it because they have lost interest and faith in Canada ? Not a bit of it, because they are proud of Canada's present position and hopeful for its future. But they believe that it is of no use continuing to operate an establishment of that kind so long as the government of Canada keep on the statute-book a tariff that gives a preference to the British workman over the Canadian workman. That is the reason these gentlemen have discontinued operations in connection with that mill, for it cannot now be operated to pay.


Mr. COWAN.: How do you account for the fact that the woollen mill at Kingsville, which closed down under the old tariff, is now running night and day ?


Richard Blain: I am not at all familiar with that factory.
Mr.. COWAN. The Wigle-Brown factory.


Richard Blain: But I venture to say that if that institution is running to-day, it is because of the principles that have been imbedded in the history of Canada by the Liberal-Conservative party, and it may be that it will continue for a little while. But we have the testimony of the best business men of Canada, on both sides of politics, who have come to this government on deputations, session after session, and, although they have not made much impression on that government, even though the present Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has said that he is a protectionist up to the hilt, I understand that they have made some impression on some of their followers, if we may judge from statements which we have heard in this debate.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: The Kingsville factory is a gas machine.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is shut down while the member is away.


Richard Blain: Mr. Speaker, in the county of Peel we have three manufacturing establishments which are directly interested in the tariff as it now stands. One is a woollen manufacturing establishment that employs fifty hands. Almost every pound of the raw material which Mr. McMurchy, of Huttonville, uses in his factory, comes from the old country. Here is a sample of the raw material from New Zealand; here is another from Great Britain. In the main this raw material comes from 3,000 miles away. I ask this House, how can they expect that gentleman to continue his business when he is compelled to bring his raw material 3,000 miles across the water, and pay freight upon it, and when he is compelled to pay 25 per cent more for his labour than the manufacturer in the United Kingdom or in Germany ? When he has to bring all his machinery from Great Britain, and when the equipment of his factory costs almost double the equipment of a similar factory in Liverpool or Glasgow, how can it be expected that a man like Mr. McMurchy can develop his business under this tariff, which gives a preference to the British and German manufacturer ? We have also a tweed factory in the county of Peel, at Streetsville, owned and managed by Mr. Brodie, and the preferential tariff is altogether detrimental to that institution. If the preference in the tariff were done away with, that institution could enlarge and develop its business by supplying more of the goods used by the Canadian

people. We have a large boot and shoe establishment in the town of Brampton, the Williams Boot and Shoe Company, and I do not think it is fair to the proprietors of that establishment that in every town in Canada where they sell their goods, they are confronted with boots and shoes made in the United States by people who do not contribute one dollar to the [DOT] taxes of the Dominion of Canada. X hold that the tariff should be so arranged that every institution in this country which is manufacturing goods to be consumed by the Canadian people should have sufficient protection to keep out the same class of goods made in any foreign country; and I have no hesitation in saying that if that country should be England, the policy of Canada should be framed in the interest of the Canadian taxpayer as against people who are producing the same class of goods even in the old country under the same flag.
Now, I wish to refer to some other statements which have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. the . Deputy Speaker (Sir. Macdonald, Iluron), in 1898, as reported in ' Hansard ' at page 3399, said, speaking about the Intercolonial Railway :
We shall earn a much larger proportion ot money than before ; so much so that not only will we he able to pay $210,000 annually, but there will he a respectable surplus to place to the credit of the country.
Mr. Paterson, the present Minister of Customs, said in 1899, as reported in ' Hansard,' page 2G70 :
Here was a railway that cost this country over $50,000,000, and the policy of the Minister of Railways and Canals has succeeded in making this railway of greater use to the country, and has put it in a position to pay its own way. These are statements which these hon. gentlemen have made on the floor of this House. I shall now take up the record in order to see whether these predictions have turned out to be true or not. I find that last year this great railway, which was so extended by this government that it was going to pay its own way, had a deficit of .$488,180.77 on the running expenses, and there is also charged to capital account $3,652,313.40. That is the way these hon. gentlemen suppose that this railway is paying its way. At the investigation which is now going on before the Public Accounts Committee, it appeared that they have opened a new kind of account, which this House has never heard tell of before-a suspense account; and in that suspense account we find a large sum that ought to have been-charged up against the railway last year, so that it does not appear in last year's report as having been charged up at all. Therefore, I say that the predictions of our hon. friends in respect to the running of this railway have not been true predictions, and are not verified by the statement of the Minister of Railways and Canals.


Richard Blain: 


Mr. FLINT.: I would like to ask a question. Was the hon. gentleman not present in the Public Accounts Committee when the manager of the Intercolonial Railway said, under oath, that the suspense account was an old account and had been used on every occasion during the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It is not permitted to refer to anything that has occurred in a committee.


Richard Blain: Then we had a statement from the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) that if his party were returned to power they would so reduce the public expenditure as to effect a saving to the extent of $5,000,000 per annum. I am delighted to know that the hon. gentleman has undergone some conversion with respect to the tariff, and the people of Canada will still more rejoice if he will stand up like a man in the House and condemn this government for having increased our national expenditui'e and our national debt. I am quite sure that when he recalls the debate to which I have just referred, he must feel strongly impelled to condemn the extravagant expenditure of this government which had promised to be so economic.
Coming to the record of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) I find this statement made by him, as reported in ' Hansard ' page 1,333, in 1S82 :
Now it is quite true so long as we continue having this prosperity the mischief of this may not be so apparent, but even the hon. Minister of Finance will hardly venture to say, in view of cur own experience and the experience of the United States, in view of the experience in England, and every country that raises money at all in the rame way as we do ourselves, that he has any patent which will enable him to secure
a continuance of this prosperity for ever,-
That was the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) when in opposition, and when the Hon. Geo. E. Foster was Finance Minister. He went on to say.

Bradford, Oat., April 17, 1901. Hon. Sydney Fisher,
Ottawa.
Have received such document ; am making every effort to have it stamped out.
(Sgd.) CHARLES ELLIOT. Here is one from Algoma :
Fort William, Ont., April 16, 1901. Hon. Sydney Fisher,
Ottawa.
Have received schedules but did not give them to enumerators. No authority to do so.
(Sgd.) E. A. MORTON. The next one is from North Bruce :
Chesley, Ont., April 16, 1901. Hon. Sydney Fisher,
Ottawa.
1 have received the schedule you inquire about ; have made no use of them.
Here is a letter addressed to Mr. Bine, special commissioner of census, from Camp-bellford, and dated 17th April, 1901 :
Your telegram of to-day's date reached me too late to wire answer and I accordingly now write you. I have seen the schedule in the hands of some of the enumerators.
And here is one addressed to the commissioner of census from Bancroft, dated 22nd April, 1901 :
I way away when your telegram of 17th inst. came to Marmora asking if I had seen or- heard of alleged fraudulent schedule. I at once followed up the enumerators and found some of them had blank papers to fill in the names of males 16 years and upwards.
It was discovered by inquiry on the floor of this House that these documents were sent out by some person to the men in charge of the work of the census. I do not think that it will be alleged that the opposition in this House or the Liberal-Conservative party in Ontario caused these schedules to be sent to the officers, considering that these enumerators were asked to fill in the names of all male persons over sixteen years of age and return the schedules to the Reform nominee. 1 am of opinion that this government should have investigated that case ; they should have taken pains to find out who it was who sought to make use of the enumerators and of information gained by them in their official capacity to assist one political party against the other in connection with the revision of the voters' list.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up the time of the House with the discussion of other questions. X desire to say that I am heartily in accord with the resolution moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). We have a leader that the Liberal-Conservative party in this House and in this country are proud of. On this side of the House, you find no division. This government have the advantage of being criticised by an opposition that is not talking


Richard Blain: blue ruin, but is endeavouring to investigate public questions, and is giving its united influence for the promotion of wise legislation in this House. We are standing behind a leader selected by the party who is not only a credit to the members here but is a credit to the Conservative party in this country ; and I predict that in the very near future, he will cross over to the other side and be the Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada.	.


Mr. AULAY MORRISON (New Westminster).: Mr. Speaker, I shall not attempt to follow the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) in his arguments. If I were disposed to criticise his remarks, I should find it difficult indeed, considering his very gracious tribute to all of us yesterday in the distribution of the beautiful rose of Brampton. However, should I find it in my heart to criticise him, I should have ample opportunity. The first point on which he laid himself open was in having the temerity to begin with statistics of the census returns of 1891. If there was one topic which the hon. gentleman ought to have avoided this was that one. Admitting his premises in his reference to the speech of the hon. member for South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright), of course his conclusion would be inevitable. But the hon. member (Mr. Blain) began by assuming that the Statistical Year-book was a proper source to which to go to prove that the remarks made by the hon. member for South Oxford was misleading. Because, forsooth, a reference made by the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) was corroborated by the Year-book, therefore the reference made by the hon. member for South Oxford was erroneous. The hon. gentleman mis-tates the position of the hon. member for South Oxford-whose cause, however, I do not wish to champion. What that hon. gentleman said was that the Year-book was not a correct criterion, inasmuch as the census returns of 1891 were not correct. It is not evidence that the statement made by the hon. member for South Oxford was incorrect, that the Year-book is in accord with the statement made by the Minister of Finance. However, as I stated, I shall not attempt to follow the hon. member for Peel. I do not see what he or any gentleman on the other side has to complain about in regard to the condition of affairs in Canada to-day. I am sure that the prosperity which we now have and which we have had for the last five years does not require statistical demonstration. I do not think that the spectacle of the hon. member for Peel with the Year-book in one hand and ' Hansard ' in the other is enough to shut out from view the general prosperity of the country. The hon. gentleman may search all the statistical year-books in existence, and may read the speeches made by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House from the time of confederation, yet he will not succeed in

satisfying himself or the people that the country is not prosperous, or that, if the country is prosperous, the present administration is not to have some credit for that prosperity.
I am not one of those who think that the fiscal policy of any country is perfect, or that the tariff of any country is not subject to improvement. I will go so far as to say that there are some features in the present tariff which are not satisfactory to the people of the province from which I come, though the tariff is on the whole the most satisfactory the Dominion of Canada has ever had. But we are confident, in view of the history of the Liberal party since they have been in power, that they will go on from year to year improving the tariff; and we are confident that, upon the administration being satisfied that grievances exist, they will remedy those grievances. There is no use in frivolous criticism, or in harking back to what occurred ten, fifteen or twenty years ago. Let us face present conditions. I think if hon. gentlemen on both sides were to bear in mind that the administration of the country must be regarded as we would regard the administration of any large business concern, if they would bear in mind that the affairs of the country must be conducted upon sound business principles, a great deal of misunderstanding that appears to exist would be cleared away. I think the chief difference between the present administration and the one it succeeded lies in their business methods. We may, for campaign purposes and political effect, raise before the electorate the cry of Liberals and Conservatives, of free trade and protection; but at the same time, underlying free trade or protection, incidental protection or revenue protection, must be found sound business principles, call them by whatever name you please; and a government that departs from sound business principles is bound to mismanage the affairs of the country.
Now, X consider that tne great measure of prosperity that we enjoy, the fact that the present administration have taken advantage of an era of good times, is a proof that we have at the head of the administration men of business capacity, men who adhere to sound business principles, and who never lose sight of them. So long as we have men of that kind conducting the affairs of the country, we may be sure they will take all possible advantage of good times. In prosperous times they will make the most of the prosperity, and in times that are not prosperous, a judicious business administration will foster and husband the resources of the country, will adopt a policy of economy and frugality, will keep down expenditure, and will only construct those public works which are necessary and construct them as economically as possible. In times of great 48
prosperity such as we have now, I think it is quite proper for an administration to make large expenditures so long; as they can show some equivalent for such expenditures. It is no argument against any administration to say that the debt is very large, that the expenditure is growing, that it is much greater to-day than it was five years ago, or ten years ago. The question is :	Have we anything to show
in return ? That is the test, and I think the present administration have no fear of the application of such a test.
Now, I think that the first consideration of any administration is the welfare of the people. There is a very true expression in one of the letters of Junius, with which you doubtless are all familiar. He says that the ruin or prosperity of a state depends so much upon the administration of the government, that to be acquainted with the character of a ministry we have only to look to the condition of the people. If we find them obedient to the laws, prosperous in their industries, united at home and respected abroad, we may reasonably conclude that the affairs of the country are being conducted by men of experience, ability and virtue. That statement, I think, is as applicable to-day to the present administration as it could be applicable to the administration of any country. That Canadians are obedient to the laws goes without saying ; gentlemen on both sides of the House will cordially agree with that statement. Tnat the people of Canada are prosperous in their industries, we have abundance of evidence. That they have been prosperous in their industries since 1896, there is the most cogent evidence. We have only to refer to tne budget of the hon. Minister of Finance every year from 1897 down to the present time. The characteristic of that deliverance has been a display of surpluses, in striking contrast with the budget speeches delivered prior to 1896. We have this year, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance, a surplus of $5,800,000. What does that mean ? It's elementary meaning is that our revenue has exceeded our expenditure by that amount; and applying the test as you would to any ordinary business concern, is that not a most satisfactory showing ? All the people of Canada require to know, I think is that the current revenue for the fiscal year ending June, was $56,800,000, and that the estimated expenditure for the same time was $51,000,000, in round numbers, leaving, as I said, a surplus of $5,800,000. That is evidence of prosperity, it is evidence of a proper handling of the affairs of the country during that year.
As a further evidence of the prosperity of the country, we find its various resources make a satisfactory showing. The products of the mines, the fisheries, the forest, the farm, amount to a very large figure



indeed. We find that the value of the fisheries in Canada to-day exceeds $24,000,000; we find that the value of the minerals tills last fiscal year leaped up to the enormous sum of over $69,000,000; we find that the lumber and forest industries exceeded in value $80,000,000 ; while that great industry, that great source of wealth to the people of Canada, the agricultural industry, exceeded the almost incalculable sum of $600,000,000. Now those are some of the assets of the country with which the present administration has been dealing since 1896, and in the handling of which they have made the very satisfactory showing to which the Minister of Finance referred in his address.
Now I do not wish to dwell at any length upon the general fiscal policy of the country. It is indeed a difficult matter foy one to deal with that subject after the able addresses we have had from the Minister of Finance, the leader of the opposition, the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and the member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier); and in view of their exhaustive treatment of the subject, it is scarcely necessary for me to go into a general discussion of the trade question.
I shall presume, for a short time, to say something in reference to the province from which X come, the western province of British Columbia, and refer to one or two aspects of the tariff which are not satisfactory to the people of that province. As has often been said to the public and to this administration as well as to preceding ones, the province of British Columbia contributes three times as much per capita in the way of customs and other revenue as do the "people of the rest of the Dominion of Canada. The people of British Columbia have to pay a great deal more than this to their fellow-citizens in the east in the way of the increased cost of staple goods, which except for the tariff, the people of British Columbia would be able to get very much cheaper from the American side. Now, hon. gentlemen opposite can get no consolation from any criticism by any lion, gentleman on this side of the House of the tariff as it is applicable to British Columbia. These grievances existed under the old regime as they exist today. We have, for instance, merchants in British Columbia, and lion, gentlemen on the other side of the House will be able to corroborate what I say, who have reason to complain of some of the existing tariff rates in regard to staple articles. Merchants there complain, we will say, of the tariff in regard to the staple article of preserves. There is a specific duty of 24 cents a pound imposed upon canned fruit, and 31 cents per pound on jellies, jams and preserves. which amounts, in some instances, to 100 per cent upon the value of California goods of the same quality. We find in the matter of lumber, one of the great indus-


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: mnlly runs back to tlie time of Confederation. These gentlemen opposite are satisfied with the present tariff apparently, because they say it is theirs, and we seem to be quite satisfied because we have made little or no alteration, and particularly none at all this year.
Now, Sir, we in British Columbia have loyally accepted the tariff as we find it. I am drawing attention to these features of it in a friendly way and as a culmination of the many overtures made to the government in respect thereto by delegations and by private representations. "We in British Columbia have submitted to this tariff which imposes very substantial taxation upon us in respect to what we consider staple articles, and which taxation is a burden upon us for the advantages of our fellow citizens in the east. I refer to the high percentage per capita which we in British Columbia are contributing in the way of customs and revenue duties. Whether intentionally ox-otherwise, the people of British Columbia are made to contribute very substantially by having themselves taxed in this way for the advantage of the people in Eastern Canada, and it is nothing but reasonable that we should ask that in respect to those items of production in British Columbia which are susceptible of being benefited by a tariff rearrangement, it is nothing but reasonable that we should ask that these productions of British Columbia should at least be put on an equal footing in the tariff, with those articles which we are obliged to buy in the east. Put us on an equal footing in the tariff, with, at all events, the people on the American side of the line. For instance, if the duty upon bricks is to remain at twenty per cent and upon grindstones at twenty-five per cent, and upon drain pipes at thirty-five per cent, and upon plumbago and asbestos at twenty-five per cent; there is no reason why the duty upon pig lead should not be twenty pr twenty-five per cent. If the duty upon ochers which are mere earth dug out of the ground, is to stand at twenty per cent ; if the duty upon oxides and siennas is to be twenty-five per cent; if the duty upon fire proof paint dry, wlxiclx is an iron paint, is to stand at twenty-five per cent, and if the duty on linseed oil with which the paint is mixed is to stand at twenty-five per cent; then we can see no reason why the duty on dry white lead should remain at five per cent, and should not be raised to twenty-five or thirty per cent. Is there anything unreasonable in making this demand ?


Mr. CLANCY.: The reason is, if the hon. gentleman will permit me-


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: I do not want my hon. friend's explanation at the present moment. No doubt it is very interesting.


James Clancy: I suppose you know what it is.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: 


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: I do not see why the government of the present day, and the Conservative government of the past as well, did not di-op on to that apparent injustice to an industry which shoxxld-be a very important industry in this country. I, in the best spirit, insist on the government taking this matter into consideration. I know that with such a vast country as we have, and in view of the multiplicity of things which the administration has to consider, the chances are that a matter of this kind which might be looked upon as somewhat insignificant, may be overlooked. But Sir, to the people of the Kootenays this is a vei-y serious matter indeed.
Take for instance the condition of silver mining in British Columbia. We have in the Slocan and in the East Kootenay, a silver deposit district that is unparalleled in the world. During the short time that this minex-al has been developed and exploited, we have a mine which has only been exceeded in its output on the whole American continent by another mine in Idaho. That is saying a good deal. That Canadian mine is idle to-day. What is the reason ? Do you blame the people out there for saying that it is in consequence of this tariff discx-imination. Take for instance the other mines such as the North Star and the Sullivan mines, and notwithstanding that they have at their doors smelters like those at Nelson and Traill, yet they are lying idle. The only mines that are working are the high-grade mines, and they have great difficulty indeed in keeping going, owing to the present very low price of silver something like fifty-five cents per ounce. I think this is a matter to which the government should give its immediate and most serious consideration. I must admit that there has been no want of representation on the part of the people who are most interested ih this matter ; and I trust that at this time next year, when the hon. Minister of Finance makes his budget speech, it will be as satisfactox-y in respect to other matters as it has been this year, and that, in respect to the matter I have referred to, it will be eminently satisfactory to the people of British Columbia.
To further illustrate the humiliation that must be felt by every Canadian when he looks ixxto this aspect of the tariff, I may say that notwithstanding the fact that the smelters at Nelson and Tx-ail have given to their customers a rate of fi-eight and treatment more favourable by from $2 to $6 per ton than is given to the Coeur d'AlSne miners by the Institutions on the American side, yet the mines to which I have referred are px-actically idle-it is hard to say what the reason may be. Bxxt the American Lead Tx-ust ignores the British Columbia ore. It will show you the discrepancy there is between the rates on the two sides, to show you that although it would pay the Americans to take the Can-

adian ore, yet they will not do it, and are succeeding in stifling a great industry in British Columbia ; and the government seem to shut their eyes to the fact. Take some of the items in the taritt' of the United States, and compare them with similar items in our tariff. Pig lead we tax at 15 per cent ; in the United States it pays 2J cents per pound, or something like 60 per cent. Bar and sheet lead pays 25 per cent in Canada ; in the United states it pays 21 cents per pound, or about 70 per cent. Dry white lead in Canada pays 5 per cent; in the United States it pays 2J cents per pound, or 60 per cent. Mixed paint in Canada pays 25 per cent ; in the United States it pays 5 cents per pound. Lead ore comes into Canada free ; in the United States it pays 11 cents per pound. Under the operation of this tariff the American Lead Trust are able to pay and are at the present time paying their miners in the Coeur d'Alene camps something like $3.50 per 100 pounds for the lead contents of their ore, and they maintain the price in the New York market uniformly at something like $4.15 per 10p pounds. That is to say, the Slocan miner only gets $1.46 per 100 pounds for his lead, as against $3.50 which the American miner gets. So great is the discrepancy that the American Lead Trust could afford to pay the duty of 11 cents per pound, and yet pay to the British Columbia miner more than he is getting at the present time. Whether it is from loyalty to the United States or hatred to Canada, the American Lead Trust ignore the British Columbia ore, and refuse even to give quotations. They say : ' We do not want to treat with you or deal with you in any way.' In other words, they are absolutely stifling that important industry in British Columbia.
Now, 1 do not say that the full control of our own market would absolutely remedy this evil ; but 1 do say that of the 28,000 tons which were produced last year, if even half had been treated in this country, and the money spent here instead of sending it abroad to England, Germany and other countries, the condition would be eminently more satisfactory than it is. We have satisfactory railway and smelting facilities ; but the people of British Columbia think that owing to this defect in the tariff, this industry has suffered'to the extent I have pointed out. On the other hand, owing to the action of the government in granting a very substantial bounty last year, a refinery is now being built at Trail, and before the present year is over, refined lead will be there treated, it is estimated, at the rate of 18,000 tons per annum. Before this bounty was paid, it was the custom to ship abroad the bullion for treatment at American refineries. This question of lead is a very serious one indeed, and I hope the government will give it their immediate attention.
We have in British Columbia another grievance ; and the remarks I now make
have reference to the prosperity of the people of Canada as a whole. During the last 5 or 6 years our people have been particularly prosperous in many industries. That they are united in sentiment is as palpable as that they are obedient to the laws. I need only refer to the settlement of the Manitoba school question. If there is one thing that tended to unite the people of Canada, it was the settlement of that matter by the present administration. There are other directions in which the government might go to give an earnest of their desire to have the people of different portions of this country still further united. There is a danger on the Pacific coast of a difficulty arising in respect to Chinese and Japanese immigration, and I think that danger is menacing and imminent. In fact, the government considered the matter of such importance that last year at the instigation of my hon. friend from Burrard (Mr. Maxwell), myself, and other members from British Columbia, a commission was appointed to investigate the question of Chinese and Japanese immigration into Canada. That commission was appointed early in the year, and very shortly afterwards it proceeded to take evidence on the Pacific coast. That commission visited California, and only the other day made their report. That report is very voluminous, but unfortunately has not yet been published. It has, however, been handed in to the government, and I have had the opportunity of glancing through it. Of course, until it is published and distributed hon. gentlemen will not have that opportunity of discussing it, which I trust they will have this session, and which will be necessary in order to do the matter full justice. However, I may say that sufficient is known by the government and the people most immediately interested to justify the administration in taking immediate steps to cary out the findings of that commission. As far as I could see, there is not one word of information within the covers of that report, which every member, who has ever been returned to this House from the province of British Columbia, has not put before the government at one time or another. The report is simply a reiteration of the old story, and, unlike that made by hon. gentlemen opposite, decides emphatically and unmistakably against the continuance of Oriental immigration. The commissioners have reported that a tax of at least $500 per head should be imposed on every Mongolian coming into this country.
Some 131 witnesses were called. Out of that number 77 were for exclusion and restriction. Only 6 were in favour of unrestricted immigration. The balance were distributed between those in favour of the status quo, in favour of not allowing any more in but not interfering with those who are here, and those in favour of ridding this country of that immigration altogether.

Every line of tlie evidence, with the exception of the six witnesses I have referred to, goes to justify the administration in bringing down legislation in accord with recommendations made in that report.
The commissioners have the advantage of evidence taken on the American side as well, and there the same story is told. In fact I cannot conceive what argument can be presented against the findings of that report. Some gentlemen will "say that there is a trade argument to be considered. They will plead that inasmuch as Canada bonuses* steamships, such as the splendid ' Empress ' boats, to develop trade between Canada and the Orient, we ought not to embroil ourselves with China by this policy of exclusion. But I would ask those gentlemen to remember that the United States passed an exclusion Act and that this year they have extended the scope of that Act, and yet in spite of that hostile legislation, their trade with China has increased. On the other hand, while Chinese immigration is comparatively unrestricted in Canada, while we have no Exclusion Act, our trade with China has decreased. In the United States the Increase of trade with China amounted to $22,000,000 from 1891 to 1900, whereas in the same period the trade of Canada witli China decreased from $1,9)0,000 in 1890 to $800,000 in 1900. So that there is really nothing in that trade argument.
It may be said, however, that it is necessary to have Chinamen in Canada and British Columbia, because there are large trncts of waste land which must be reclaimed, and in the reclaiming of which these Chinamen will do the same good service that they did in California. But there is no analogy in that respect between California and British Columbia. In California there were vast swamps of uncultivated land known as tule lands, and owing to the rush of the whites to the mines and the consequent scarcity of white labour, these Chinamen were serviceable in reclaiming these swamp lands. But no conditions of the kind exist in British Columbia. That province comprises some 300,000,000 acres of land. True many of those acres are mountains, but out of that quantity there must be, at the very lowest estimate, 10,000,000 to 20,000,000 acres of arable land, which we want to keep for white people, and not for Chinamen or Japanese. We do not require coolie labour to make these lands fit for the plough, because there is no better soil under the sun. Although not as extensive as the prairies of Manitoba and the North-west, let me tell you that our arable lands per acre can grow a much larger quantity of wheat than can the soil of Manitoba or the territories. These lands of British Columbia will produce something like 62 bushels to the acre. They will give 99 bushels of oats per acre, and 3i to five tons of hay. That is a showing which no other Mr. MORRISON.
lands in the Dominion can make, and we have 10,000,000 or 20,000,000, acres of such lands waiting for people to come in and cultivate them. For such lands as these, we have no need for coolie labour, but desire to preserve that earthly paradise for the people of our own race and blood. Statisticians tell us that an individual can sustain life upon three acres, without the proverbial cow, so that we have space enough for the sustenance of a prosperous community of 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 white people ; and we want our government to assist us in bringing those people in and in excluding yellow labour. I do not see why the government will not exert themselves, as they have exerted themselves on behalf of Manitoba and the North-west, in bringing proper immigrants into British Columbia. We have a salubrious climate, and we have fruitful soil. Then-another condition to be considered- we have an advantageous position in regard to exports. To show how productive and prosperous that province is notwithstanding the small population, and notwithstanding what might be called adverse circumstances, I may say that we stand as the third province in our volume of exports; in the Dominion. Our exports for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1901, were $21,648,000. Our imports amounted to $11,137,000. Our entries for consumption amounted to about $10,000,000. Of course, this does not represent all the imports for consumption into British Columbia, because great quantities of goods are consumed there that are imported from other provinces. The amount of duty collected on imports into British Columbia direct was $2,358,842. The other Dominion revenues from British Columbia make the total Dominion revenue from that province $2,530,000. Thus we are not only third in exports, but we are third in the amount of duty paid in imports and third in the amount of revenue. That is some ground for our coming here and asking this government to give us assistance in every way in which we can reasonably ask for assistance.
I trust that, when the report to which I have referred is distributed amongst hon. members, they will weigh carefully the evidence that appears there. And if, at present, they have any deep-rooted opinion that Oriental labour is necessary in British Columbia and in Canada, I am sure that that evidence will show them their mistake, and will convince them that steps should be taken at once to remedy evil under which that province exists. As I have said, I regret very much that I have not had time or opportunity to go through the report in order that I might present such an account of its contents as I should like to do, that I might convince hon. members of the truth of my statement that the finding of that commission is one upon which action, should be taken by the government. In

that commission's report, there is some very valuable material collected from reports made by United States commissions to investigate this question of Chinese immigration. There is one report, that of the commission which was appointed in 1878, which puts the ease in favour of the exclusion of the Chinese in very succinct and unmistakable and incontestable form indeed. I crave leave to refer to it and read a few extracts. It is a very ably prepared report, and I wish to spread out part of it on ' Hansard ' so that those who take an interest in this matter may read it:
1.	That the presence of the Chinese has had a tendency to degrade and dishonour labour.
2.	Their personal habits, peculiar institutions, and lax morals render them undesirable members of society.
3.	They cannot and will not assimilate with our people, but remain unalterably aliens in habits, morals, politics and aspirations.
The principal facts upon which these three propositions rest will be briefly considered :
1.	The Chinese labourer, in some respects is desirable. He is frugal, thrifty, patient, cheerful and obedient. He readily learns his trade and expertly performs any species of light work. Chinese cheap labour has worked great national benefit to California in its early history, digging its canals, delving in its mines, reclaiming its tule-lands, building its railroads, and in various other ways contributing to the rapid development of its wonderful natural resources. If, therefore, money-making were the only question involved in this contest between the American and Chinese races, it would, in its industrial or labour phase, be promptly decided in favour of the latter. The material advantages of this kind of labour, however, sink into insignificance when compared with the personal considerations at stake-the comfort, the self-respect and decent, honourable living of the labourer himself.
The Chinese labourer does not come up to the American standard of industry. The central idea of our system is that the labourer shall possess courage, self-respect and independence. To do this he must have a home. Home is the mold in which society is cast. There the habits are formed which give character. There the zest and wakeful interest of living center. There the fires of patriotism are kindled. There free institutions And their source and inspiration.
The Chinese who come to this country have no homes. They have neither home feelings nor home interests in any true acceptation of the words. With the conditions of their mode of life they never can have homes. They are willing to work for less wages than will secure homes or comfortably support white labour. In their own country they work patiently and obediently during twelve or thirteen hours for less than one-tenth of what the poorest class of white workingmen receive. In the Pacific states they are willing to work for about one-half the price paid to American operatives. They are able to live upon rice, tea and dried fish, costing upon an average from 20 to SO cents a day. Underclothing is a luxury almost unknown to them. What clothing they wear is of the cheapest, simplest and coarsest character. They bring with them neither wives, families nor children. One hundred Chinese will
occupy a room which, if subdivided, would not accommodate five American workingmen with their families. In such a small space they are packed like sardines in a box, and here they both sleep, eat and cook. Such a place does not deserve the name of home. No tender and loving interests cluster around it, and dull habit alone endears it to them. As enlightened statesmanship would suggest that no material advantages, however great, arising from Chinese frugality and industry, can compensate for the loss of the homes, the comforts and the appliances of personal civilization which have always been enjoyed by the labouring classes of America, and from which springs that spirit of self-respect and manly independence which is the highest result and best security of our political system.
2.	Another and more serious objection urged against the Chinese is that their personal and moral habits make them undesirable members of society. The crowded condition in which they live renders the observance of hygienic laws and sanitary regulations almost an impossibility. Neatness and cleanliness is the exception. The air of their apartments is filled with noisome smells and pestilential vapours, threatening disease and death. Property occupied by them is consequently lessened In value and the locality itself is avoided by the white population.
Not only their personal habits, but their moral idea, methods and institutions directly anl agonize our own. What we love, they hate ; what we admire, they despise ; what we regard as vices they practice as virtues or tolerate as necessities.
The religious ideas even of the higher and titled classes in China are pre-eminently wretched ; their superstitions numerous and ludicrous, their educational system exceedingly defective, and their civilization effete and decaying. Among the labouring or ' coolie ' classes the grade of morals is very low. One illustration of this is seen in their treatment of woman. Her birth is commonly regarded as a calamity. If not destroyed, which is not unusual, she is regarded as a slave and suffers privation, contempt and degradation from the cradle to the tomb. Instances are frequent of the sale for debt by parents of their daughters, and by husbands of their wives, and that too for the worst purposes. Infanticide of girls is practiced to some degree, in all parts of the empire, and in some sections to an alarming extent. Concubinage is a recognized institution. The sanctity and obligation of an oath are disregarded, and the torture is often employed to extort the truth.
Such are some of the characteristics of the class from which nine-tenths of our immigrants come. Respectable persons are deterred both by law and prejudice, and as a rule, only the most indigent and desperate consent to leave their native country. The female immigrants are bought and sold like chattels and practice the most revolting vices and immorality. Born and brought up under these heathenish influences, with these low ideas of law and virtue, coming to our country for the sole purpose of making money, without homes and families without domestic affections or interests ; with no high incitements to duty or strong dis-suasives from wrong doing ; with no adequate sense of special obligation ; with no property to pay a fine and with no fear of imprisonment since it brings no greater discomfort or con-

finement than his usual mode of life ; with blunted or erroneous perceptions, grovelling thoughts, gross passions, parsimonious and degrading habits, the Chinaman in America cannot be considered a desirable member of society either from a physical or moral standpoint.
3.	The third and principal objection, however, to the Chinese is the fact that they do not assimilate with our people, but remain a distinct and alien element. In this respect they differ from all other voluntary immigrants. The German, the Irishman, the Frenchman, have sought our country as a permanent home for themselves and their posterity. Promptly and cheerfully adopting our habits, customs, and political institutions, devoted to our people, to our government and the laws, they speedily become our worthiest and thriftiest citizens, vindicating in the council chambers of the nation their knowledge of our political principles, and illustrating upon every battlefield where liberty has been attacked the patriotism which such knowledge inspires.
It is not so with the Chinese. They have been in this country over a quarter of a century. Their employment as house-servants and labourers has brought them into close and immediate contact with our people, but no change in them has been produced. What they were when they came here they are to-day-the same in dress, the same in disposition, the same in language, the same in religion, the same in political feeling. They indicate no desire, either by word or action, to become identified with us. They came to us not because they were dissatisfied with the social or political institutions of their own country, but because they believed they could better their condition in life. To make money was their sole object. When they have accomplished this they do not invest their earnings in land or homesteads, but return with them to their native China. They come with no desire or purpose to make this their permanent home. So strong is their feeling in this respect that the poorest labourers stipulate, as a part of the contract by which they sell their services, that their dead bodies shall be carried back to" China, and thousands have been thus exported. They have no conception of our judicial or legislative system. They cannot be relied on to perform military duty. They are incompetent as jurymen. Indeed, the only purpose in society for which they are available is to perform manual labour. They bring with them neither wives nor families, nor do they intermarry with the resident population. They have an inferior intelligence and a different civilization from our own. Mentally, morally, physically, socially and politically they have remained a distinct and antagonistic race.
Nor, in view of their strong national prejudices, is there any hope that the future will be different. Instances are numerous where an inferior race has been absorbed and improved by a superior one, but the condition precedent to such a result is the acknowledgment on the part of the lower race of such inferiority. Nations, as well as individuals, must conclude that they need help before th"y are willing to ask or receive it. The Chinese have not, and never will, come to such a conclusion. Their inordinate vanity leads them to believe their country to be the centre of the territorial system, and they therefore call it the ' midland or central nation.'	1


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: They boast a civilization which antedates the birth of Christ ; they point with pride to a philosopher, Confucius, whose maxims, as the perfection of wisdom, have become their code of laws. They obey a government which, in their faith, is heaven-descended-an absolute despotism, vast, awful and impressive, whose tremendous and mysterious power regulates their lives or decrees their death, and under which liberty is an unknown idea.
Thus intrenched behind national prejudices, they are impregnable against all influences, and remain a great, united class, distinct from us in colour, in size, in feature, in dress, in language, in customs, in habits, and in social peculiarities. A nation to be strong must be homogeneous. All the elements that attach themselves to its society should be assimilated rapidly into one harmonious and congruous whole. It is neither possible nor desirable for two distinct races to live harmoniously in the same society and under the same government. It this single proposition be true, the conclusion is sound that Chinese immigration should be restricted or prohibited. This conclusion, however, is strengthened by the facts already stated, showing its evil effects upon the industrial and social interests of our people.
Notv, Sir. Speaker, that is the very able presentation made by this commission in 1878. The presentation made by the commission, which was handed down the other day, is equally strong, in fact, being more recent evidence, it is stronger than the previous presentation. Some people say : You must allow these Chinamen and Japanese into the country and treat them as the people of the United States treat the negroes. There is no analogy in the world between the negro question and the Chinese and Japanese question; there is no analogy inasmuch as the negroes were not a civilized people. They were not a civilized people when they were taken hold of. The first civilization they knew was the Christian civilization, and they submitted to it, and became incorporated in the body politic of the United States, or of any other Christian country to which they may have gone. That statement applies to any other savage nation; but the Chinese are an old civilized nation, they boast of an older civilization than our own. They have the idea ingrained in them that they are a superior people; and anybody who knows anything about a Chinaman is aware that a Chinaman looks with the utmost contempt, in nine cases out of ten, upon white people. They look with unconcealed contempt upon white women, and would show that contempt in i arious ways were they not in fear of chastisement from white men. So the case of the Chinaman is totally different from that of the negro. Some entertain the hope that in receiving the Chinaman and treating them well, we would be much mire likely to engraft them upon our Christian civilization. Such a thing in my opinion is absolutely impossible; and I make the statement which may appear heterodox, and which I dislike to make very much indeed, that I do not think there is any chance of

ever Christianizing a Chinaman whilst he holds the opinion that his religion is superior to the Christian religion. He will pretend that he is a Christian, because he is brainy enough and astute enough to know that he can thereby advance his own interests, and he knows that he is better off in a Christian country. In fact, I do not know of one argument that can be advanced in favour of Chinese immigration. However, the present administration, which has by its policy succeeded in uniting the people at home, I know will go a step further, and make our population more homogeneous by giving us relief against this Chinese onslaught upon the nation, a relief which the people of British Columbia so much desire.
The policy of the government in respect to labour questions is inconsistent with any policy admitting Chinese immigration. How can the government reconcile the labour policy of the Postmaster General with the policy of admitting these Oriental hordes ? Of what avail is his ' Labour Gazette,' and his Labour Department, and his machinerv for inaugurating and carrying out labour legislation, if, on the other hand, he permits such an anomaly in our political economy to remain as the existence of such an antagonistic element as the Chinese and Japanese ? A government which has passed legislation in favour of labour, such as we have had, a government which has done away with the sweating system which grew tip under the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite, a government which has done away with long hours and unsanitary conditions, a government that has inaugurated a system of current wages and has introduced a fair-wage clause in government contracts, a government that has adopted the policy of giving government work to Canadians, that has introduced the conciliation and arbitration principles into their platform, that has made provision for the safety of the labouring man in mines and on railways-surely a government that has done all these things cannot, consistently with their past and present policy, allow this Chinese and Oriental immigration into the country. We must, Mr. Speaker, perpetuate government by the people and for the people, and we cannot do that if we allow Chinese and Oriental immigration. M e cannot do that if we allow an element which will destroy our political economy to become established in this country. The government must be an example in every way. It must be an exemplary employer, and I am sure that the government would not for one moment consider the advisability of allowing Chinamen to be employed upon its works, and if it does not allow Chinamen to be employed upon its wcrks, why does it encourage the employment of Chinamen in the industries of the country ? It is an absolute inconsistency, and I am quite sure the government will not do so. A Liberal government must preserve the
government and resources of Canada for the people of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a word in conclusion as to the way we are respected abroad. I have in a very slight way shown that we now enjoy a measure of prosperity unexampled in the history of Canada, that we are united and comparatively satisfied with our present state of affairs. To make the text complete I crave to refer very briefly to the way in which Canada is looked upon abroad. The London ' Times ' after the preferential clauses of the tariff were introduced saw fit to make this reference :
The new departure (the Preferential Tariff, 18S7) is most gratifying to all -vho desire to see the empire knitted more closely together. It is the most remarkable step yet made towards the fiscal confederation of the empire.
The ' Daily News ' said :
As patriots we welcome this significant display of attachment from the greatest of our colonies, and as Liberals we congratulate the leader of the Liberal party of the Dominion.
The London correspondent of the New York ' Times ' wrote :
For tho first time in my experience England and the English are regarding Canadians and the Dominion with affectionate enthus'asm.
The London ' Financial News,' a paper that the people of Canada should regard with a good deal of esteem, said :
We are not grateful merely for what Canada is doing for the mother councry in the field, or in the less glorious sphere of commerce. What appeals most strongly to our instincts is the splendid example Canada is giving to her younger sisters.
The ' Bullionist,' another financial paper, said :
We make bold to say never in the history of an English dependency, and rarely in the history of the mother couutry, has a finance minister been able to conclude his annual statement with such a stirring peroration as Mr. Fielding in the Dominion of Canada on Friday.
Referring to the presentation of the budget ou that occasion. Then, we have, in regard to the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock) and his great work for knitting the empire together, the letter of Mr. Henniker Heaton in respect to the hon. Postmaster General's efforts in behalf of penny postage. He gives credit to the hon. Postmaster General for tlie inauguration of penny postage and to that extent taking another step to-words unifying the empire. Now there is an abundance of evidence of the highest esteem in which the people of Canada are held abroad, and I am quite confident that I have conclusively shown that the people of Canada are obedient to the laws, that they are prosperous in their industry, that they are united at home and respected abroad. That being so, I am quite confident that yon, Mr. Speaker, will agree with

me that we are justified in assuming that the affairs of the people of Canada are in the hands of men of ability, experience and virtue.


Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: Mr. Speaker, the fiscal relations of Canada with other countries and especially with the United States at the present time excite a very great degree of attention and interest in the public mind. It is a question wihich deserves and calls for our careful consideration and deliberation. It may not be, Sir, that revision of our policy at the present time, or definite action of any character is desirable, or called for, but some action of that character is inevitable in the near future, and it is in the highest degree important that the facts relating to our fiscal relations with various countries should be discussed, and should be made generally known to the public. I propose, to-day, Mr. Speaker, at the outset, to make a few references to some events in the past history of the legislation of this country which I think are, in the highest degree, pertinent to the condition of things that exists today. I had a great deal of pleasure a short time ago in listening to the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), and I can endorse most fully his encomiums as to the good character of the administration of the Mackenzie government, and his speculations as to what would probably have been the outcome of that policy had they continued in power. There is one thing in connection with that administration which I think the administration in power may profitably take into consideration. We had, in Canada, in the early years of the Mackenzie administration, a strong protectionist feeling. That was a question which was discussed to some extent when I first entered politics in Canada in 1872. It was a question which received a good deal of attention in the years 1874, 1875 and 1876 in this Canadian House of Commons. There were in the Liberal party, among the supporters of Mr. Mackenzie, a number of members who believed that the duties should be advanced and that the government should adopt a protective policy of a moderate character and to a limited extent. This policy was advocated by the members for the city of Hamilton who were supporters of the government, by the members of the city of Montreal, who were supporters of the government, by the members of the city of Toronto, by the member for South Brant and by myself. The rate of duty upon the great mass of our importations then was 174 per cent and the request made by the members of this House and supporters of the government who represented this demand for some advance in the duties was that the duties should be advanced from 174 per cent to 25 per cent. But, it was well known that an advance to 224 per cent would have Mr. MORRISON.
been acceptable and it is even probable that an advance of 24 per cent, or to 20 per cent, would have allayed the protectionist feeling that existed and would have been accepted with some degree of allowance and grumbling as a solution of the question by those who were demanding an increase of the duties. These demands, it is not necessary to say, were of the most moderate character. There were good reasons for adopting this policy. The revenue of the country was insufficient to meet the expenditure even with the careful and economical administration of Mr. Mackenzie. It was an era of deficits and it would have been the most proper thing in the world to have increased the revenue to a sufficient degree to meet the absolutely necessary expenditure of the government. It would have been done, and very little more than have been done, by the increase of the duties that was asked for.
I do not know-and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) is not present to say-I do not know what the actual desire of the Mackenzie government in reference to this matter was. I suspect however-and I think I have good reasons for the suspicion-that the Mackenzie government were willing to advance the duties to 20 per cent or even to 224 per cent. But the Minister of Finance of that day was waited upon by a delegation of the members from the maritime provinces headed by the Hon. A. G. Jones, then member for Halifax, and was informed by that delegation that if any advance in the duties was made it simply meant that there would be a bolt of the supporters of the government from the maritime provinces. Well, the members who advocated this policy and who were the supporters of the government in the west, hardly felt justified in taking so extreme a position as to threaten the Mackenzie government with their condign displeasure if it did not meet their wishes, and consequently the government, if it had any intention to advance the duties, abandoned that intention and surrendered to the threats of the Liberal members from the maritime provinces.
At that time we were on the eve of a rearrangement of party issues. If the Liberal party had advanced the duties even by a bare 24 per cent on the 174 Per cent list, we have reason to suppose that the then opposition would have met that advance by a denunciation of the adoption of a protective policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


John Charlton: Yes. We have reason to suppose so. The advance of the duties, however, was not made. The Minister of Finance in his budget speech in 1876 set at rest our speculations, our doubts, our aspirations and our desires by announcing- as has been announced on the present occasion-that there would be no change in

the tariff. That speech was made in the afternoon. The Finance Minister closed his remarks just a little before six o'clock, and in the interval betwen six o'clock and eight o'clock-unless the opposition had deliberated upon this question before, and had resolved what they would do in case the government did increase the duties, and had also made an alternative resolve as to what they would do if the government did not increase the duties, which I am doubtful of- in the space between six and eight o'clock the opposition had decided upon its course ; had decided to strike out a bold course ; had decided to adopt the policy of protection ; had decided to denounce the position taken by the Finance Minister and the Mackenzie administration, and tabled a resolution calling for a readjustment of the tariff of Canada upon protectionist principles.
Well, Sir, we all know the result. Our chances were thrown away. I fought for an increase in the duties, for I believed that the salvation and the existence of the Liberal party depended upon the government taking the course that my friends and myself then advocated. We failed. The duties were not increased. The policy outlined by the resolution of Sir John Macdonald became the policy of the Conservative party. We went to the country upon that issue and we sustained a crushing defeat. Mow, Sir, the leader of the Reform government of that day, and the ministers of his administration, in my belief had not the slightest anticipation that they were in danger. They had not the slightest degree of realization as to the character of public sentiment in the country. I felt it. I went to my constituency and held meetings for the two years that elapsed before the elections. I held twenty or thirty meetings in each year, because I felt that my position was in danger. I felt that as a supporter of the Mackenzie government I was liable to be defeated, and in June, 1878, I wrote to the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie. I had previously implored our friends to go into the field, to hold meetings to combat this new principle, and I had warned them if this was not done they were in danger. I wrote as I say, to the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie in June, 1878, telling him that in my opinion his government was in a dangerous position, that in my opinion they were resting in a fancied security, and might wake up upon the realization of disaster. I advised him to postpone the date of the elections and to take measures to have this question thoroughly discussed in every riding in the Dominion, and to have this protective policy combatted by good speakers everywhere. Well, X suppose that my good friend Mr. Mackenzie had some little sympathy for mo, a poor deluded member from the west who had got scared and who did not realize fully how safe the government were, and how little danger there was of this heresy taking possession of the public mind. The
hon. gentleman had the kindness to write me a long letter, to disabuse my mind of the false impressions I had imbibed ; to show me that really I failed entirely to apprehend the drift of public sentiment; to assure me that the government was perfectly safe; that there was no danger at all; and that it was folly for me to borrow trouble. He went on to enter into details and to show me the ridings we were sure to carry, the ridings we might possibly loose, the ridings we might possibly gain, and he wound up his survey of the field by the assertion that he would come back to power with a majority of 00 members in the House of Commons. Well, I did not believe it, but when the thunderbolt fell on the 17th of September I must confess that I was paralyzed, for I had no anticipation that there would be a majority of 60 on the opposite side. But such was the case.
Now, the mistake of the government of that time was simply this. They underrated the force of the currents of public sentiment that pervaded the country. They did not realize how strong a hold this doctrine of protection had taken upon the public mind. They failed even to take advantage of the circumstances they might have taken advantage of, by combatting vigorously in every riding in the Dominion this so-called heresy. They failed to do it, and they were beaten.
The opposition party came into power, came into power largely because the Liberal party had failed to understand the drift of public sentiment, and because the Liberal party had refused to do what was a reasonable thing, and a thing they ought to have done. They had refused to make a slight concession to this protectionist sentiment that pervaded the country. What was the great difference between a tariff of 17i per cent, and a tariff of 20 per cent or even 22 per cent. Bach was a revenue tariff. The one was a little more protective than the other incidentally and that was all. However, this concession to public sentiment was refused by the Liberal party and the party fell. Sir John Macdonald came into power. Now, Sir, I am bound to say that the policy inaugurated by Sir John Macdonald-that the changes made by that hon. gentleman were not violent changes ; that the changes were not in the strictest sense of the word what might be called radical. It is true that a protective policy was adopted; a moderately protective policy I am bound to say in the light of past events, and speaking as I want to speak candidly and with a desire to present the truth. The duties under the Sir John A. Macdonald tariff were about half as high as the duties in the United States under their protective tariff ; they were what we may reasonably assert to have been moderate duties. We went on under that policy for eighteen years ; and during all that time we had been dealing with states which, with the exception of

152S
Great Britain are protective states-the United States, Germany, France, Russia-all highly protected ; only one example of a free trade nation standing out in the whole field-the example of Great Britain.
In dealing with this question, it is easy enough to take the position of a doctrinaire, and to say that this or that corresponds with the teaching of political economy, and that nothing else can be correct; but it seems to me that the proper course for us to pursue at this juncture is to be governed by practical conditions. Theories are all right, but theories may not be applicable to the conditions; and we should be governed by practical conditions. Now, I am afraid I shall be considered an inconsistent man.


Mr. EDWARDS.: There is no trouble about that.


John Charlton: My hon. friend says there is no trouble about that. I must confess that I cannot hold on to the doctrines of absolute free trade, as my hon. friend does, in the light of the experience I have passed through and the knowledge I have obtained. I am afraid that I must confess that I am slightly inconsistent, that I sometimes change and modify my opinions; and on this question I have reached conclusions by a process of reasoning founded on conditions which have come under my notice.
For instance, with regard to our trade relations with the United States, when I became a member of the Joint High Commission, I commenced to analyse the American trade returns; and I found before I had worked at them long, that I had been quite ignorant of our trade relations with the United States, and that the same degree of ignorance had characterized the great mass of the Canadian people. As I proceeded to analyze these trade returns, I found that the policy which the United States had pursued against Canada since the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty had been a positively unfriendly and hostile policy-a policy conceived by the desire to keep us from growing and prospering; and that under the operation of that policy of repression they had kept our experts to the United States stationary from 18U6 down to this present moment, while we had left our markets open to them through the operation of moderate duties, and they had marched in and practically monopolized the supply of manufactures to the Dominion of Canada. Well, I said, this is not right; something needs to be done. Whether I am a free trader or a protectionist, or whatever my antecedents may have been, this is a condition of tilings which requires readjustment; it is a condition of things which is not proper or desirable or in our interest to allow to continue. Thus, by a course of experience, of study, of inquiring into the facts, I confess that I have to some extent modified opinions which I may have


John Charlton: entertained some years ago. Changed conditions and changing conditions must ever modify opinions; and the man who does not change or modify his opinions, is a man who does not grow-is not a progressive man; is not an intelligent man; is not a man who is influenced by his environment as he ought to be.
When I issued my address to my electors at the last general election, I was, I think, the first public man in Canada to give public utterance to the views which I entertained with regard to our American trade; and I judge that those views were acceptable to my constituents, because I was elected by acclamation; and I think I am justified in making the prediction that the views which were enunciated in that address, and were accepted by the electors of North Norfolk, Conservative and Liberal, are views which will be accepted by tliree-l'ourths of the electors of Canada. As a Liberal, I stand here to make these statements, because, so far as my own influence and voice can prevent it, I do not want my party to be in ignorance of these facts or to take a position or enter upon a line of action without being fully aware of the conditions that exist. The government, of course, are not, in my opinion, called upon to take definite action in this matter now. When I tabled a resolution here on the 24th of February, I did so, not for the purpose of defining an issue and challenging the issue as between the government and the opposite party. It was not with that intention at all. I approve of the policy of the government in taking this matter into consideration-in deferring their conclusions as to the course they will pursue, and in the meantime ascertaining what will be the result of the conference at London in regard to the relations of the various parts of the empire to each other. While I sustain my views by every argument which I can advance, while I believe in them and commend them to the consideration of the government, I do not expect that the government is to take them into consideration with a view to definite and final action this session.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


John Charlton: I had stated, Mr. Speaker, just before you left the chair at six o'clock, that the change in our fiscal policy, consequent upon the success of the Conservative party in 1878, could not fairly be termed a radical one. And in the same connection, Sir, I would say that upon the defeat of the Conservative party in 1896 and the establishment of the present government, the changes made in the fiscal policy of the country were still not at all radical

iu their character, with the exception of the feature introduced into the tariff, termed ' the preferential policy.' With this exception, the changes were comparatively slight, and the policy pursued by the previous government was, in a large measure, continued. The promise of the Liberal party to reduce the taxation from the customs duties was, in a measure redeemed by the adoption of the preference in favour of Great Britain-the preference, first, of 121 per cent, then increased to 25 per cent, and later to 33J per cent. 1 have never been very enthusiastic about this preference. It was, of course, a method for reducing taxation. It was an indirect, but never-the less an actual reduction of taxes from customs, so far as the importations from Great Britain are concerned. And to this extent and in this respect those who advocated the policy may feel justified. However, to me it has always seemed that we receive nothing in return for this concession. We are left in the English markets upon exactly the same footing as that occupied by all foreign states. The preference was a sentimental one, an evidence of our good will for England, it was accepted as such, it promotes good feeling, but I think that, so far as a mere expression of sentiment is concerned, a preference of 121 per cent would have been just as effective as the highest preference. It has wrought consequences that are not such as we can felicitate ourselves upon, because it has reduced the protection enjoyed by certain manufacturing industries below the point this protection should stand at. For this reason I think it would have been a commendable act if some change had been made in the tariff this session to meet that condition of things which has been created by the unusualy reduced production to the woollen industries. However, it is difficult for a government to meddle with the tariff, and a government necessarily shrinks from such a step. It -was specially natural for the government to shrink from interfering with the tariff in this case, when it avowed its intention, after the London conference was held and certain conditions settled, so that we may know where we are, to revise the fiscal policy of the country.


Mr. CLARKE.: When was that avowal made ?


John Charlton: command of the iron and steel market. It has increased its exports and manufactures, within a very limited number of years, to over $400,000,000 per annum, and when the Isthmian canal is built, the United States will give Great Britain competition in the open door markets of Asia that will trouble not a little the British manufacturers. In our common markets to-day, Germany and the United States are the formidable competitors of Great Britain. Are these two great nations, are their institutions and their development, an evolution from the free trade ideas of Cobden ? Not at all. These competitors of Great Britain have been created by a stringent and effective protection, and without the inauguration, adoption and continuance of that policy, these nations would never have attained the position they occupy to-day. These are matters for grave consideration. Why are nearly all the nations in the world protective ? Why is it that some common impulse impels these nations to adopt a policy that will develop their resources and enlarge the operations of their labourers, give them a great variety of interests and multiply and fortify their industries ? It is because they feel that this is necessary to their development as a nation.
Let us give some little attention to the effect of protection in the United States- the country with which we have the most intimate trade relations, with which we must in the future have the most intimate trade relations, that will have more influence on our destiny than all the rest of the world, in all probability.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Notwithstanding the preference.


John Charlton: Notwithstanding any other influences which may intervene. The protective policy of the United States, I am free to say, has been an extravagant one. It has wrought many evils in that country.


An hon. MEMBER.: It is doing so now.


John Charlton: Yes, I admit the truth of that assertion. These evils have been wrought by the fact that the protective policy of the United States, the instrument they use, they applied with too great rigour; that, where moderate duties, such as we have in Canada were sufficient, they have adopted extravagant duties; where a 30 per cent duty was enough, they would have, perhaps, 60 per cent or 75 per cent. And manufacturers in the United States, where they have been able to combine, have been in a position to charge the domestic consumer very much higher prices than they could afford to export for, and did export for. These are evils attending the system, they are evils which are the consequence of the application of the system in a way which was beyond the means required for the Mr. CHARLTON.
development of the industries of the country. But, notwithstanding this, it would be folly to deny or to attempt to minimize the effects which protection has produced in the United States, a country which, to-day, is the greatest manufacturing nation on the face of the globe; a country which, last year, produced more goods than Great Britain and France combined; a country which produced, last year, $13,000,000,000 worth of manufactures; a country which, last year, exported $400,000,000 worth of manufactures; a country which is increasing its export of manufactures with marvellous rapidity. All these things, whether they make a desirable consummation or not, are the results of the system of protection which has been in vogue in the United States, and which has been continued continuously and consistently for over forty years.
It would be interesting to see what the condition of the American export and import trade has been In the period anterior to the period of protection and succeeding the adoption of protection. I draw the line between the two periods; at 1875, although the Morrill tariff was passed in 1801, but the civil war and the inflated currency prevented the system of protection from having its full effect at once. The full and fair results of protection were not attained until the country had emerged from the difficulties attendant upon the war and had resumed a specie payment. And, so I take the year 1875 as the beginning of the period when protection was in full force and the results of protection were fully attained. From 1790 to 1874 is a period of eighty-four years. During that period there were fifteen years when the United States had a balance of trade in its favour, the aggregate amount of these balances being $152,723,000. During the same period, there were sixty-nine years when the balances of trade were against the United States, and the aggregate amount of these balances was $2,150,000,000.	Now, the
period from 1875 to 1901 is a period of twenty-six years. During that time there were twenty-two years when the balance of trade was in favour of the United States, and four years when there was an adverse balance. The favourable balances aggregated nearly $5,000,000,000, while the adverse balances aggregated $69,000,000. In the last four years the favourable balances of trade in the United States aggregated $2,354,000,000, and, last year, the balance of trade in favour of the country was $664,500,000, and of that amount we provided $71,000,000. Now, these are conditions which I think must convince any candid mind that protection has wrought certain results in the United States; that, whatever may have been the abuses of the system, however crude and improper may have been the application of the details of the system, it has made of the United States the

greatest manufacturing nation on the face of the glohe. It has increased, as I shall show, presently, its output of manufactures at a marvellous ratio, and it has put the United States far in the van among the nations of the world in the productions of manufactures. In 1860, the census returns of that year gave the production of manufactures in the United States as $1,885,861,000. In 1890, the production of manufactures was $13,000,000,000. The increase of manufactures in this period was at the rate of 688 per cent. In 1860, the population of the United States was 31,000,000; in 1890, it was 76,000,000. The increase of population in that period, therefore, was 145 per cent, while the increase in the production of manufactures was 688 per cent. These figures tell their own story, and that story is that, protection has not been a failure in the United States; that story is that the United States has attained a position among the nations of the globe which makes it the wealthiest nation under the light of Heaven, the greatest manufacturing nation in the world, perhaps the most powerful nation in the world, a nation with its industries developed to the fullest extent, a nation supplying its own wants and seeking the markets of the world, a nation with an educated class of operatives, men of intellectual character, and capable of performing a great amount of work-for it is said that, notwithstanding the high rate of wages in the United States the dollar will purchase more work in the line of manufactures than in any other country. Now, the United States has reached at this moment the position wthere these excessive rates of protection are unnecessary, has reached a position where protection can be dispensed with, as that country can compete with every other country in the world on equal terms, and without favour either in her own markets or in the markets of the world.
Now, this is what I have to say with regard to protection in the broad field of its operation and application in the world, i have given more particularly and in detail the results in the United States, but the fact that this policy has been adopted and is continued in Germany, Russia and France is evidence, I think, that it must be producing practical results in the same line, or it should be repudiated in those countries.
Now, I come to the consideration of our own trade relations with the United States. I think, Sir, the spirit of the American policy towards us should affect the spirit that we show toward the United States and our policy toward them. I state that as a fact in my belief-that, whatever would be abstractly desirable, concrete conditions should govern our action rather than theories, and that the policy of the United States toward us, the conduct of the United States toward us, the spirit of the United
States toward us should have an influence and a direct influence, upon our action, conduct and spirit toward the United States. What have been the salient features of the policy of the United States toward Canada ? In 1854, we secured from that country a very desirable and favourable treaty. That treaty remained in pperation for twelve years. Under its operation our export trade with the United States quadrupled, and our import trade with the United States increased in almost the same proportion. That treaty conferred upon both 'countries unmixed advantages and blessings. Although our exports to the United States were slightly in excess of our imports, that was owing to exceptional circumstances, the existence of the civil war in the United States and an abnormal demand for animal products and farm products. Yet, it is certain that, when the war had ended and matters had adjusted themselves to their usual level, our importations from the United States would at least have equalled our exports to that country.
Now, that treaty was abrogated in 1866 without cause, abrogated iu a fit of spleen, abrogated in face of the fact that, to offset the exhibition in the Canadian Assembly at Quebec of a little pro-confederate feeling, we had sent 40,000 men to fight in the union armies; and that the great mass of the people of Canada sympathized with the north. I say in face of these facts that treaty was abrogated, avowedly because of some little exhibition of sympathy with the South in the Canadian legislature. Canadians made an effort to avert the loss of the treaty. They admitted that it might perhaps be advisable to enlarge its provisions, to include among the articles for reciprocal interchange, certain manufactured articles. They were ready to consent to any proposition within reason rather than have that treaty abrogated. They were spurned, no propositions were entertained, the fiat of the United States had gone forth that the treaty must be abrogated. The feeling in the country wit'i regard to the Alabama matter and some other matters gave a hostile tinge to sentiment that rendered it impossible to secure any arrangement that would save the treaty.
Now, then, for thirty-five years since the abrogation of that treaty, what has been the policy of the United States ? They have continually and continuously, consistently and persistently, adopted and continued a policy of repression. They have sought to shut out our imports from their markets, it has been their fixed and deliberate design to do this-no question about it. We sent to them, in 1866, $44,000,000 worth of the productions of Canada; we sent to them in 1901, aside from precious metals, less than that amount, trade had remained stationary during all these years. That was their policy toward us. What was our policy towards them ? We had a

scale of duties of about 15 per cent on their manufactured articles, we raised those duties in 1876 to 17i per cent; we raised them under the policy of protection that was in vogue from 1878 to 1896 to less than one-half the rate of duties they imposed upon our exportations to that country; and today, under a Liberal policy, with as large a reduction made in our duties as is possible to make, larger perhaps than is advisable to make, their duties are still as high again as our own; and in consequence of that, while our exports to the United States have remained stationary, our imports from the United States have risen from 828.000,000 in 1866 to $119,000,000 in 1901. While in 1866 we sold them $25,000,000 worth of farm products, in 1901 we sold them a little more than $8,000,000 ; we had reduced our sale of farm products to one-third of what it was in 1866. But while we have given them a larger market for their farm products than they gave us, while we have increased our importations to three-fold, almost four-fold, what they were in 1866, they still continue this same policy, this deliberate policy of shutting us out of their markets.
Now, what are we going to do ? Of course our tariff to-day does not exactly suit the United States, they would rather have us remove all duties and give them absolute control of our market. But tilie tariff suits the United States about as well as they can ever expect any tariff will suit them! It suits them so well that they are able to sell us three times as much as they buy from us; it suits them so well that they have control of our markets for manufactures; it suits them so well that while we are their third best customer in the world, their custom, so far as we are concerned, is of comparatively very small value indeed. And what we want to do is to avoid earning their contempt by refusing to stand this kind of treatment. And how will we do that ? Well, we want to place ourselves in a good trading position, we want to place ourselves in a position where we have got something to offer in return for something that we ask. We have got nothing to offer now except that we might enlarge our free list, which is already too large. We might let down the bars, which are already too low, while our neighbour has a stake and ridered fence in front of us but it is not desirable to do this.
My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I do not suppose, sympathizes with my ideas; I gathered from what he said the other night that he scarcely does. I would not expect that the hon. gentleman would do so fully, for I do not think that he would voluntarily incur the odium of inconsistency that would attach to him if he who refused to advance the duties in 1876 to 2i per cent to allay the protectionist sentiment, were to go as far as I am prepared to go to-day. I think he will rnain-Mr. CHARLTON.
tain his consistency, nail his colours to the mast, and sink, colours and all, if it is necessary to do so. I was very much pleased with his speech the other night. I admired his masterly analysis of the census returns. If his premises were correct, it was a very marvellous exposure of a great outrage- and I have no reason to say that his premises were not correct. I endorse fully his admirable forecast of what would probably have been the outcome of the policy for the Mackenzie administration if it had continued in power. The common sense policy for the North-west was holding the land for the settler and the construction of a Canadian railway to be owned by the government, and I think the country would have profited vastly by the continuance of Mr. Mackenzie in power, even if he did not rise the duties 2J per cent.


Edward Frederick Clarke: After the experience we have had of the Intercolonial Railway ?


John Charlton: I think perhaps we would have had a better experience, for the road would have been built under different auspices and by a different party. Then I admired the hon. gentleman's justification, plausible, to say the least, of the increase of the expenditure. I do not think that matter could have been presented in a better, a more ingenious, a more convincing light than it was presented by the Minister of Finance. I think so far as the hon. gentleman and myself are concerned that we might honestly reach different conclusions in measuring the effect of recent developments and influences. It is not necessary for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to believe as I do. I respect his convictions. It is not necessary for me to believe exactly as he does, and I trust that he will respect my convictions. I look upon the character of our trade with the United States with deep resentment, perhaps he does not. That is a matter for us to consider calmly, fully and fairly when we discuss this question, as we shall do for weeks and months to come.
And just here, by way of parenthesis, I may refer to a story my hon. friend told, a story in which I figured to some extent as one of the characters. The hon. gentleman said that I was a very devout man, that I had stated on several occasions in the House that I was. Well, I wish to affirm, Mr. Speaker, that I never said on several occasions, or on one occasion, in this House that I was a very devout man, and I have never claimed to be anything else than a very great sinner. It is very true, Mr. Speaker, that I have taken in charge, and to the best of my ability, promoted and urged certain legislation in this House. One Bill I did, after a long struggle, succeed in getting upon the statute-book. I took up another subject and I did not succeed with that. Now, I always realized, Mr. Speaker- 1 say this to you in confidence-I always
i537

realized in taking charge of these Bills, that I was doing a most unpopular thing, that 1 was losing caste with my fellow-members, that I was making myself a subject of ridicule. I felt that from the start, and I certainly did not go into this for the sake of popularity. I fought one Bill persistently, and I think courageously, until 1 secured a success.
I fought the other Bill in the same way until I came to the conclusion that success was hopeless and then I abandoned it. So far as any political return, or any return in the shape of popularity among my fellow members was concerned, I never expected to get it, I never did get it and it has been to me, as far as my position in this House is concerned, undoubtedly a detriment. I felt that to be the case then and I feel it still. In regard to the story of my hon. friend it was not exactly correct. He has a good sense of humour but he was guilty of attributing the vision of some person to me.
I told the story as being the vision that somebody else had. I never had a vision myself and I do not ever expect to have one. If I were asked to tell the story again and to make the application now, I should say that the probability would be that the person having the vision would see the souls hung up to dry, because they were too green to burn, of men who were satisfied with our present trade relations with the United States and intend to permit them to continue and who had no idea of resenting the conduct of the country which treats us in such a manner.
I gave verf careful attention and consideration to the speech of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I entirely disapprove of his position on the reciprocity question. I disapprove of that position in toto. I am sorry to see an attempt to create in this country a sentiment adverse to the securing of reciprocity with the United States upon fair and reasonable terms. We are two countries, existing side by side, with the same boundary for 4,000 miles, each of us possessing about 3,000,000 square miles of the North American continent, with railways binding us together by networks for intercommunication, with water courses serving as a boundary between the two countries and inviting communication, with geographical conditions between the two countries knitting us closely together, with a similarity of races, laws, religions and institutions. Practically one people, nature designed that these two great countries should have intimate trade relations and the ingenuity of adverse and hostile fiscal legislation has not been able to prevent a large development of intercommunication between these countries. If we remove the barriers, if we place the fiscal relations of these two countries upon a mutually fair basis we will have an enormous development of commerce and one 49
which would be profitable and advantageous to both peoples alike. We have obtained a very satisfactory development of trade with Great Britain. We have built up an export trade in farm products with that country of a most satisfactory character. We owe to Great Britain fair treatment, fraternal treatment, but, it is not necessary for us to confine our attempts to create a profitable market to one country, or one hemisphere ; and while Great Britain with her forty million inhabitants is a good market, we compete with all the nations of the world, and we compete upon conditions which place us, in some cases, at a disadvantage. We cannot reach the markets of England as easily as can France, or Germany, or Russia, but, the United States with 76,000,000 inhabitants is at our doors. We can reach the markets of that country with a facility and ease that no other country can. We have here almost within telephone call-yes, within telephone call-teeming millions of people in great centres of population and markets that we can reach more readily than even the states of the west; and for people to say that we do not want trade relations with this country, that we do not want reciprocity, that we will throw the whole thing over and sacrifice this great American trade, is preposterous nonsense. What we want of the United States is not non-intercourse, not repression, but what we want of the United States is fair play, what we want of the United States is an equal chance with them, a chance to get into then- markets on as good terms as they get into ours.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How do you hope to get it 1


John Charlton: If we cannot get it we can do the other thing. If we have to do the other thing we will do it, but I would deprecate it. I would adopt another course as a last resort. I would only resort to it if nothing better could be done. There is one thing to be borne in mind in connection with this American trade. If we adopt a system of protection in Canada, we do it for the purpose of manufacturing in our own country the goods that we import from abroad, of having in our own country the artisans who produce these goods so that we can feed them. One thing that affords us a cause of complaint against the United States is that we import over $60,000,000 worth of manufactures from that country, and we are not allowed to send to them even a small portion of the food that the operatives who produce these goods consume. What we want is a chance to reach that already created market, that market that exists to-day, that exists by virtue of the production of thirteen thousand million dollars' worth of manufactured goods. If we go to work to create a market we can do it, but it will not be as great a market, not as valuable a market, and it will take years and a vast sum of money to do it. If we



can get access to the market of the United States, to the market that has been created by a period of forty years of protection, will it not be better to attempt to do that than to attempt to create a market ourselves ?


Mr. POPE.: No sir.


John Charlton: It is preposterous to say no. These, in brief, are the reasons why I deprecate the enunciation of a policy by the hon. leader of the opposition adverse to reciprocity. There never has been a time since the reciprocity treaty of 1854 was negotiated and went into force that Canada was not anxious for trade relations with the United States of a broad and liberal character. We enjoyed these relations for twelve years and profited im-mensly by them. We have been anxious to secure them ever since that time. We have sent deputation after deputation to Washington but we have not been able to get them up to this time. I do not want to give up the race yet. If we cannot get them we simply would have to do without them and adopt another policy if there is no other alternative.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why did you not get them in 1898 when you were over there ?


John Charlton: Well, we came very near getting a good treaty. I cannot tell the hon. gentleman (Mr.Clarke) what the details are, but, he would probably have been highly satisfied if it had not been for a little trouble that intervened between the trade treaty and something else. The condition of trade between these two countries at the present time warrants us in saying to the United States : Give us reciprocity in natural products. Not that we will promise you any mitigation of our tariff system. We will not agree to put a single article more on the free list. We will not agree to reduce our duties unless we choose to do so, we are entitled on the basis of the conditions as they exist to-day to reciprocity in natural products. If we can get it, it is all right; if we cannot, we cannot get what we are entitled to. If we can get it what would be the result ? Would it be worth while ? Some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House will say no, I presume. I cannot agree with that view of the case. If we could get reciprocity we would have free coal. We imported last year nearly 3,000,000 tons of bituminous coal for manufactures and railways and this paid a duty of fifty-three cents a ton. If we had reciprocity this coal would come in free and we would send to the United States, if their duty were removed, a much larger amount than we send now. We sent last year nearly $5,000,000 worth of coal to the American market ; we would vastly increase that business ; it would be a mutual advantage in the coal trade. If we had reciprocity in natural products we would have the competition of American buyers


John Charlton: here for the purchase of all the articles we sell for export. We would have that competition for wheat, for oatmeal, for flour, for cheese, for butter, for meats, for fish, and the competition thus created in the matter of wheat for instance, would be worth more to the producer In Canada than a five per cent preferential duty in England would be. It would have the effect of raising the price of wheat to a greater extent than five per cent preference, because it brings in active competition, and it would be impossible to create a ring to put the price down (as now is sometimes the case) below the level at which it should be. We would have an increased price for lumber to the extent of the duty we now pay. We would have a vast trade in quarry products. We have, all along the northern shore of our lakes, quarries of sand stone, quarries of free stone, quarries of granite, quarries of marble, and on the other side of the lake we have vast cities like Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo, that would furnish a market for millions of dollars worth of these quarry products where we now do not sell a ton. AVe would have a great market for our mine products ; a market for millions of tons of iron ore, besides what we need to use ourselves. We would have an increased and better market for fish, and we would have a market for our farmer's products and all kinds of products in these great cities which have congregated in them many millions of people within easy reach of us. We would have a market in these cities at American prices whereas, now we have to sell, If we sell at all, less the exorbitant duties charged. AA'e would probably have free pulp and free paper in exchange possibly for free pulp wood. These are a few of the advantages that would accrue to Canada from reciprocal free trade in natural products.
Our trade with Great Britain has been built up by the adoption of business methods ; by cold storage, by pushing our trade intelligently, efficiently, energetically. The same course pursued with regard to the United States, if we had access to that market, would build up an enormous trade for us with that country and would add enormously to the wealth and prosperity of Canada.
My hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, tells us in his resolution that he is in favour of ' reciprocal trade preference within the empire.' AVliat does that mean ? What would literally ' reciprocal trade preference ' be between Canada and Great Britain. Great Britain admits everything we send there free of duty, manufactures, natural products, anything and everything. A reciprocal preference for us would be to admit free everything coming here from England. Is that what is meant by the resolution ? Of course that is a policy that would be highly satisfactory to England,

but would It be satisfactory to Canada ? That Is literally a reciprocal trade preference between the two countries. You cannot have It. We never can have It. What does the leader of the opposition mean V Does he mean that England Is to readopt the corn laws ?


Rufus Henry Pope: Yes.


John Charlton: Well, I hope that Is correct. I would not object to see the corn laws readopted and preferential duties Imposed on wheat and lumber In favour of the colonies. But does any man here suppose that England is going to do that-that Is to the extent of affording us any tangible advantage. Five per cent would be a mere bagatelle, a bauble. Ten per cent might be of some little advantage in wheat and lumber, but anything less than ten per cent would not be worth consideration.
Now, if my right hon. friend the leader of this government and those associated with him, when they visit London, can secure from Great Britain a concession of a tangible character that will give us a preference in the British market for our wheat, for our cheese, for our lumber, for the various products we send to that country ; then we will stand the 33J per cent preference and we will have then to face new conditions that will require a revision of our policy, or that at all events will require careful consideration. But I think perhaps we will have to wait until we see what success is scored by our representatives in this matter before we build very much expectations on the result of that conference.
Then as a corollary and necessary adjunct to this policy of reciprocity in preference, within the empire comes the question of Imperial defence. There is a great deal said about Imperial defence. A great many men are so ardent in their Imperial predilections that they want to see some kind of a legislative or defensive union existing between Great Britain and her colonies ; some central authority that will designate what we shall pay and what we shall do. Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe Canada should preserve absolute autonomy.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Charlton: I have not the slightest doubt of that. The union between this country and Great Britain is a union of sentiment. The aid we have given to Great Britain in her emergency has been voluntarily rendered. Sir, while we are ready to make sacrifices ; while we cherish the feelings we do towards the mother country, we can never allow the mother country, we can never allow anybody else to say how much we must do. It must rest upon the voluntary decision of ourselves as to what we will do, and nobody else must be in a position to say what we shall do.
We will make great sacrifices to preserve the empire. We realize the importance of 49i
this Imperial connection. We realize the importance of the English market that takes 82 per cent of our agricultural products. We realize that fully. We cannot afford to let Great Britain be blotted out. Why, Sir, if it comes to a question of life and death, Canada would give her last man and her ' last dollar to avert that calamity ; but we cannot put ourselves in a position in which we will be deprived of the initiative in deciding what we shall do.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. SPROULE.: We could discuss it


John Charlton: We have already made sacrifices ; sacrifices of greater consequence than is generally imagined, for Imperial purposes. The Canadian Pacific Railway is really an Imperial road. Every dollar expended in that road is a dollar of expenditure that accrues to the advantage of the British empire. That is a military road ; a military avenue of the greatest importance to England. If the time ever comes when the question arises as to whether this country shall be blotted out or not; if that ti me ever comes we have got to do the business of defending ourselves, to a large extent. That emergency will never confront us in any supposable event except in the case of war with the United States ; and in case of war with the United States is it to be supposed that Canada would make smaller sacrifices, would make less exertions than England would. Why, Sir, we would have to put forth superhuman exertions. The brunt would fall upon us. I repeat that Canada never needs to put herself in a position where she would lose her autonomy.
We have the resources for a great nation ; we will become a great nation. It should be our object to make this a nation that will be an example to the world-a nation possessing the best institutions and the best laws, and the freest population. We have a territory that gives us room for 100,000,000 people. We do not want to play second fiddle to any one. We do not want to be put into the position of a fifth wheel to any other combination or to any other nation. So much for these questions of reciprocal conditions within the empire ; of reciprocity with the United States upon reasonable and favourable conditions, and of Imperial defence.
Now, it has been said, Mr. Speaker, that really this great import trade from the United States is a trade that we cannot dispense with ; that although it is very large yet all these imports are indispensable to us; that we take them from the United States because we have to have them, and chat there is no help for us. They may take more or they may take less from us, but we must take from them all that we now import. Now, our total free imports from the United States amount to $56,000,000, or eliminating coin and bullion, $53,549,000. On this free list the articles that

are indispensible which we import from the United States include the following
Raw cotton	$4,731,812
Tobacco leaf	 1,720,589
Wool	 389,289
Hides and skins	 2,432,297
Anthracite coal	 7,923,950
Coke	 679,915
Hardwood and manufactures of-axe handles, spokes, felloes, &c.. .. 1,500,000 Miscellaneous articles.. .. 2,000,000
Total	$21,386,852
Thus there are $21,386,000 worth of indispensable articles which we import from the United States out of the free list of $53,500,000; and on that free list there are the following articles which we can dispense with :
Indian corn	 $6,484,181
Flax seed	 662,696
Miscellaneous articles .. .. 1,000,000 Free manufactures	 18,000,000
Total	$36,146,877
This leaves $6,000,000 of the imports on the free list unclassified. Possibly one-half of these we could dispense with also.
Now, Sir, we import from the United States $65,000,000 worth of manufactures, of which $22,000,000 are free of duty. We can produce in this country at least $40,000,000 worth of that list. We can shut off the imports of Indian corn, flax seed, meats, and a lot of other things in the food line. If we adopt a policy towards the United States as stringent as theirs is towards us, we can reduce our imports from the United States from $50,000,000 to $55,000,000, and bring down our list of imports to the lean and beggarly dimensions of our list of exports. Now, Sir, we do not desire to do this. We would rather increase our exports to the United States by $55,000,000. That is what we want to do. This diminishing of our imports is a heroic remedy which we may adopt if we can do no better; but we want to do better if we can, and the terms of my resolution submitted on the 24th of February, are directly along that line. It proposes to give to the United States the same status in our markets that England enjoys, if they give us the same treatment that England does, that is, the free admission of our natural products. It proposes to give to the United States the dis- ! ability of forty or fifty per cent more taxes than Great Britain would pay, if they do not give us the same treatment. It is a plain and simple remedy. We are not called upon to impose it just now; but we may as well talk this matter over. We may as well talk it over a little among ourselves; we may as well talk it over a little with the United States.
I thought it desirable to present these views wherever I have had an opportunity.
I have done it at various places in the Mr. CHARLTON.
United States before influential audiences, and I have never done it without producing a marked effect. I have never done it without having had the assurance given to me that this question had not been understood, that my views were correct, and that the United States ought to do exactly what I suggested-give us free trade in natural products, and if they did not do that, they would have no reason to complain if the very policy which I have foreshadowed were adopted.
We want to continue these missionary efforts in the United States; and if the American people come to understand the case, they will take a different position from what they have taken in ignorance of actual conditions. They have been led to suppose that the United States market was essential to Canada-that we lived and moved and breathed in their favour, and could take no line without them. We want them to understand that while the United States take 8 per cent of our exports, England takes 82 per cent; we want to let them know that we can get along without them as well as with them ; and if we take pains to present these views to the American people, we shall have a state of sentiment created in that country that will be favourable to a settlement of our trade relations on a basis that will be reasonable.
For these reasons I have not lost hope that the Joint High Commission has not yet exhausted its efforts or ceased its career of usefulness. I am in a position to say that it has had a career of usefulness. I cannot of course disclose to the public what was done. But I am anxious to see that Joint High Commission meet once more. I am anxious to ascertain, as a result of that meeting, whether these questions can be satisfactorily adjusted or not. When we have definitely ascertained one way or the other, we shall know what course we ought to pursue; and if we cannot get fair-play, we can at least place ourselves in a position where we shall not merit and receive the contempt of the American people.
These views and arguments are submitted simply for consideration. As I said before, while I would have been pleased to see the government make some concessions to satisfy the demands of the aggrieved industries of this country, in two or three cases at least, yet I understand how difficult and dangerous a task it is to re-open a tariff. And so I accept the situation. But I have placed my views before the House, and I will leave my statements and arguments to have such weight as they may have with the members of the government, and when the time comes, after the conference has met, when we shall know more definitely than we do now, where we stand, then the government will take its course and decide on its line of conduct, and every member of this House can take his

course and decide whether he can support the line adopted by the government or not.


William Cameron Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, in the introduction of his remarks, referred to the position of affairs prior to the time that Mr. Alexander Mackenzie went out of power in this country. He makes the statement that a request was made on1 the part of certain followers of Mr. Mackenzie to advance the customs duties 24 per cent. He states that Mr. Mackenzie meant to accede to that request, but that because of certain representations made to him by members from the lower provinces, he abandoned that intention, and as a consequence a protective system was advocated by Sir John Macdonald, and in the election which ensued Mr. Alexander Mackenzie was defeated and Sir John Macdonald triumphantly elected. He attributes that defeat entirely to the fact that Sir John Macdonald had adopted protection as his policy, and that Mr. Alexander Mackenzie had adhered to his former views in favour of a low revenue tariff. He deprecates the action of Mr. Alexander Mackenzie at that time, not because of the principle involved, but because he was defeated at the polls as a consequence of his action. Now, Mr. Speaker, I regret to hear the statement the hon. gentleman has made, because I am one of those who believe, as I always have believed, if that was the cause of the defeat, that Alexander Mackenzie accepted defeat rather than give way for one moment on the principle which he held to be in the best interest of the Canadian people.
The hon. gentleman tells us that he advised the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie that he would be defeated if he did not accept the hon. gentleman's views on the tariff question. Well, Mr. Speaker, what value can we place on the opinions of the hon. gentleman, what reliance can we put in his professions, what credit can we give him for political honesty, when we follow his subsequent record ? Since the day when he tells us he gave Mr. Mackenzie that advice, he has been in turn, according as the wind suited, a free trader, a commercial union man, an advocate of reciprocity, and to-day we find him blooming forth again in all the colours of a most pronounced protectionist. There is one quality for which we must give the hon. gentleman credit, and that is that whatever role he assumes, he plays with all the apparent sincerity of a consummate actor. In each particular phase, no matter what may be the particular policy he advocates at the moment, no matter how it may differ from views he held on any previous occasion, he addresses the House and seeks to impress on the government his momentary convictions with all the gravity and seriousness of a Nestor, and so to-day we find him exhorting the government in his usual fashion and threatening that if they do not accept his advice and adopt his views on protection, defeat stares them in the face at the next election. It would be interesting to have the hon. gentleman explain how it was that, in spite of his arguments against protection in the campaign of 1896, the protectionist government of that day met so crushing a defeat at the polls.
Referring again to the defeat of Mr. Mackenzie in 1878, the hon. gentleman went on to explain that while Sir John Macdonald on being returned to office, did adopt a protectionist tariff, it was but a moderate one- not half so high as that of the United States, and then proceeded to argue that if the United States have enjoyed very great prosperity, it is due to their high protection. And, he added, the conditions in that country are to-day such that protection is there no longer needed. In Canada, however, it is desirable that we should adopt as high a tariff as the Americans, and the adoption of such high protection, the hon. gentleman claimed, would be productive of equal prosperity. I dissent entirely from those views. My hon. friend, as he has very clearly shown the House to-night, is now a protectionist to the hilt. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am a free trader to the hilt. As such, I dissent entirely from the hon. gentleman's view on the question of the balance of trade. I deny that because the balance of trade is in favour of the United States, that it is any evidence of the prosperity of that country. That, in fact, is the only argument which the hon. gentleman used to show that the United States were enjoying a great measure of prosperity in consequence of high protection. If that argument be well founded, how is it that the balance of trade has been so enormously against Great Britain ever since the days of the introduction of the Corn laws? And no one will deny the great progress in manufactures, trade and commerce-a progress which has not been paralleled in any other country in the world-which has taken place in Great Britain since she adopted the policy of free trade. I take the contrary view to that taken by my hon. friend. I say that if the United States had made all the development and progress, which it should have made, the balance of trade would have been against it. In a new country like the United States, into which a large influx of population was yearly flowing, the balance of trade should have been against it, and the fact that it was not, is proof that the United States was not making the development and progress it should have made.
The hon. gentleman went on to point out that it is only in recent years that the United States had exported largely of manufactured goods. Every one who knows the condition of the country knows that to be true. Until very recently the United States paid for all its foreign purchases in agricultural products. And I ask how it

Is possible tliat the agriculturists of the United States could show their best results when they were taxed so largely and unduly in favour of the home manufacturers. While it is possible to protect the manufacturers, it is perfectly impossible to protect the agriculturists of a country like the United States, and equally impossible to protect the agriculturists of Canada. The conditions in Canada to-day are very similar to those in the United States. It is only within the past few years that we have begun to export in any degree manufactured goods. Our exports have been the products of the farm, fisheries, the forest, and the mines; and I ask you how are you going to enrich the farmers, the fishermen, the lumbermen, the miners, of Canada, by taxing them for the benefit of our manufacturers ? Their products have to be sold in the markets of the world in competition with the products of the world; and if our farmers, fishermen, lumbermen and miners, are to make their best development and progress, they must be permitted to buy in the same way as they have to sell. They must be permitted to enjoy in their favour the same free competition that they have to fight against. Holding these views, I cannot agree with my hon. friend in the hope he expresses that after the London conference this government will raise the tariff. On the contrary, I, as a free trader, will not be able to support any government which raises the tariff any higher, as against the interests of the great producing and consuming masses of Canada.	Let the
agriculturists, the great producers of the wealth of Canada, have a chance to exist. Give them a chance to enjoy the results of their own labour.	Give the
producer of the natural wealth of Canada that position, and I am not afraid for the position of the manufacturers of Canada. I think I heard one of the speakers say this afternoon that certain factories in Canada that had very high protection were yet idle, and he thought that was a reason why the government, for the purpose of having these industries here, should raise the duties and give still tether protection. I think the best reason that could be given why these factories should not be in Canada, at any rate to the extent to which they are developed, is the fact that they are not able to live under the high protection that they have to-day.
My hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) next came to the preference given to England, and stated that he was opposed to it, or, at least, did not particularly favour it. I am much surprised to hear a protectionist talk in that way, though such ideas would seem quite natural when expressed by a free trader like myself. I never was imbued with the idea of that preference, nor am I now. I think it is wrong in principle. In matters of trade, I am perfectly willing to buy from even the Chinese or the Japanese or Mr. EDWARDS.
from any other people who will sell to me the cheapest. No greater mistake has ever been made than to imagine for a moment that it is against the interest of Canada to buy the cheap productions of another country. What does such buying mean ? It simply means that for the labour of Canada we are receiving a larger return than we otherwise would receive. Some hon. gentlemen who have spoken seem to be imbued with the idea that every country should be protected ^against "every other country. What would that mean ? It would simply mean the limiting of commerce. And, if the limiting of commerce is what is wanted, It would be as wise to protect individuals in a country against one another as to protect nations against one another, and that shows that the proposition is absolutely absurd-there is no common sense in it. The hon. member for North Norfolk spoke of the great prosperity that the United States enjoys. It is true that the United States has been prosperous. It is true also that the United States has had a protective tariff and has to-day. But it is also true that the United States has enjoyed a great measure of free trade, because the great north, the great south, the great east and the great west of the United States have been free to trade with one another. I would like to ask one question of those who think that the proposition of protection is a sound one. Suppose you move the boundary northward and take in the whole of Canada as part of the United States, would Canada enjoy greater prosperity in commercial matters ? Every person would answer that question in the affirmative. There can be no doubt about it whatever. Then, what common sense can there be, as a matter of commerce, in placing these barriers to commerce between the two countries ? There is no common sense in it at all. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) also advises that England should adopt the protective system. Well, I want to ask what, under the sun, England would do under such a condition as that? The hon. gentleman said that Germany, France and the United States were invading the English markets and that, therefore, protection should obtain in England, and let England trade with herself. This is in line with the idea of protection, which is simply that each country should confine itself to itself in trade. England would indeed be a great country under such conditions. I am surprised that any hon. gentleman who knows anything of commerce should support such a proposition. It is utterly childish. England would be absolutely ruined under such conditions. The hon. gentleman next came to the matter of our trade with the United States, our large purchases from that country and our small sales to that country. But he further stated what a splendid condition of

affairs existed in our trade with England, because we were now exporting largely to that country, but, that notwithstanding the preference, we were not buying so largely from that country. Is it not natural that the country to which you export the larger portion of your goods should be the one from which you would buy what you require? That would be a much more natural proposition in our case than that we should send the goods to England, and that England should send the balance, if there be a balance, to the United States in liquidation of our trade balance due that country. Why does this condition exist between Canada and England ? I deny absolutely that it is because of the preferential tariff, but hold that it is simply because, being adjacent to the United States, bordering for hundreds and thousands of miles upon that country, our trade necessarily is greater With the United States than with a country more distant. Moreover, the goods manufactured in the United States are, very largely, the goods we require. Take for instance, in agricultural implements, which we buy very largely from the United States. Why are American agricultural implements bought in the western portion of Canada where implements are not manufactured ? Why, what would the protectionist want ? He would want the farmer of the Northwest to send his grain to the markets of the world and then buy what he required in the east to be transported to the west, instead of buying across the border which is the most natural thing to do.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the bon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) will allow me, I would like to ask him a question. Is he not aware that a large number of agricultural implements manufactured in the United States are brought into Ontario, although agricultural implements are manufactured in this province ?


William Cameron Edwards: If large quantities of agricultural implements are being brought into Ontario from the United States, as I believe they are, all the more disgrace to the manufacturers of agricultural implements in Ontario. There could not be a better argument against their existence than that they are not able to compete with the American manufacturers, even with the protection that they have. Now, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) further says that he is opposed to reciprocity within the empire as suggested by the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition. It seems strange to me as a free trader that a protectionist should agree with me on that point. I also am opposed absolutely to any such proposition. While I am loyal to Great Britain in every way, while I am most desirous that the greatest glory and the greatest prosperity should attend the empire, I believe that every producer in Canada should be a free man and should be allowed to exercise his rights to sell
where he pleases and to buy where it suits him.
What is commerce ? Commerce is an interchange of the surplus products of labour, and when you attack commerce you attack labour, yes, and when you attack commerce you attack the labouring man. The proposition, Mr. Speaker, that you can protect the labouring man is the greatest absurdity that ever was spoken. You can no more protect the labouring man than you can protect the farmer. You cannot protect the farmer of this country. Any man who pretends for a moment that he can protect the farmer of Canada knows nothing about the proposition. Any man who says he can protect the labourer in any country of the world knows nothing about the proposition. It is absolutely impossible to protect labour. Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if labour can be protected, why did not the United States, that great protectionist country, protect the labourer from 1873 to 1879 ? Taking the period from 1893 to 1898, I ask you why they did not protect labour in that great protectionist country ? Labour fell to a lower point even during those years than it did in Canada. I ask you why protection, in that great protectionist country, did not maintain continuously the good times that its friends claimed it would do ? Simply because under protection it is impossible for good times to be maintained. Under free trade conditions the labourer receives, and always will receive, the greatest reward for his labour. Protection simply means robbery of the labouring man, protection simply means robbery of the farmer, and of every man in Canada who is producing its natural resources. Protection in my estimation is nothing more or less than legalized robbery. Holding these views as strongly as I do, notwithstanding the statement of the hon. gentleman who spoke before me that he could change his views but I was not progressive enough to do so-I never will be progressive enough to join a band of robbers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to ask the hon. gentleman one question. When he says that labour always fares best in a free trade country, why is it that labouring men come from England, the only free trade country in the world to Canada and the United States, which are protectionist countries, and do better here V


William Cameron Edwards: Germany is one of the highest protective countries in the world, England is free trade. In England the labourer receives 70 per cent more than he does in Germany. Will the hon. gentleman explain that ? Mr. Speaker, that is the effect of protection upon labour. Why do we have depressions in commerce V We have depressions in commerce, and have them periodically, simply because, during those times which are called prosperous times, too many men are diverted from their proper

channels of industry and go into the business of interchanging commodities, too many men go into trade and too few are engaged in producing the wealth of the world, and as a consequence we have depressions. We also observe that the most severe depressions always occur in protective countries, and they are always least in free trade countries ; and as a consequence the labourer always enjoys, always will enjoy, and always must enjoy the best results in free trade countries.
Now, the hon. gentleman still clings to the idea that reciprocity with the United States is an absolute necessity to the well being of Canada. So far as I am concerned I deny that proposition absolutely. It is highly desirable that we should have the freest possible trade with the United States, but it is not essential to our existence. If they are determined to pursue the silly course which they have pursued for so many years, why let them do so. The hon. gentleman believes in reciprocity. While I would be glad to see free trade, while I would be glad to see the United States, in the best interests of the people of that country and in the best interests of mankind, living under free trade conditions, at the same time 1 believe that if they are not wise enough to adopt that policy, why should we, Mr. Speaker, adopt so foolish, so suicidal a policy as to punish Canadians severely because the people of the United States choose to punish themselves. In the United States every producer of the natural resources of the country is a slave. A slave to whom ? A slave to relatively a few manufacturers in that country. Do we desire that Canadians should be placed in the same position? Not at all. What are we doing to-day V These men who advocate protection in Canada pretend that a great danger is threatening us from the United States because of the monopolies that exist there, they fear these monopolies are going to crush us in Canada. Sir, how have these monopolies been built up ? They have been built up under the accursed system of protection, and that is why they exist in the United States. We are told that manufacturers in the United States sell cheaper to Canadians than they sell to their own people. Well. Sir, does it hurt the Canadian farmer, does it hurt the Canadian labourer, does it hurt anybody in Canada except a few protected manufacturers, if they do sell cheap goods to Canadians V It is a great benefit to the Canadian people, and we should be very foolish indeed if we did not allow them to sell us goods cheaper than they sell to their own people.
I believe that our duty Is to legislate for the Canadian people without any regard to what the American people or any other people may do. I believe In legislating absolutely for Canada alone. I care not what other people do so far as their tariffs are concerned. I do care, of course, in a way, Mr. ED WAR OB.
for the people who are suffering from monopolies ; but having regard to the best interests of the people of Canada I never can support, and never will support, a condition of things which will levy a greater embargo upon the producers of wealth in Canada than is imposed to-day. Perhaps some gentleman will say : Why do you support 1 he conditions that exist to-day ? Well, Mr. Speaker, for years the Conservatives have been building up this system of iniquity in Canada. I understand something of commerce, and something of the effects that would attend the removal of such an embargo too hurriedly. I believe in reducing the tariff slowly'. Free trader as I am, I am perfectly satisfied with the government as far as they have gone; but I say this, I cannot support you unless you go further. As time goes on you must go further, or I cannot support you.	.
Now what are the conditions in the United States ? These monopolies have been built up so that there is to-day a tremendous centralization of wealth in the hands of a few people. Things have got to such a pass that I believe capital is going to be entirely unsafe in the United States ; I believe that firmly. Some may say : What is the difference ? Money is circulated anyway. These monopolists may be worth their hundreds of millions, but the people have the use of the money. Well, that is all very fine. The millionaire lives in luxury.	Yes,
many of them go to England and live in luxury. How do they do it V They live in luxury on the millions stolen from the labourers of the United States. 1 am absolutely opposed to the condition which brings about any such result. I believe each labourer should enjoy the benefits of his own labour. While I believe the employer should have his just share, I believe, at the same time, that the labourer should have his just share. This is one of the greatest propositions that stares us in the face to-day. The greatest question that we have before us in the world is this question of capital and labour. The conditions in the United States, perhaps over any other country in the world, are such that these enormous fortunes have been amassed through the protective system, and I believe they will bring about a state of things that will prove very dangerous to that country. We do not want any such conditions in Canada. What have we in Canada ? We have, to-day, gentlemen who are giving very large sums to different institutions and they are looked upon as great philanthropists. They are nothing of the kind. They are simply giving back to the people a portion of the money, which through legislation, has been stolen from the people. That is all they have been doing. Now, Mr. Speaker, while I am a free trader, there is one thing I am willing to admit. I am willing to admit that free trade does not obtain in England because

of any philanthropic motives. Free trade obtains in England from selfish motives. It was the selfish motives of the manufacturers of England which really brought about free trade in that country. That, I am perfectly willing to admit, but, I also believe that a very selfish motive has been the means of maintaining protection in the United States up to the present time. What are the conditions in the United States so far as this very question is concerned ? The manufacturers have been in favour of protection and the farmers have been opposed to it. I foresee a change coming. Perhaps I do not go to certain portions of that country doing missionary work and making speeches, but I come in contact with perhaps as many business men as my hon. friend who sits beside me (Mr. Charlton), and I observe that a very great change is coming over the aspect of things in that country, and that it is drifting rapidly towards free trade. The change in that respect in the United States is enormous-and why ? The selfish interest again is going to prevail. The people of the United States are manufacturing more than is required in that country, they have to seek foreign markets, and the moment they have to seek foreign markets, they become free traders, because in competition with the other nations of the world, they desire to produce in the cheapest possible way they can. If Canada does not look out, the United States, in a few years, will force her into free trade. To meet their duties, as iu the past, with retaliatory duties is, to my mind, a perfect absurdity, and to attempt, to-day, to levy high duties because they are doing it in the United States is, to me, a perfect absurdity. If there is any one way in which you can fight the United States with tariffs, it is by adopting a very low tariff in Canada. That would be a very great menace to the United States, but, pretending to fight them with a high tariff, is simply committing suicide so far as Canada is concerned. I shall not delay the House any longer upon this subject. I do not suppose, Mr. Speaker, that you will hear as many outspoken free trade speeches as I am disposed to make. I do not for one moment believe that the Liberal party has become insane. I believe nothing of the kind. I cannot believe it. I believe that the old views prevail just as they have prevailed for many years and, perhaps, it is quite possible that the government may go a little slower than I would like to have them go, but, as long as they are moving in the right direction and advocating free trade, as far as I am concerned, they will find me a loyal supporter. But, if I hear protection advocated by any member of the Liberal government, you can depend upon it, that my faith will be found to be weakening. I am absolutely unable to join in a proposition that I believe to be so immoral, that leads to such a great wrong on the labouring men, the producers of the natural wealth of the country. It would be perfectly impossible for me to do it. Mr. Speaker, if ever I am going to be a thief, I will be a noble thief. I will join a band of highway robbers, I will put a pistol to a man's face and tell him to deliver up, but, I can never be a protectionist sneak thief.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Mr. Speaker, one would imagine from the tenor of the speech of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Edwards) that he is thoroughly convinced, that the faith is in him, and that he never could believe anything but what he has told us to-night. He could not be changed; it is no use attempting to change him. He is thoroughly convicted, and it would not matter if the premier of this country and if all the Liberals of this country were to attempt to show him that he was wrong, he would still maintain that he was right. I have my opinion of a man who thinks he knows it all. I think I ought to be the proudest man in this House to-night. It is something over fourteen years ago since I had the pleasure of presiding, as president of the Farmers Institute in my county, at a farmers' meeting. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) was invited to address those farmers. The hon. gentleman lives in the adjoining county, and he came to our meeting. He gave us a very different dissertation from that which he gave us this evening. He was then a strong advocate of commercial union and unrestricted reciprocity. I was voted out of the chair on that occasion for the purpose of answering our friend from Norfolk. I had an opportunity of speaking, I think, for about my usual time of speaking, and it took the' hon. gentleman half an hour to answer the points I produced against him. lie was then strongly in favour of commercial union with the United States, and he showed us, at least he attempted to show us. the great advantages as farmers that we would derive by selling our produce in the American market. He illustrated his case that evening in a very striking manner. He said he wanted the Brffalo market, which was the nearest city to him, so that he could take his cattle there. The hon. gentleman raises cattle, and he stated that he had sent a drove of his cattle to the Buffalo market, but owing to the difficulty of getting them to that market they only returned him $30 each. I replied that the hon. gentleman either did not have the right kind of cattle, or else he did not take them to the right market, for I had just returned from Great Britain where I sold cattle of the same age in the Glasgow market for 21 pounds each. You see it makes a difference as to the market. Now, Mr. Speaker, when some gentlemen

clamour so mucli for the American market, it seems to me that they do not know what they are talking about. If we had not the British market then we might clamour for the American market for our natural products, but so long as the British market is free to us we can always get a first class price for a first class article, and we can always have there the best market in the world. Britain is the best market for our natural products, and it seems to me that it is only fair that we should purchase all we want to import in the British market. I believe that the vessels that take away our cattle, and, our cheese, and our butter, and our farm products of all kinds to England, should return laden with goods to Canada which the people of this country had bought in Great Britain. That is only fair play. I, for one, am not at all anxious for that great High Joint Commission to go back begging to Washington for reciprocity in natural products, especially when we have such a grand market open to us in the mother country. I heard a lot of talk here about the German market and other foreign markets, but what are these markets to us when we have the best market in the world open to us all the time in England ? I am not in favour of the amendment which has been moved by the leader of the opposition, because it asks for high protection, but I would have supported a motion which censured the government for spending the enormous amount of money they do spend every year. There is no such resolution before us, unless my own will fill the Bill. I would propose the following as an amendment :
That in the opinion of this House the increased expenditure that is taking place from year to year is uncalled for and unwarranted and contrary to the professions of the Liberal party, because in accordance with 'hese professions the expenditure of this country should not exceed the income. We believe' that the time has arrived when the interests of the farmer should he considered, especially in view of the fact that government cannot protect to any great extent the productions of the farmer; and as a moderate step in such a direction, be it resolved the duty on agricultural implements shall be reduced to 15 per cent and the duty on coal oil shall be reduced to two cents per gallon. '
I do not know if I will get a seconder for that or not. I do not think there are many independent men in the House. They all seem to be obliged either to vote for the government or to follow the leader of the opposition, but I am no servile follower. I suggest that motion because these are my sentiments, and I think that we are here as members of parliament, or we ought to be here to express our views as to what we think should be in the best interest of the country. It seems to be the object of this great House of Commons that when a resolution is brought in by one side, the other side must oppose it whether there is Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).
merit in that resoluton or not. That being the case, and the members being apparently bound to one party or the other, I expect that my resolution will not receive much favour here. I am thankful, Mr. Speaker, for one thing, and that is that however we have discussed questions during this session we have had no racial or religious cry mentioned. I am thankful for that. We have the right to come and discuss here all questions affecting the welfare of the country, and I am glad that no bitter feeling has been exhibited this session as has been the case at other times. I do not profess, like the member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) to know it all. I am ready to be converted to anything that is better than I believe. The hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) is not as the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) who like the man who once attended a revival meeting, went to scoff, but remained to pray. I would not wonder if the hon. member for Russell would find himself in the same box sometimes.
Let me ask : How are the farmers going to be benefited by a high protective duty ? If there is any gentleman in this House who can show me that, then as a representative of the farmers I will gladly fall in with his view. If it can be shown that the placing of a high protective duty on articles manufactured in this country will help the farmers, then I am ready to submit. But, I have never yet been convinced that the farmer who is obliged to sell his surplus products in the open market can in any way be protected by whatever duty a government may impose.
One hon. gentleman has said that the great evil we were suffering from were the American products which were coming in free of duty or at very low rates of duty. One hon. gentleman stated this afternoon that whilst the Americans imposed a duty of twenty-five per cent against our wheat we have only a duty of twelve and a half per cent against their wheat. Well, I would like to know what would be the difference if we increased the duty. We send no wheat to the American market when wheat is dearer in Buffalo and Chicago than it is in Toronto and Montreal. Then, we want men who have capital to come in and erect mills on our streams which have water powers, in order to grind up all the wheat they can get, whether it comes from Canada or the United States. There is no argument in that. The conditions are the same with regard to any product which the Americans have and which we have not. We are only doing ourselves an injury if we refuse to buy it when it will benefit us to get it. One hon. gentleman complained that we were allowing corn to come in free from the United States. If that hon. gentleman lived in the section I do and fed cattle, he would know that every year the farmers buy carloads of American corn

to fatten their cattle ; and besides the profit they made upon the corn in that way, they also derive a benefit because of the manure it furnishes for the fields. Therefore X say there is no argument in that. But when the American people refuse to trade with us on equal terms, then I would treat them just as X would my neighbour if he refused to trade with me or have anything to do with me. I would try to do my business with some one else. That is just the way I feel like dealing with the American people.
I think we should consult our own interests in framing a tariff against them. Our government ought to know that, and if they do not, let us put in a government that does.
Now, I do not know that it is rfecessary for me to talk much about my resolution. It speaks for itself. The infant industries of our country should be protected. Infant industries are something like a man's family. He has a lot of boys and girls, and lie must raise them and raise them well; but after he has raised them, then he is doing them and himself an injustice if he does not allow them to work for themselves. That is just what we are doing with many of the manufacturers of this country. We are just keeping them up, giving them the benefit of a higher tariff and enabling them to get rich, whilst the poor men who work for them are getting but a dole for their wages. I happened to be in Ohio a few years ago, and dined with the governor of that state. I am not saying this to boast; I am merely stating the truth. He spoke of the immense amount of good he was doing in the state by building asylums and almshouses at different places. I said, ' governor, I think I can give you a better idea than that.' He said he would like to get it. I said, ' just take two or three dollars off every one of those machines next summer, and give the money to the farmers who are working for you.' It is from the farmers that the money is taken to build poor-houses and churches. ,It has been said in this debate that the Americans are growing immensely rich because of their high duties. I grant that some Americans are growing rich, but it is only those who have the inside track. The poor people of that country, especially the farmers, are not as well off as our own people. Some of these gentlemen are anxious to make a few people in Canada wealthy too. I am not. I want to see the wealth of the country fairly distributed among the people. I also want to see the taxes fairly collected, which they are not now under our present system of taxation. It seems that the system of customs and inland revenue duties is the only mode of collecting the taxes of this country ; but it is a very unjust method indeed. As I said a few days ago, a poor man, a labourer or a mechanic with a large family of eight or ten children, a man who is toiling and working every day to get sufficient to
maintain his family, has to buy dutiable goods to the amount of perhaps his total wages, while some men who are wealthy with an income of perhaps |8,000 or $10,000 a year, have only a wife and one child, or perhaps no children, or perhaps are not married, do not contribute as much as the poor man to the revenue of this country.
I say it is a very unfair and unjust system of taxation ; but it seems that that is the only way in which we can collect the money required to keep these gentlemen afloat. I am not casting any reflection upon them, because some gentlemen on this side of the House would like to be afloat too.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are many things which the farmers and every one else in this country requires which we can neither make nor grow, and consequently we have to buy them somewhere. It would be foolish for us to attempt to grow some things or to attempt to manufacture some things. Most gentlemen here are fond of bananas, oranges, figs and similar delicacies. Suppose some gentleman on this side of the House were to ask the government to give him a grant for the purpose of enabling him to start a conservatory or hot-house to grow these things. Would the government be foolish enough to give him a grant for that purpose? No, because the bananas would cost ten cents apiece and the oranges the same. Therefore we had better let them grow them where they can do it to advantage and we will grow something else. It is the very same with manufacturers. There is a village near my place where for many years there was a manufacturer who made excellent threshing machines, but he had to draw his coal and iron and everything that went into these machines a number of miles, as there was no railway near. He was consequently handicapped and found himself obliged to move his establishment where there were more facilities for his business. That same rule applies everywhere. In Ontario we have no coal, and it is no use in our attempting to go into manufacturing in that province in competition with those who have the coal and the iron at their very door. By putting on protection to foster such competition, we are only bolstering up an artificial industry that costs us more than it gives. What we want is to make Canada a cheap country to live in. That should be our great object. Every year we are spending half a million dollars on immigration, but one of the first things an immigrant will want to know is what is the taxation here. And when the agent tells him that it is $50 a head for every man, woman and child, and that the debt of the country is $208,000,000, which must be paid by somebody, he is uot likely to have his imagination excited in favour of this country as a profitable one to settle in. Our Finance Minister has added to our debt $6,000,000 this year, and we do not know what he will do next. How is that debt to be met V

Surely we are not going to tax the unborn generations to pay it, but that is what we will have to do. It is about time that we should reduce our expenditure. We cannot expect every year the immense crops we have had these last two years, and the sooner we trim our sails to suit the wind the better.
I do not wish to go over what other hon. members have discussed, but I would like to make a reference to the question of the census, which seemed to have agitated the Minister of Trade and Commerce more than any other. I differ with that hon. gentleman in his opinion that the census was not properly taken ten years ago. I know that in our county the men who were employed to take it were above suspicion, and I am equally confident that those who were employed to take the last census were equally free from reproach. I should be sorry indeed to have it said elsewhere that Canadians were perjurers and liai-s, who could not be trusted to enumerate their own people. If such a charge should be proved, 1 will sell out as soon as I can and leave the country.
I suppose I will make enemies of every man in this House, save a few independents, by what I am going to say, but I can not refrain from giving my opinion. I find that there is quite a number of independent members in.the lobby and out in the streets of the city, but when they come here inside this Chamber-Oh dear ! Only two weeks ago I asked where were certain members from both sides of the House, and I was told that they were out in Lisgar, where there was a big election going on. It seems to me that men elected to do their duty in this House could be much better employed attending to their duties here than trying to crush a poor little independent out in Lisgar. But if it be true that so many men voted the independent ticket in Lisgar, it shows that if the independent men in this country would all vote together, as they did at Lisgar, we would have in the next parliament some sixty independents on this side of the House. I do not find any cheering on either side at this remark. Let me say in conclusion that I do trust that when men are elected to any duty, they will try to discharge it.


Mr. W. R. BROCK (Centre Toronto).: Before addressing myself, Mr. Speaker, to the particular questions before the House, 1 cannot refrain from paying a tribute of esteem to my hon. friend who has just preceded me. We must admit that he is the only independent member of this House, elected as such, who has the courage of his Independence. He was returned as an independent, and during the two sessions he has been in this House he has not in any way departed from that line of policy and is to-day still as independent as he was when he first canvassed his electors.


Jabel Robinson: I wish this afternoon to draw attention to some particular views which I hold, and which I believe are entertained to a considerable extent in this country, upon the budget which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has presented to us with all that beauty of diction and force which marks the hon. gentleman's utterances in this House. But, Sir, I must say that I was considerably surprised by the conclusions at which the hon. minister arrived. He did not seem to appreciate the condition to which his management of the country's finances has led this country. Some five or six years ago, the present government came into power. It was elected just at the close of a very serious state of affairs which had existed in this country and the United States. There had been a very great depression in business, not only in agriculture but in manufacturing. This government immediately investigated the conditions of affairs and introduced a revision of the tariff. That was followed by very great prosperity. For the last five years we have enjoyed unexampled prosperity. We have had an immense increase in our imports and exports. We have, undoubtedly, accumulated a large amount of money in this country. But, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman where he has left the finances of the Dominion ? Have we been getting out of debt ? What have we been doing with these enormous sums of money that have been taken from the people, these hundreds of millions ? Every dollar has been expended, and yet, not only is our national debt greater, but we are very deeply in debt-several millions, I believe-to the banks. And the Finance Minister tells us that he is going to the financial centres of the world on a borrowing trip. That may not appear a very important matter practically, considering the tremendous revenues of this country. But if this were applied to private business, what would be thought of it ? Suppose that a man, after conducting a private business for five years, found himself during a period of hard times with 15,000 in debt. He gets relief from his creditors and permission to try again. Immediately, times improve and business grows better. He buys more goods and sells more goods and makes more money. And, at the end of another five years he comes to his creditors, who wish to have a stock-taking and says : Gentlemen, I am in a magnificent position, I have been doing a great business, I have been earning a great deal of money. I have been spending a great deal of money, it is very true. But I have assets, though I can't exactly lay my hands upon them.
I want you to understand that, instead of being $5,000 in debt I am now $10,000 in debt, and, over and above that I must go to the banks to borrow money to pay my current expenses. Would that be a very gratifying position for a private individual ? But the government will say : Oh, we have
15G1

great public works. So we have. We have the Intercolonial Railway. And the Intercolonial Railway has been a very serious* liability, instead of an asset. We have spent more money on it every year than we have received from it or are likely to receive from it. We have been enormously increasing our liabilities, even at a time when, as the Minister of Finance says, we have been riding upon the crest of a wave of prosperity. What would the wise merchant or financier do during prosperous times ? Would he not prepare himself for the lean years that are to come ? I do' not see any indication in the Public Ac-' counts of any reserve fund accumulated by the Finance Minister for times of less prosperity. And, when that hon. gentleman came to the question of relieving certain industries in this country, he told them that there was no relief to be expected from him or from the government. In saying that he was taking advantage of the position he occupied in this House with an enormous majority at his back to positively refuse a demand that is coming up now, as an hon. gentleman said this evening, from nearly three-quarters of the people of this country. He is supported by some hon. gentlemen who call themselves free traders to the hilt. I notice that while they call themselves free traders to the hilt, they, are, on every occasion, prepared to support by their votes, the government that is not a free trade government, but has repudiated free trade and has told us that free trade is impossible in this country. I think it was my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) who spoke of a servile following. Nothing could be more servile than that. In matters of expenditure also, we are having some revelations before the Public Accounts committee which show that the money we have spent during the last five years has not all been spent judiciously, but that enormous sums have been squandered-


William Cameron Edwards: Where ?


William Rees Brock: I can take you to twenty or thirty wharfs and other works in different counties that were built just before election, and built not to serve any practical purpose for the people, but to buy votes for the government. And these works not only cost money to construct, but they form a liability, because the revenues from them are not sufficient to pay the expenses of operation. And, yet, when the city of Toronto asked the Minister of Public Works to consider the case they were in, that a little expenditure would make a harbour at that great city, where railroads are centering and commerce is increasing-a harbour that would be a credit and a benefit not to Toronto alone, but to the whole country-the government hesitates about spending even a small sum there. Why ? The hon. minister himself gives the answer in
the question, ' What has Toronto done for me ? ' Unfortunately-unfortunately for the harbour, but fortunately for Toronto and for the country, the city does not return to this House one representative of the same political complexion as the hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches.
Now, what this country wants is what the leader of the Conservative party has stated by this resolution. The country wants a declared policy. I think it is due to the intelligence of this country that a government that has been in power between five or six years, should, by this time, be able to formulate a policy which they would not be afraid to declare. The policy of opportunism is a very poor one. That policy seems to have guided the government up to the present time. They are not at one among themselves. I suppose that that is why we have no declared policy from them. If they attempted to declare a policy that might happen again which the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) mentioned this evening as having happened to the government of Mr. Mackenzie. That government, it appears, made up their minds to a certain policy, but found it was going to be unpopular with the maritime provinces and might put them out of power. And so they let their principles slip and hung on to office for a short time. Therefore, I declare that the advice given by the hon. member for North Norfolk this evening to the present government is good advice. I think that the Prime Minister was taking note of it. A policy such as they have been going to the country with, such as they have maintained in this House, is not a policy that this country could respect. If they favour free trade, let them come out in an open, manly way, and declare for free trade. If they are not free traders, they must be protectionists. The medium course is not an honest course. This country is demanding that our industries should be protected. The Finance Minister says that he will take it into consideration and perhaps some way or other next year he will heal the leak. But, as the hon. member for North Norfolk says, if it is a leak, it should have been healed at once. That would have been the fair, the honest position to take. I alluded more particularly to an industry that I am not only interested in, but well acquainted with, the woollen industry. It is not an insignificant industry, not an industry supported by an unintelligent people. It is an industry that has been fostered in this country in years gone by, an industry that has been prosperous in the past and that could be prosperous to-day, were it not for the policy adopted and the tactics indulged in by the Prime Minister of giving to England a onesided preference-a preference jn this market for them but no preference whatever in their market for us. Immediately after the first 12i per cent had been taken off, then commenced a gradual decrease in the

woollen Industry of this country. The woollen industry of England Is probably one of the greatest Industries of that country. They have absolutely perfect machinery, they have very cheap labour, they have very cheap money, they have the markets of the world open to them. We have not the markets of the world open to us, quite the contrary. A market that we might have had has been closed to us in consequence of the preference which the Prime Minister gave to Great Britain. And remember, Mr. Speaker, that preference is only a sentimental one. Unfortunately it is a sentiment that, though it may have been in favour of Great Britain, in favour of some industries in Great Britain, it was absolutely Injurious to certain industries in this country.
I see occasionally in the papers that certain woollen mills are said to be working full time, some of them night and day. Great comfort is taken by members on the other side of the House with that statement. But I think any woollen manufacturer, or even an ordinary merchant, will know that you can be very busy indeed in losing money. The woollen mills of this country, as a rule, have been losing money, even those that have been working night and day, some of them doing the most business, have been doing it with the greatest loss. That has been caused largely, not so much by the large quantity of woollen goods that they have actually manufactured and sold, but largely through the enormous tons of samples of woollen goods, English and German, that come in here through the Post Office Department, and are scattered broadcast through the country. A gentleman not understanding the business, though he may be very learned in the law, may probably smile at that statement as being an exaggeration. But I know of it practically, and practical men know of it. When our manufacturers get out their samples and call upon the trade of this country to sell them, they are met at once by these samples of English and German goods sent out here, many of them marked at very low figures, and our manufacturers have to make a price to meet goods from a mill which is running on one kind of goods and running all the time, whereas a mill such as that of my hon. friend, Mr. Rosamond, turns out 1,200 or 1,500 different patterns of goods, and of a great many different qualities, and he finds that he cannot meet their prices. Why ? Because our market is a limited market. Nothing was done to help us to a foreign market, therefore we have to content ourselves with the home market. English and German manufacturers sell their surplus stocks in this country, and make Canada a slaughter market. Any gentleman who understands the woollen trade of this country is aware that there are many expert workmen employed in our woollen mills, Mr. BROCK.
such for instance as those employed by the gentleman who sits beside me (Mr. Rosamond). They dread losing these experienced workmen, and they actually keep them at work at a loss rather than have the mills closed and the men scattered.
Now, the Minister of Finance said that we should eat a little less and work a little harder. Well, that is very poor comfort, and I can tell the toon, gentleman that what the hon. member for North Norfolk says is absolutely true. Go where I will through the manufacturing districts of this country, I find there is a demand made for the policy announced in this resolution, that is ample protection. We do not ask ample protection for the woollen trade only, we know that would be futile; but we say that ample protection for the different industries of this country would protect the farmers of this country. The statement that the farmer cannot be protected is unfounded, because he can be protected. The best protection for a farmer in this country is to give him a good home market, and nobody knows that better than the member for Russell. There is not a farmer in his constituency who would not rather sell what he has to sell at home, than to be obliged to send it abroad. It is true, as the hon. gentleman says, that the market prices in this country are made by the prices in England, and we have got to meet those prices if we are to make any sales. Therefore, I say that in protecting the farming industry of this country we are actually protecting our greatest industry. The agricultural industry may not be so aggressive, perhaps, but it is a silent industry that the members of the government should take into their serious consideration. No country can be great if it has nothing to rely upon but its agricultural productions, to export. We would be able to buy nothing from foreign countries, and those countries like England, the United States or Germany, if we have nothing to buy from them, would not be so likely to buy from us.
Now, a great difficulty in connection with protection, as I can quite understand, is the way it is supposed to affect our friends from Manitoba and the North-west When we get a little nearer to the coast that difficulty becomes less. I think I heard an hon. gentleman from British Columbia speak this evening who Is not a protectionist at all, oh, no, but he insists upon getting protection for lumber and for lead. I have no doubt, when once we open the door, we will find that British Columbia wants protection on a great many things. The farmers of the North-west, which is exclusively a farming country, have got to be specially considered.
Now, Sir, there is a way, I think, of meeting the interests of the farmers of the North-west that will amply protect them, and place them in a position to put their grain into the Liverpool market at the same

price, so far as the price is affected by transportation, as grain can be put in there from Minnesota, or Dakota, or Illinois, or any other western state. I contend that is a matter that should be taken hold of vigorously by the Minister of Public Works and the government; they should see that we have a properly developed system of transportation. The great calls that have been made upon the government during the last five years should have induced them ere this to give more attention to that matter than they have done. Of course the Minister of Public Works is very energetic, and suggests a scheme of transportation, but his scheme lacks comprehensiveness. The French River canal which he speaks of building is only sixty-five miles long, and it is really out of the question to talk about spending even the five or six millions which he speaks of, unless you have a more comprehensive scheme showing where you are going to start from and what sea port you are going to make for. If you give such transportation facilities that our farmers in the North-west can place their grain in the English market at a favourable price as compared with grain from the United States, I contend that the people of the North-west are big enough, and strong enough to stand a little duty on some kinds of imported goods. Give them this great boon of cheap transportation, and you will find them ready and willing to support any government that finds it necessary to give protection to manufacturing industries.
There is another thing to which I wish to direct attention in connection with our present rate of duty. This is essentially a slaughter market for certain kinds of goods manufactured in the United States. Those are not such goods as we do not make ourselves, in most cases they are the goods we are making to-day. The statement was made to me the other day that a large quantity of goods were being bought in the New York market, and when the question was asked why they were willing to sell so cheap, the parties stated that the mill had produced 4,800 cases of those goods, and they had 190 cases left. The 4,800 cases had been sold all through the United States in the usual way, that is with a guarantee that in the event of their taking any reduction off the price of any of those goods in the United States, they would give a credit note to their customers. This is continually done. Well, you can understand, it is a mere matter of the rule of three, that if they had gone to work to sell these goods left over, to sell them in their own market at a reduced price, they would have had to give a credit note on 4,800 cases of these goods. They therefore slaughtered them in the Canadian market. They gave us as a reason that there was some cotton print mills in this country that they would like to see closed, and they wished these goods sold
cheaper than they could be made by the mills at Magog. This, as a matter of fact, is a transaction that I will be very happy to bring to the attention of the hon. Minister of Finance in order to show that this country is being made a slaughter market. Of course, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) says : Oh, our poor farmers are getting the advantage of these bargains, but they get no advantage if two hundred or three hundred people in the vicinity of Sherbrooke and Magog are obliged to go to the United States to get work when the mills are closed down as the Cornwall mills have been closed. It will not benefit the farmers about Cornwall to have the mills there closed, nor will it benefit the farmers of this country. Therefore, I contend that a fair measure of protection, surrounded with proper safeguards and judiciously applied, is an absolute benefit to the farmers of this country and to every other class. In conducting business, business men, in a small, or a large way, have a right to look to the hon. Minister of Finance, to the different departments and to the government, for an example in business methods. At the commencement of my remarks I gave an instance as to how business should be carried on, but, I contend that no merchant, conducting business in this country in bad times and particularly in good times as the hon. Minister of Finance and the government are conducting the financial affairs of this country, could possibly stand for a couple of decades. He would certainly become bankrupt. He would be living at too high a rate. This has brought more people to grief than anything else. Because they happened to have a good year or two they have their expenses up and we heard it said from the other side of the House last night, that once the expenses get up, it is hard to get them down again. If the hon. Minister of Finance had to cut down expenses, where would he begin ? He would find it a difficult problem, a more difficult problem than meeting the manufacturers of this country who are asking for some little assistance at this time.
I had intended to make some remarks based upon some statements made by the hon. member for North Norfolk which were put in the most admirable manner by him. His speech was most moderate considering the aggravation he has had, but, I admit that when he described what a great nation required to be a great nation, that it should have not only agriculture but that it should do its own manufacturing, as far as possible, he rose to a height of statesmanship that I am sorry to say members of the government are not prepared to climb to.
Our attention has been drawn to the enormous amount of money in the savings banks and other monetary institutions of this country and this was given as evidence of great prosperity. But, Sir, I may venture to say that this is also evidence of a con-

siderable amount of want of confidence in the industrial and farming interests of this country. I contend, Sir, that if the farmers were properly encouraged, if the industrial interests were encouraged, a great deal of that money, instead of being left at 24 and 3 per cent and a good deal at nothing at all in the savings banks and other banks, would find investment in trade and commerce, manufactures and agriculture. Nobody would think of leaving his money in a bank at 2J or 3 per cent if he had any confidence that by investing it in the manufactures and other industries of the country, he would be able to get a better return for it. It is simply because people cannot get a better return that it is not so invested, and it is a sad commentary upon the management of public affairs, that so many men who have, by their industry and frugality managed to save some money are obliged to leave it at the small rate of 24 and 3 per cent in the bank. The question was asked across the floor of the House by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) why the German workingman had smaller wages than the English workingman. The answer is quite plain. The German workingman will live on a franc a day and live well on a franc a day. The most expensive man on the face of the earth is the English mechanic. He demands more to eat and drink and therefore the mechanic in Germany can afford to take smaller wages and I believe in the end save more money. It is another case such as I have brought to the notice of the hon. Minister of Finance of living beyond your means. The man who lives beyond his means will come to grief, whereas, the man who saves a little even out of his small means is the best off in the long run. Some hon. gentlemen object to reciprocity, but a fair measure of reciprocity that will suit Canada, I am perfectly in favour of. But, such a measure of reciprocity as the United States will give us, hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches know we cannot touch. There is no use theorizing and talking about it and wasting money. The hon. member for North Norfolk, one of the commission, thinks that the right hon. Prime Minister and others should go to Washington again. We know what the return was. We were told this afternoon that the return was a bill for $36,000 and nothing more. I would not like to see another jaunt of that kind, because we know it is going to be useless. The best thing for us to do is to adopt the manly course of taking the matter into our own hands and legislating for this country to suit ourselves, and while suiting ourselves we will endeavour to work in harmony with the rest of the empire and make an international arrangement such as will suit ourselves. Probably some hon. gentlemen will say that England will have none of our protective ideas. England is rapidly Mr. BROCK.
advancing in the direction of protective ideas. Where they were not entertained a few years ago, you find them entertained now by some of the greatest minds in England. The hon. member for Russell said this evening that free trade was getting great headway in the United States. There is no doubt about it. They always had a great number of free traders there. One party is pledged to free trade or to move in that direction. We will get no reciprocity from the United States. There is a feeling of commercial hostility and a little more than commercial hostility, not only in the minds of the Irish residents of the United States, but in the old-fashioned residents of the United States as well. There is not that feeling of cordiality towards Canada that we should expect from the way in which we have treated the people of that country. The United States do not want to do anything to benefit Canada. Therefore, I think we need not waste much time upon any attempt to get reciprocity. I certainly myself felt very favourable towards the trade preference with Great Britain until it commenced to pinch.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Rees Brock: I suppose that is the way we all feel about these matters. The theory was very beautiful and the idea very grand; the whole thing was very pleasant to observe, but it is like these waters which are sparkling and clear to look on, but bitter when you swallow them. The trade preference with Great Britain, beautiful as it is on the outside, is beginning to pinch us hard, and we would like to get rid of it. However, I believe that to be an impossibility, and injudicious, and unwise at the present time. But I do contend, that the disadvantages should be met by the Finance Minister coming down with an extra measure of protection; a judicious addition to the protection that we now have, so as to bring it up to such a level that we can fairly compete in our own market for our own trade. We certainly cannot expect to compete with England abroad. I think if that were done, the people of this country would be contented. Probably my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Edwards) would not be contented, but I believe that a great majority of the people of this country would be. At any rate, if the government adopted this suggestion, it would be doing what is fair and right and just, and the government need never be ashamed of having done that.
Mr. RALPH SMITH (Vancouver), moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Prime Minister, the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, March 21, 1902.