1903-04-29

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBERT BICKERDIKE (Montreal, St. Lawrence) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 133) to prohibit the Importation, manufacture or sale of cigarettes.
Mr. G. TAYLOR (South Leeds).: Explain.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: The Bill provides practically what is contained in the resolution that the House, by a very large majority, recently adopted. The Bill is founded on that resolution. It goes so far as to prevent the importation, manufacture and sale of cigarettes. I understand that this Bill may not be strictly regular, but I would ask, if necessary, that the House would suspend the rule, so that we may get the first reading. If there is any further explanation that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) requires I would be very glad to give it to him.


George Taylor: I do not take exception to the Bill being presented, nor do I raise any point as to the rule, but if I understand the resolution that was passed in this House a short time ago, it demands that the government, and not a private member, should introduce this legislation. This Bill, as I understand it, somewhat affects the revenue, and it is only the government that can deal with it. In view of that, the government should accept the responsibility for this Bill and see that it is passed into law. Either the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike) should hand it over to the government and let them carry out the mandate of the House of Commons contained in that resolution, or else the government should now declare that they will take the responsibility for it.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: My hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) is somewhat in error when he wants to minimize the powers of the members of this House. A member of this House cannot in-

traduce a measure which would put any burdens upon the people, but a member of this House can always introduce a measure which will decrease the taxation and take burdens off the people, and, as I understand it, in this case the objection of my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) does not apply. I would also remind my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) that the government was not unanimous when the vote was taken on that resolution. It was looked upon as a question upon which the government were not called upon to formulate any policy.


George Taylor: I understand that the government are simply the servants of this House, and when the majority of this House commands the government^ to intopduieje legislation the government should not attempt to shirk the responsibility which is cast upon it by a large majority of the members of this House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill i-ead the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaRIVIERE asked :
Is It the intention of the government to cause to be printed in pamphlet form the Naturalization Act, with the regulations and forms, for the guidance of officials and aliens in general ; the need of which is now so widely felt in Manitoba, and throughout the Territories ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock).: In answer to the hon. gentleman, I have to say that the subject is engaging the attention of the government.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Hear, hear.


SUPERANNUATION OF F. X. CHABOT.
Mr. MORIN asked :: 1.	Has F. X. Chabot, Inspector of Weights and Measures, been dismissed from his position ?
2.	If so, for what reason ?
3.	Has a successor to him been appointed ?
4.	If so, what is his name, where does he reside, and what is his salary ?
5.	By whom was that new official recommended ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. Mr. Bernier) :: 1. No, he has been superannuated at his own request.
3.	Yes.
4.	Louis Joseph Bourget, he resides at Lauz'on, near Quebec ; his salary is $500 per annum.
5.	By a person in whom the department has confidence.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day Sir WILFRID LAURISR.
are proceeded with, I would like to call your attention and the attention of the House to a paragraph that appears in the Ottawa 'Citizen' of April 27th. It reads thus :



MR. MITCHELL SCORES DOMINION MEMBERS.

[Stage Direction]
Last night in Erskine Presbyterian church, the pastor, Rev. Mr. A. E. Mitchell preached an eloquent sermon, taking his text from 1 Corin-thans, xvi. 13 : ' Watch ye ! Stand fast in the faith. Quit ye like men. Be strong.' He made a touching reference to the late Sir Oliver Mowat and said that he was one of the cleanest and best politicians Canada had ever seen. Continuing, the minister said, ' that the kind of men who were wanted in public life to-day were manly men, brotherly men and Godly men, not men of the Gamey-Stratton type, but men who were not afraid to remain in the House of Commons during prayer. It is a shame,' said the speaker, ' that only thirteen members out of two hundred and thirteen would be present in the House and the Speaker waiting for a quorum to open parliament. The other members were living at ease on their $1,500 a year and travelling around the country on passes enjoying themselves. It. is robbing the country.'
Now, Sir, I cull attention to this because I do not think I have missed prayers more than once. I can count noses on the other side of the House-I cannot do so as well on this side-and I notice that there are always on the other side during prayers more members than this gentleman says were in the House. I hope, therefore, that ministers of the gospel will take his advice, and he not only God-fearing men, but truthful men, who will tell the truth on all occasions, whether in the pulpit of out of it. I call tlie' attention of the House to this matter also because I think that even this paragraph may induce more of the members to be here on time.

Mr. A. A. C. LARIVIERE (Provencher).: I wish to call tlie attention of the acting Minister of the Interior to a motion which I made on the IGtli of March last for a return of the report of the half-breed commissioners. It is a very important document, I have received many letters with regard to it, and I would like to have it brought down as soon as possible.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir AVilliam Mulock).: I will give the matter attention to-day.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: I moved some time ago for the correspondence between this government and the government of British Columbia with respect to the disallowance of certain Acts. I do not know whether it has yet been brought down.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: It has not been brought down, but I have placed it in the hands of the Minister of Justice.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Minister of Finance :
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty ; and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
Mr. EDWARD HACKETT (West Prince, P.E.I.) Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few observations on the important matters now under discussion, I may have to traverse a good deal of ground which has already been gone over ; but I feel it a duty incumbent upon me, representing an important constituency in Canada, as well as in justice to myself, to make some remarks on this all-important question. We are discussing, Sir, the fiscal policy of our country, the expenditure of the country, the taxes of the people ; and, therefore, I feel that it is the duty of every representative of the people to state his views in parliament, and state them with candour and frankness, in order that the public interests may, if possible, be advanced. What we want in Canada is a well-defined policy, not a shifting or mixed-up policy. We have been listening during the last few days to speeches by lion, gentlemen who have commenced those speeches, by announcing themselves as free traders or tariff-for-revenue men, but have ended by proclaiming themselves to be great protectionists. There is no sincerity in that. What we want is a well-defined policy, such as that propounded in the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition, a policy of protection in aid of industries, in fact, a policy of Canada for the Canadians.
What have we heard from hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House ? We had the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) the other evening, in a very long speech, stating that he was pleased with the tariff of this government, that he was a tariff-for-revenue man, while towards the end of his speeeh he asked for more protection for iron and coal, which are very important industries in the province of Nova Scotia. Then, we had yesterday a very long speech from the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes), who also declared himself to be a supporter of a tariff-for-revenue, or if possible a free trade tariff ; but he wound up by saying : There is an industry in the riding I represent which should be protected -the salt manufacturing industry. Note the inconsistency and contradiction of his first statement. He said that to protect the salt industry in West Huron the government should tax the fishermen's salt, which now comes into this country free. Sir, I represent a district in which there reside a large number of fishermen, toilers of the sea, who follow the most precarious industry in Canada, going out on the water in their vessels and small boats to procure a living for themselves and their families. When the national policy 64

[Stage Direction]
was introduced in 1879, I had the honour of being a member of this House, and it was regarded as a policy of compensation, so that if the fishermen of the maritime provinces had to pay a duty on flour coming from the province of Ontario, the residents of Ontario had to pay a duty on coal from the maritime provinces ; but the only protection given to the fishermen was in having free salt. Free salt is a most important commodity to the fishermen, and it has been free ever since the introduction of the national policy in 1879 until to-day, when the hon. member for West Huron, a supporter of the present government, comes out and advocates its taxation. I want, for a moment or two, to say a word in connection with the speech made by the hon. member for Haldimand. That hon. gentleman, I must say, spoke fluently and ably, but there was one element absent from his remarks, and that was the element of sincerity, and the absence of that quality completely destroyed his argument. In referring to the administration and policy of the Conservative party from 1878 down to 1896, and speaking more particularly on the subject of exhibitions, he said :
I will admit that there is some excuse for hon. gentlemen opposite in having taken no part in exhibitions in various parts of the world during 1895, for so far as I know in those dark days of Conservative rule, there was nothing in Canada of sufficient magnitude and nothing wonderful enough in workmanship to deserve an exhibition, unless it was deficits, and so far as I know, no prize was offered for these in any of the exhibitions of the world.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we had deficits but we had surpluses as well, to which I will refer later. But what I want at present to call the hon. gentleman's attention to is the Columbian exhibition, held in Chicago in 1893, at the time when this country was enjoying the benefits of Conservative rule. What do we find, Sir ? We find that at that exhibition the greatest in the past century-the greatest on this continent at least during this past century-Canada made a splendid showing and carried off large prizes, both in cash and other awards of merit. In the fine arts, horticulture, agriculture, live stock, dairying-in fact in all the departments at that exposition, Canada bore away numerous prizes, and yet we have this hon. gentleman say that there was no exhibition made by Canada in those days except one of deficits. Let me refer more specially to a letter which we find in the report of our commissioner, Mr. Lark, and which was written to him by a gentleman from Austria :
Brunn, Austria, December 20, 1893.
I have examined very carefully all the exhibits of Canadian textiles, and I am full of admiration of nearly all those beautiful exhibits which show the enormous progress the Canadian industry has made. The textiles exhibited were highly creditable as well in the department of cottons and woollens as in silks. Canada has, in my opinion, made most wonder-

[Stage Direction]
ful progress in the sixteen years which have elapsed since the Centennial Exposition, and I can candidly say no other nation which exhibited, has shown such progress as Canada.
Here we have this letter from an exporter of textile fabrics residing in Austria, stating that no nation in the world had made such progress in manufacturing as Canada had during the sixteen years between the holding of the Centennial and the Columbian expositions-could any one require a more convincing contradiction of the statement of my lion, friend from Haldimand ? For my part, it seems to me that when an lion, member rises to address this House, when he speaks for his constituents to an intelligent, deliberative body such as this, he should state the facts.
Another matter to which the hon. gentleman referred was our public expenditure, and in thisi connection he put down to the credit of the government the amount of increased subsidy paid the province of Prince Edward Island. That expenditure, he said, pointing to myself, is one to which that hon. gentleman would at least not object. Sir, two years ago in this House, when that increased subsidy was proposed, I approved of it, but at the same time I said to the government:	You are only giving a sop to
the province of Prince Edward Island; yon are not giving that province a tithe of what is due it and what was solemnly guaranteed it on its entrance into confederation. This money was not given the province which I represent as an increase in its subsidy, but as some slight compensation for the loss sustained by it through its lack of communication with the mainland during the winter season.	.
In another matter to which he referred was the relieving of our canal system of tolls. The government, he said, were making our canals as free as the ocean. Well, Mr. Speaker, that may be all right to western and central Canada, but what is the government doing for the people of Prince Edward Island ? Making the canals free ns the ocean will not advance one iota the carrying out of the terms of confederation entered into between the Dominion a id Prince Edward Island in 1873. The hon. gentleman boasts of the surplus of $13,000,000 which) we are going to have this year. Well, we have the estimate of the most celebrated engineer in the world, Sir Douglass Fox, that $12,000,000 would be sufficient to construct a tunnel between the province of Prince Edward Island and the mainland, and if this government desires to And a place in which to appropriate its surplus to advantage, it will at once enter into a contract to have that tunnel constructed between the island, and the mainland. In this way it will not only carry out its contract with the province and relieve the people of that province from the disadvantages under which they are suffering, but will benefit the people of Canada from Vancouver to Halifax.
Mr. HACKETT.: The hon. Finance Minister, in hisi budget speech spoke of the prosperous times we were enjoying in Canada at present, aud gave all the credit to this government, but it seems toi me that while he was making that statement the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce made a rather wry face. During the administration of Canadian affairs, while that hon. gentleman was Finance Minister, we had not the prosperous and growing times which we have to-day. On the contrary, from 1873 to 1878, was the era of the greatest depression that ever prevailed in Canada. We have the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) taking credit to the government for our present prosperity, but we had in those days the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) trying to escape responsibility for the bad times then existing by saying : We are only flies on the wheel and can do nothing to assist the country. But the Right Hon. Sir John Macdonald brought forward the policy of Canada for the Canadians and protection to Canadian industry. We will no longer, he said, submit to our country being made a slaughter market for the merchants and traders of the United States, but will adopt a tariff that will protect our own manufacturers. That policy was approved by the people and was followed by the most beneficial results. If we have prosperous times to-day, are we to attribute them to this government ? Not at all, Sir. I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite to show one act of legislation or administration introduced by them that has in any way been the1 cause of prosperity. If we are enjoying prosperity, it is not due to any legislation of this government, but to the fact that times are good the world over. Those hon. gentlemen opposite have not done anything, they have not initiated a single measure that in any way has contributed to tlie welfare or prosperity of our people. On tile contrary, I believe that if a Conservative government were in power at Ottawa, a government that could take advantage of tlie situation, a government that would have made the most of the prosperity which was just beginning to dawn the world over, when these hon. gentlemen opposite took office, Canada to-day, instead of only being fairly prosperous, would be a beacon of prosperity for all the nations of the world. In this connection, let me call your attention for a few moments to a comparison between the United States and Canada in order to show you that during the eighteen years that the national policy was in force in its entirety, before it had been emasculated and partly destroyed by hon. gentlemen opposite, the increase of exports from Canada was in greater ratio than the increase of exports from the United States. Hon. gentlemen opposite have not ventured to go the full length of their pledges. They have retained a part of that protective policy, and had they not done so they would have been long since forced from power. But, hav-

ing retained part of the national policy, though they destroyed it in part, Canada has gone on and prospered fairly well. Reference has been made to exports. 1 have here the figures showing the increase of exports of Canada in comparison with the increase of exports of the United States from 1878, to 1896 and from 1896 to 1902 :


UNITED STATES. EXPORTS.
[Stage Direction]
Total exports, 1878	$ 694,865,766
Total	exports,	1896	
882,606,938Total	exports,	1901	
1,487,764,991
Increase tor five years ending June
30, 1901	 605,158,053
Increase in previous 18 years		187,741,172
Percentage of increase in 5 years..	68'56
Percentage of increase in previous 18 years	 27'10

[Stage Direction]
Total exports, 1878	t 79,323,667
Total	exports,	1896	
121,013,852Total	exports,	1901	
196,487,632
Increase for 5 years ending June
30, 1901	 75,473,780
Increase in previous 18 years		41,690,185
Percentage of increase in 5 years..	62-36
Percentage of increase in previous 18 years	 52-55
Thus, the percentage of increase in Canadian exports for the eighteen ' national policy ' years was almost twice as great as the percentage of increase in the exports of the United States, the Canadian percentage having been 52-55, and the United States percentage having been 27-10; whereas, in the five years following the adoption of the Fielding tariff, the percentage of increase in the value of United States exports was slightly greater than the percentage of increase in the exports from Canada, being 68-56 per cent as compared with 62-30 per cent. About the same time that the present tariff was introduced in Canada the Congress of the United States made large additions to the protective duties under the Dingley law, and the result was that the United States exports increased even more rapidly than our own. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that Canada is prosperous, that she has gone on by leaps and bounds. It is true, but our prosperity has gone on only in concert with that of the rest of the world. What has caused that prosperity ? It was caused by the policy of the late administration by the statesmanship of the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald and his associates. I remember the occasion in this House, in 1S79, when Sir Leonard Tilley brought down the national policy. That policy was opposed by every hon. gentleman on the treasury benches who was then in the House. But that policy was put in force, and became the policy of the country. And it has remained the policy of the country ever since, though as I say, it has been emasculated and its usefulness to a certain extent taken away by hon. gentlemen opposite. But if those hon. gentlemen would go to the country with the fads they had at one time- 64}
free trade as they have in England, Commercial Union, unrestricted reciprocity-instead of wearing the leavings of the clothes of the Conservative party, they would not have the slightest chance of returning to power.
Hon. gentlemen opposite boast that the immigration into Canada has increased. We know that there is large immigration into the North-west, and we are proud of it. We have in that country the most fertile wheat fields in the world, tens of millions of acres awaiting to be occupied. When, in 1880, Sir Charles Tupper brought down to parliament the project to build the Canadian Pacific railway how was that project met by these hon. gentlemen opposite 1 They opposed it, as they opposed the national policy, by every means fair and foul, even to the extent of getting up bogus syndicates to take the place of the syndicate that had been given the charter to build the work. Yet, in the face of all their opposition, the contract was let and the work completed. And, if we are enjoying prosperity in Canada to-day if there is a large immigration going into the North-west, it is largely due to the ability of the statesmen who were then in control of the destinies of Canada. I had the honour of being a member of this House when both these great measures, the national policy and the Canadian Pacific railway contract were introduced. I well remember the stand, the unmanly, dishonest stand, taken by hon. gentlemen on the other side, then in opposition. Now, they boast of the prosperity of the country, but that prosperity is due, as I have said, to the statesmanship of the Liberal-Conservative party, under the leadership of the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, with Sir Charles Tupper and Sir Leonard Tilley as his lieutenants.
We have had some changes in the tariff. Hon. gentlemen opposite, when they assumed power, declared themselves opposed to specific duties and in favour of ad valorem duties. They made the change, and what has been the result ? Values have increased and the taxpayers of Canada are paying more to-day for goods purchased under this ad valorem system than ever before. We have the taxes of the people increased from $28,000,000 to $38,000,000, as was shown by the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) who addressed the House last evening, these taxes being levied on the necessaries of life in many instances. Hon. gentlemen opposite introduced the preferential tariff, and their policy was lauded to the sky. It was said to be a great thing for Canada and for the empire for it would draw closer the bonds which bind the parts of the empire together. But what did the right hon. Mr. Chamberlain say at the conference of colonial premiers 1 He declared that the preferential tariff was of no service to Great Britain. And I have no doubt that It Is disappointing to the gentlemen who In-
[Stage Direction]
troduced It. It lias proved a failure, and the Finance Minister stated the other day that it was only a matter of time when they would probably repeal the preferential tariff.
Now, Sir, I must return for a moment to the bon. member for Haldimand. He referred to an increase of $100,000 in the fishery service of this country, and be said it was mainly due to the erection of cold storage buildings and for the benefit of fishermen in the maritime provinces. Now, I have in my hand a statement which shows that so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned that money was not expended in any such manner; no part of that increase was due to any assistance rendered to the fishermen, but it was due to the extravagance, and perhaps worse, of the fishery officers in that province. I have here a statement of the expenditure on fisheries in the province of Prince Edward Island for the last three years of the late administration :
1894, total	$ 3,078 35
1895	"	
3,796 581896	"	
3,555 87Total for 3 years	$10,430 80
Or an annual average of $3,476.95.
Now, what do we find with regard to the next three years under the present administration :
1899		$ 6,832 85
1900	 7,364 20
1901	 7,934 00
Total for 3 years	$22,131 05
Or an annual average of $7,377, showing an increase per year under the present government of $3,901, or over one hundred per cent of an increase on an average for the three years.
Let me now give the House a statement of the travelling expenses and outlay of the inspector during three years under the late administration :
1894	$204	981895	
236	861896	
391	12Total for 3 years	$832 96
Or an annual average of $277.65.
Now, let us see what were the travelling expenses and outlay of inspector under the present government:
1899	$392	711900	
458	721901	
666	46Total for 3 years	$1,517 89
Or an average of $505.83 per year, an Increase annually of $228.18 for three years of the present government.
Now, let us look at the travelling expenses and outlays of overseer for the last three
Edward Hackett: years of the late government, and for three years under the present government :


THREE YEARS OF LATE GOVERNMENT.
[Stage Direction]
1894	$164	511895	
273	141896	
323	90Total for 3 years	$761	55
Or annual average of $252.52.

[Stage Direction]
1899	$1,827	691900	
1,273	491901..	.:	
1,780	70Total for 3 years	$4,881 88
Or annual average of $1,627.29, an increase of $1,374.77 per year over last three years of Conservative rule.
Now, what were these gentlemen doing ? They were supposed to be looking after the fisheries, they were supposed to be collecting revenue, they were supposed to make some returns to Canada for the money expended. Well, let the following figures speak for themselves :

[Stage Direction]
1894*	$ 980 15
1895	 3,312 30
1896	 2,161 85
Total for 3 years	$6,454 30
'This year no license fee was collected from lobster canners.

[Stage Direction]
1899	$2,242	241900	
2,187	121901	
1,525	30Total for 3 years	$5,954 66
Or $500 less in three years than was collected by the overseers under the previous government for one-half the expenditure made by these gentlemen at present. But the strange part of this showing is, what becomes of the money ? How do they expend it ? I remember when the inspector of fisheries, in 1900, came up to West Prince on what he called a sporting trip, shooting partridges if you will, iu the month of October, but actually for the purpose of canvassing votes against the gentleman who now represents West Prince in this parliament. It was apparently proper for him to travel at the expense of the people of this country, and to run up this tremendous bill which I have read to you for his travelling expenses and outlay, so long as he was doing the work of the machine that is operated by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House.
It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to occupy much longer the time of the House.

The hon. gentleman from Huntingdon (Hr. Muclaren) made a calculation yesterday that it costs the country $28 a minute to run this parliament. As I wish to save the people's money, I think it would be only right to make my speech as brief as possible. We hear a great deal about the wonderful resources of this Canada of ours, with its wealth of forest, as yet untouched by the axe of the woodman, with mines of gold, silver and coal, with fertile lands unequalled in any part of the world, with fisheries of unexcelled and vast wealth, with an enterprising population, energetic, industrious and virtuous. Why should we not go on and prosper ? Why should hon. gentlemen opposite endeavour to tie the hands of this young giant that is now beginning to put forth his strength ? All that is required to guarantee our progress is to give proper encouragement to the people of Canada. Do not let us drive them off to the United States to look for employment in a foreign land. In the province from which I come, there was a falling off in our population from the census of 1891 to that of 1901, of over 5,000. Whether the latter census was taken correctly or not, X will not say at present. But these young men and young women have gone away because they could not find employment in Canada, because avenues of industry were not afforded them at home ; and they went to seek their fortune in a foreign land and beneath a foreign sky. Sir, the great national policy inaugurated by the Liberal-Conservative party in 1879 is the policy that must stand for the people of this country. The amendment moved by the leader of the opposition is in the right direction. It is an amendment to afford adequate protection, which means sufficient protection-hon. gentlemen opposite understand the meaning of the word quite well enough-it means sufficient and proper protection for the interests of the people of Canada, for the labourer, for the manufacturer, for the fisherman, for the miner, for all the industries of Canada. That is what we need for Canada, and hold* ing those views, I shall have much pleasure in voting for the amendment moved by my hon. friend for Halifax (Mr. Borden.)
Mr. J. T. SCHELL (Glengarry).: Mr. Speaker, during the progress of this debate some very important statements have been made which have brought out some situations worthy of notice. The hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) in delivering his budget, stated clearly, I think, the reasons why he has decided that there should be no changes in the tariff at the present time. He did not say that there should be no changes for one year, or two years, or for a number of years, but he said at the present time. He gave as a reason for this de-cison the buoyant condition of the general business of the country. Last year the cry of the opposition in the matter of the tariff centred almost entirely upon the one item
of woollens. Not one specific statement has been made, not one special complaint has been delivered by the opposition, but they have confined themselves to general questions and they Ifave not indicated so far any particular line of trade or commerce that is suffering at the present time. The surtax proposed to be imposed on German goods will probably meet to a large extent, if not entirely, their objections, so far as the woollen trade is concerned. Now, we do not hear any specific complaints so far as any other line of manufacture is concerned. It is no more than fair in criticising the budget speech that statements should be specifically made. Yet, the opposition have so far not even contended that there are any special lines of trade requiring changes in the tariff in order to ensure their success and prosperity. If we take note of the reports of the annual meetings of the cotton companies which have been lately held we will find that they state business to be good. They have declared fair dividends. Some of the companies have declared dividends even so high as 9 per cent. That would indicate that there is really no cause for serious complaint as regards cottons. Any man who has been in business for the last few years knows thoroughly well that in almost every line of business the only difficulty has been that the manufacturers have not been able to supply goods in sufficient quantity to meet the demands of the people of the country. Scarcely any line of business furnishes quotations which are not subject to withdrawal at any moment and a large number of manufacturers, especially in the iron lines sent out quotations which are not standard quotations. This has been the case for several years. It is not a question of holding Canada for the Canadians, but it has been absolutely impossible for the Canadian manufacturers for the last few years to fill the orders offered to them, and the result is that the people of Canada have been obliged to go abroad to buy a lot of the goods which they require and which have been brought into this country. That statement is borne out by the fact that there is scarcely a manufacturing concern in the Dominion of Canada but is adding to its plant to enable it to get out the orders offered to it. Manufacturing plants are being increased all over the Dominion. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) stated again his position in regard to adequate protection, but he did not deign to go into details or to make any specific statement as to what he meant by adequate protection. So far as he is concerned this House has been left entirely in the dark and we have had to get our information otherwise, and that information lias been forthcoming from several quarters. When the hon. member for St. Mary's, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) made a statement of his position, and he said that lie be-| lieved he was speaking to a large extent

for the people of Canada, he said that the duties should be raised to an average of 50 per cent upon dutiable goods coming into the country. When he made that statement it was loudly applauded oh the opposition side of the House by hon. members generally and by the leaders particularly. That indicated that the hon. gentlemen had expressed their position upon that matter. They agree with the hon. member for St. Mary's, Montreal, that the tariff should be upon the basis of an average duty of 50 per cent and the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has gone so far as to say: Yes, and even 100 per cent, if necessary. Upon this point the position of the two parties to-day are well defined. The position is definitely stated upon the Liberal side of the House in the speech of the hon. Minister of Finance. He has indicated that the tariff as it stands to-day shall be the tariff for the future. He has indicated that the tariff stands to-day and as it has stood for the last four or five years, shall not be interfered with, at all events at present. On the opposition side of the House the position has been taken, not definitely by the leader, but practically definitely by the party, that the average rate of duty must be from 50 per cent up to 100 per cent. I am pleased personally that the issue has become so plainly defined. So far as X am concerned, and so far as the county which I represent is concerned, I am pleased the definition is so plainly before us. I am satisfied with the plain definition before us.
I should be pleased to have the hon. member for South Leeds travel over the county of Glengarry and address meetings after the style he was indulging in last evening, and I think, so far as Liberalism in Glengarry is concerned, he would fix it sure and fast for many generations to come. The opposition wish to raise the tariff wall so high that all the goods required in this country shall be manufactured in this country. Now, if all the goods required in this country were manufactured in this country where would we get the revenue ? From what source will the country draw its money to carry on the public affairs ? Will the public debt be reduced or be paid off if such a policy as that is in force ? If we were to manufacture all the goods in this country we could have no revenue and if taxation is to be at the rate of 50 per cent to 100 per cent then we have the right to ask where shall we get the money to carry on the business of the country. If we look back to the Conservative regime of eighteen years previous to the advent of this administration we find that to a certain extent they did carry out this policy. We find that they were not able to scrape revenue enough together to carry on the business of the country then without increasing the public debt. We are all well aware that the debt was increased during that time by over $150,000,-
000.	That is the policy they proposed to Mr. SCHELL.
put in force if they should come back to power to-morrow. And what is to be done with the money obtained from this increase of duties amounting from 50 to 100 per cent ? The hon. member for St Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) told us that the manufacturers of Canada numbered two or three hundred individuals.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: I did not say two hundred; I said several hundred.


Jacob Thomas Schell: Well, we will say that they number a few hundred. But I would remind the House that not all the manufacturers of Canada have asked for increased duties. I doubt if half of them have asked that the duties should be increased. Suppose there are two hundred manufacturers all told, and that half of them want the duties increased, then if their request is acceeded to, this half of the manufacturers of Canada will have the privilege of taxing the farmers and the workingmen from 50 to 100 per cent more than at present, and where will that money go. Will it go to pay the debt of this country or to develop our resources ? Not one cent of it. These manufacturers are not asking that that increased taxation shall go into the business of the country, or go to pay the running expenses of the government, but they ask that it shall go into their own pockets, and that the success of their business and their profits shall be guaranteed by Act of parliament. That is what they want. I well remember the change of government in the year 1896, and I remember how the Conservatives claimed that it was a mistake of Providence to put the Liberals in power. After the elections of 1896 the leaders of the Conservative party and many of their supporters still retained their seats here, and they proclaimed in this House that the instinct of government was with the Conservatives, and that in 1900 Providence would rectify the mistake made in 1896, and again call on them to direct the destinies of Canada. But it was not to be. In the four years from 1896 to 1900, the people _ of Canada had come to realize the success of the policy of the Liberal party in the development of their business, and in the extra profits they had gained from their business, and they saw at once the difference between the successful policy of the Liberal party and the defective policy of the Conservative party. And after the elections of 1900, the Conservative party came back to this House bereft of all its great leaders who had made that party famous, and many of their supporters met the same fate. The Liberals had a greater majority in 1900 than they had after the elections,in 1896, a testimony that the people of Canada were able to appreciate good government.
I remember that in 1900, in the town of Alexandria in my county, Sir Charles Tapper, the Hon. George E. Foster, the Hon. Hugh John Macdonald, Mr. Bergeron, Mr. APRIL 29. 1903
R. R. MacLennan, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Broder, and a half dozen other notable Conservative started a tour which they wound up in the North-west, endeavouring to electrify the people to rally to their standard. They made a great flourish of trumpets in Alexandria; they had| a street procession and a hippodrome worthy of any circus. The Liberals of Glengarry felt that they were taken by storm when this great galaxy of ability and talent invaded our town. But what was the result ? The people of Glengarry are canny Scotch and they can count the dollars well. They had lived under four-years of prosperous government, four years of careful administration which gave to the manufacturers and the consumers each their just share; four years of prosperity such as up to that time this country had never known and when the votes were counted the people of Glengarry declared that they would support the Liberal party rather than return to the policy of the Conservative party under which they had made little or no progress. Glengarry is not a manufacturing county. We have only one large manufacturing concern within the limits of the county, and I may say now that that concern does not ask for any increase in the duty. The men who control that manufacturing institution come of a stock who believe that they can stand upon their own merits, their own ability, and their own capital, and they do not ask for an increase of duty on the goods they are manufacturing. They are prepared to meet any competition in the country and they are succeeding enormously well. The people of the county of Glengarry are largely farmers and labourers. They realize full well the benefits that have been derived and are to be derived from a tariff such as has been maintained by this government. Where in the history of this Dominion has there been greater strides made during the past six years than in the industry of mixed farming and dairying in which the majority of the people of my county are engaged. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) spoke about cold storage and he took credit that the Conservative party had inaugurated this system. To hear him talk you would think that the Conservatives of Canada had invented cold storage. Why, Mr. Speaker, cold storage was in successful operation years before the Conservative party had anything to do with it. There was a perfect system of mechanical refrigeration carrying perishable products from South America and Australia and landing them in good condition in England, years before it was tried in Canada. What did the Conservative government do ? They put in a few ice boxes and called them a cold storage system, and the unfortunate people who undertook to utilize them had their goods landed in Liverpool in a rrtten and useless condition. In order to prove that this cold storage system was a good one the Conservatives bought butter at 20
cents a pound throughout the country and the result was that the butter was landed in England fit only for wool grease, that it never was put on the market and sold as butter, and that it brought only 10 cents a pound in England notwithstanding that the government paid 20 cents a pound in Canada. When the Liberal government came into power they realized that some better system must be put in operation; they realized that they must inaugurate a cold storage system commensurate with the importance of the agricultural industry, and to-day we can send our butter and fruits and all perishable articles to the old country markets and deliver them there in proper condition. There is where the present government has scored one success. The county of Glengarry consists of four townships, and is probably as small a county in area as there is in the province Ontario. That small county exported last year $1,000,000 worth of dairy products, according to the statement compiled by the secretary of the Dairymen's Association of the county. That explains the reason why the people of the county of Glengarry have such a strong regard for the present government. Nor do they believe in paying taxes that go into the pockets of two or three hundred individuals instead of paying them to build public works and promote the progress of the country as a whole. I have never yet heard any of the electors of Glengarry, whether Conservative or Liberal, say that they were not willing to pay their proper share of taxation required to properly administer and develop this country. I believe that both the labouring classes and the farmers in any part of the province of Ontario or in this Dominion are willing to pay their full share; but they do object to paying into the pockets of the manufacturers 50 or 10C| per cent taxation on the articles they consume simply because the policy of the opposition is in favour of protection in the shape of high duties. No, Mr. Speaker, protection does not mean high duties; it means protecting the interests of the masses of the people.
I do not intend to discuss the mass of figures which, during this debate, have been read and reread, iterated and reiterated, and upon which the changes have been rung so many times. As has been said, figures can be made to prove anything ; but there is one thing remarkable in the figures which have been laid before us. With all the extravagance charged against the government by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor), with all the large expenditures charged by members of the opposition, with all the large revenues which the government are charged with having taken from the people, which the opposition now call taxes, though they did not do so in the old days, there is one thing that we should remember, that is, that the present government have administered the affairs of the country, have constructed large works, have developed the

Yukon, liave paid the cost of tlie Soutli African contingents, have put tlie Intercolonial Railway on a proper business basis, and have done all this from the revenues derived from the low tariff as it exists to-day, and without any large increase in the public debt, such as their predecessors made. Looking at the ' Canada Gazette ' of April 25tli, you will see that this government have been able to do all this, and still leave the public debt within $80,000 of where they found it in the year 1897.
The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) almost shed tears over the per capita taxation imposed on the people of this country. That is something like a man who has been farming or doing business all his life, at the end of a prosperous period or at a successful turn in his business, going out and buying some more property. He has the money and is able to pay for the property. Is there any reason why such a man should be commiserated because he is obliged to pay $1,000 or $2,000 for additional property which he chooses to buy ? No. And we find that in the prosperous times which the people of Canada have been enjoying under the present government, they have been able to buy two or three times as much of the dutiable articles they required, and pay for them ; and the bank returns show that they have not only been able to do that, but have large balances to their credit in the savings banks and other monetary institutions of the country, such as we have never known under the administration of the Conservative party. A per capita tax, Mr. Speaker, is the best evidence that can be brought to show the state of prosperity of the people. If the per capita tax increases from year to year, it shows that the people of Canada are progressing and increasing their wealth, and that the factories of the country, though taxed to their utmost to provide the requirements of the people, have not been able to supply them all, and so the people have had to bring in imported goods. Such has been the prosperity of the country during the last six *or seven years under the administration of the present government. But the opposition propose to change all that. They say : No ; bring in nothing ; but because the people of Canada are prosperous to-day, because they are able to stand some more taxation, we will filch from their pockets 50 or 100 per cent for the benefit of one hundred, two hundred or three hundred of our friends.
As the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) has said, the fight is on. Let the fight be on. If the proposition of the opposition in this House is that for the sake of a few hundred manufacturers of this country the rest of the people should be taxed 50 or 100 per cent, I say let us know that the fight is on, and I am satisfied that the next time we appeal to the country the majority in this House, as it stands to-day, will be returned 40 or 50 or 100 per cent larger than it is 1 Mr. SCHELL.
to-day, if that were possible. Under Conservative rule the manufacturers of this country were continually looking to the government to assure them profits and stability of business conditions-to make enactments by which they would feel safe and secure in their business enterprises. But under the system of Hooking to Ottawa for all the efforts that should be looked for at home, the business of this country was steadily going down. While the people were simply living on one another, the exporting business of the country was not increasing as it should have done. Under the fiscal change which was brought about in 1897 by this government, the manufacturers of this country came to feel that to be successful in their business they must depend upon themselves more than on the legislation of this country, and the result has been that many of those manufacturers who were looking to the government to guarantee their profits backed by parliament, got strictly down to business and conducted their industries on business principles, as they should have done years before, with the result that they have been able to make probably higher profits under a lower tariff than' in the previous years when they were depending more on the government than on themselves. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) last night used these words :
Notwithstanding the increase in population of the country required these implements, no sane man after the statements made by the right hon. leader of the government and by the hon. Finance Minister, threatening free trade, and threatening to abolish the duties would put his money into a manufacturing industry of this kind.
The hon. gentleman evidently forgot that that statement was not in accord with the facts. He said no sane man would put his money into a business of that kind. Why, Mr. Speaker, to-day in Hamilton there is being erected a greater concern than has been in this Dominion for the manufacture of these identical articles, in tlie manufacture of which the hon. gentleman said, not twenty hours ago, no sane man would put his money. Hon. members may have noticed in the newspapers a few days ago a statement made by Major Bittenger, the United States consul, that the money of the American people was pouring into this country. What for, Mr. Speaker ? Are we to conclude it is because the Americans are. insane ? No, it is because this country to-day, under its present revenue tariff, has more possibilities for the investment of capital, more avenues for profitable trade, than are to be found in the United States. Speaking of agricultural implements, the hon. member for Leeds said further that they were not adequately protected. Well. Sir, the hon. leader (Mr. Borden) declared in Manitoba that they were. That is just a small difference of opinion between these two hon. gentlemen. However, we must not take the hon. member for Leeds too

seriously. He told us last niglit tliat lie ivas simply abusing the government. He was simply out for abuse, and evidently the facts were but a secondary consideration. It must be well known to the hon. gentleman, as it is to most members of this House, that the demand for agricultural implements was so great throughout this country that our manufacturers could not supply them. He must have known that in July of last year there was not one agricultural implement in the establishment of Frost & Wood, which was not sold ahead and that in fact that firm could not begin to fill all its orders. He must have known that the Massey-Harris people were sold out of their binders, reapers and mowers, a month before the spring trade actually opened. So great has been the progress of this country, and consequently so great have been the demands in these lines, that the calculations of the manufacturers fell short of the requirements, and it was absolutely impossible for them to furnish our farmers with the implements that they required last year, even with all the advantages which these concerns enjoy for turning out the goods. That is one reason why our farmers bought from the United States, and why our importation of agricultural implements were increased last year. Just for the same reason have our imports increased in nearly all lines of manufacture throughout the Dominion. These are facts that are well known, and which prove that at present there is no need at all for protection in this country, even to the Massey-Harris people. There is no need for further protection for the manufacturers for agricultural implements, either in Toronto or in Brantford.
So far as I am concerned, I am content to take the issues as laid down by the hon. leader of the opposition and his lieutenants I am quite satisfied that we should go before the people upon these issues, and I have no doubt that when we do, the people will decide in favour of the policy of the present administration. I know that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) like the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) spoke last night under the impression that a general election is near at hand and that this might be the last session when he would be able to make statements of any kind in this House. I believe myself that my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) will have another opportunity before this parliamentary term closes, to indulge in his abuse of the government and to define what he and his friends mean by the word ' adequate.' I hope he will address the House in the same lines as he did last night and as his lion, leader did a few days ago, and I should ask no better issue on which to appeal to the country than the policy laid down by the hon. Minister of Finance and that proposed in opposition to it by the leader of the Liberal-Conservative party in this House.


Mr. J. B. MOKIN (Dorchester).: It is time, Mr. Speaker, I should say a few words with regard to the speeches we have heard and particularly with regard to the budget speech made by the non. Finance Minister. I must say that I thought it hardly fair for the hon. gentleman to make the comparisons he did between the large revenue he has been handling and the small revenue received by the previous Conservative government. We all know that the comparison is not one from which the hon. gentleman can draw the conclusions he did. Take up the public accounts, and you will find that in the year 1868 our revenue was some $75,000,000 and our expenditure about the same. Then turn to 1873, when Mr. Alexander Mackenzie was head of the government, and you will find that our expenditure and revenue reached a little more than $75,000,000 each. If you take 1896, you will find there was a larger revenue and expenditure, and, if you come to the last year, still larger. And so it will be for years to come-probably for ever. Therefore, I do not think it is fair for the Finance Minister to critcise as much as he did, on the basis of a comparison of the figures of 1896 and 1902. But we cannot expect much else, for every year since 1896 we have heard such talk in this House. But we have heard more than that. I heard a gentleman who was then Mr. Laurier, now Sir Wilfrid Laurier-very well, all right-I heard that gentleman say right in my own county, in 1895, on the 5tli of September :	If you elect me to power, I
will do so and so. He had five good words to give us.' One of them was : Elect me to power and I will reduce the price of coal oil. Another was : Elect me to power and I will reduce the price of farming implements. Another :	Elect me to power and
I will reduce the price of goods generally. Another :	Elect me to power and I will
reduce the public debt. Not one of these things has come to pass yet. There was another promise which he made, which I shall not mention, for, the other day I heard you, Mr. Speaker, call an hon. gentleman to order because he had wandered beyond the subject before the chair, and I do not wish the same thing to happen to me. The present leader of the government told us at that time that it was a shame for any government to have expenditures more than from thirty-eight to forty millions a year, and he declared that if he were in power he would show that the country's affairs could be carried on for that amount. Very well, what have we seen since ? We see expenditures of forty-five, fifty and sixty millions of dollars a year. Then, that right hon. gentleman said :	If you elect me to
power I will reduce the public debt to eight or ten millions of dollars. When has he reduced that debt one cent ? Never. Instead of being reduced, it has been increased. unfortunately. In 3896 the total debt was $325,000,000, in round numbers, now

it is up to $366,000,000, an increase of $41,000,000. The net debt, which was $258,497,000 in 1896, is now $271,829,000, an increase of $13,322,000. Now, we heard the Finance Minister in all his glory laughing and joking and showing himself very glad about his big income. But what does that amount to, I would like to know ? It only means that the more money he has the more pleasure he has in counting it up and paying it out. That is all that is shown by this book that the government gave me, a book that there is no denying. It speaks for itself and for the administration. Now, looking at this matter in the right light, what would the Finance Minister do if his revenue were like that of twenty or thirty years ago, while his expenses were as high as they are now ? Where would he land ? The fact is, he gets in so much money and spends so much money and does not reduce the public debt a single cent. He talks about the surplus he has and the surplus he is going to have. We have heard a great deal about such things, and that is all there is to it. He does get a big pile of money, but where is it ? The Conservative government had surpluses in the same way, but where is the money ? All this talk about surpluses reminds me of a story I heard. A slave was in the barnyard with his master, and all at once he said : * Massa, de preacher's a-comin'.' ' I don't see him coming,' said the master. ' But he's comin all right.' ' How do you know ?' ' Why, don't you see de chickens flying.' The Minister of Finance speaks of the big income he is receiving and is to receive, but what is it all for ? It is to hoodwink the people over the next election ? We have heard such talk over and over until I have got tired of it-there is nothing in it.
I hear a great many of my friends on both sides of the House talk about protection. But I would like more than talk- I would like to have some practice of protection. We talk about the American people, how industrious, how intelligent they are. Knowing them as I do, I say the same. But why is it they have become such a great nation ? It is all on account of protection. What were they up to in 1776 ? They were a colony, working hard for a living, and making no headway. But after they threw off the yoke, they started right up, they established protection, and practiced it.
Now, here we are, talking about our American friends being so intelligent. We talk about what they do, and yet we do not follow their example. After praising them so much, why should we not follow their example ? I think they deserve to be praised. We hear a great deal of talk in this House about Air. Chamberlain, Air. Chamberlain ; we hear his name mentioned three or four times too often. Air. Chamberlain may be a very good fellow, indeed I think he is a little too good. We have given him $2,648,495 last year under the preferential Mr. MORIN.
trade arrangement. I do not think that pays at all. I would sooner say more about Air. Chamberlain and give him less money. We are the ones to be protected first-that is my doctrine, anyway. But some of our friends have a great deal to say about Air. Chamberlain, and yet they do not want to look after themselves.
Now I would like to say a few words about the government's intention to go back to Washington. Some years ago we voted $30,000 to pay their trip to Washington ; I suppose pretty soon we will be called upon to vote another sum to pay another trip. Now I wish to give the government a little advice. They talk about going to Washington to make a treaty in regard to the Alaska boundary. I would be very glad if they would stay at home. They must know very well what the result was some four years ago. Air. Speaker, let us look at the facts of history, and you will understand how little the United States are willing to give ns. After the treaty of 1784 the boundary line was run from the St. Lawrence river to Aladawanpec Point in the state of Alaine. Well, two years after that, our American friends were not willing to live up to that treaty, they wanted to gobble up a big portion of what now forms the state of Maine. About the same time another treaty was made according to which the line was to be drawn from the head of Lake Superior to Puget Sound. What did they do later on, in 1813 ? They took a strip of land from us one hundred and fifty miles wide from Du-ulth to Rainy River, and thence to Puget Sound. Then in 1848 or 1849 they were still unsatisfied, and they took another strip of land from us along the St. John river. True, it is not worth much, there are scarcely any settlers on it. These facts show you what we can expect from them. I have resided in that country for thirty-five years, and I have had many discussions with their people in regard to these questions. They are always willing and ready to take, but they are never willing to give. They are not even willing to give what they ought to give, and what does not belong to them. Tf our government go down to Washington again, the only result will be that they will spend the public money, and the Americans will laugh at them as they did at the last meeting. I spent two months last summer down in the States, and I had talks with congressmen. judges and lawyers on public questions. and they just made fun of us Canadians. They say :	You Canadians come
over here expecting to get a strip of land away from us, but that is all in your eye. Aly advice to this government is to stay where you are. That is all I have to say for the present.


Mr. WILLIAAI ROSS (South Ontario).: I feel some delicacy in taking part in this debate on account of the deep interest which is manifested by members of this House, and the large numbers present to listen to

the discussion. It is very encouraging to hon. members who wish to participate in this debate to find the House so full, indeed I may say overflowing, as it should be at this particular time. This is a time when the finances of the country are in a particularly good shape, everything is buoyant, and under these circumstances we could expect nothing else but that the House should be well attended during the budget debate.
April 16th, 1903, will be memorable in the annals of this country. It wag on that day that the hon. the Minister of Finance moved the following resolution :
That the House resolve itself into Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.
This resolution whilst moved by finance ministers for many years, gave added pleasure to the representatives in this House from the remarks which followed on that particular occasion. As loyal representatives of the people we are pleased to accede to the wishes of the advisers of His Majesty, and while it is our privilege to criticise the expenditure, we do so with a knowledge of the facts, as recorded- in the public documents and as told us by the hon. the Finance Minister, and shown by the abundant trade of the country.
Perhaps before I go further in the remarks which I propose to offer to this House, I may refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Morin), who seems to have forgotten the facts. He said that the Liberals in opposition had promised that if they got into power the duty would be taken off coal oil, and that they had not done so. I beg to assure him that the duty has been taken off coal oil. He also said that this government promised to reduce the public debt. Well, we have the assurance of the Finance Minister that the indebtedness which has been incurred by this government will be very materially reduced, and nearly wiped out next year. The budget shows clearly that the system of taxation inaugurated by the present government in 1897 was a good one. It has made for every stability, that under its benign influence, the trade and prosperity of the country has expanded by leaps and bounds.
The revenue for 1900-01 was	$52,514,701
"	" 1901-02	"	 58,050,790
Net increase	$ 5,536,088
Mr. Speaker, this is a remarkable showing. Our revenue has increased to such proportions that it is a matter of rejoicing to every true and loyal Canadian, because of propositions with which we are confronted in the building up of this vast country. But, Mr. Speaker, although the net increase of last year was very large, the best is yet to come, and the hon. minister informs us that the year closing June 30th, 1903. will be much better, indeed far ahead of the best we have ever witnessed, with the extraordinary estimated surplus of $13,350,000.
We are speaking of the present, but I would remind the House that this state of affairs, this growing time has existed since this government has been in power.
The revenue since 1896 has been as follows :-
1896		$36,618,591
1897		 37,829,778
1898		 40,555,238
1899		 46,741,250
1900		 51,029,994
1901		 52,514,701
1902		 58,050,790
I claim it is a remarkable showing for the present government that has been so much belied. If you will look over the statement of revenue as presented during the years which preceded 1896 you will find that the revenue was almost stationary, that it did not increase at all, that as soon as this government; took hold the increase became permanent and rapid, and that it went up from $36,000,000 in 1896 to $58,000,000 in 1002. The opponents of this government are apt to belittle efforts to promote trade and commerce and to attribute the growth of Canada's trade to everything and anything else than the present administration. They point to the increased trade of all the world, and then go so far as to say that if there has been prosperity it Is because we adopted the protective plank of their platform. If shown different by the fact of so many items being put on the free list and radical cuts made on scores of dutiable goods they then say : It must be a miracle for none but Conservatives could have accomplished so much. I am reminded of a story of a lawyer who was examining an expert witness to ascertain if he exactly understood what a miracle was. The lawyer said to him ; Suppose you find yourself in a window of that twelfth story building opposite and the next moment you fall to the pavement and find yourself uninjured-what would you call that ? The witness said : I would call that an accident. Well, that *was not just the answer that the lawyer expected and he repeated the question. He asked him, if a second time, he found himself uninjured what he would call that. The witness said ; I would call that a coincidence. He was getting the matter down pretty fine but the lawyer repeated the question, and said : Suppose you should find yourself upon the pavement a third time uninjured, what would you call that ? The witness replied : I would, call it a habit. These distinctions are very fine. It was purely accidental that this government was able to get into office and conduct affairs, it was coincidence that they continued to do so and it is now becoming a habit. They acknowledge first, second and third, and finally they say it must be a miracle as such a thing was never known or seen for a Liberal government or party in Canada being able to properly direct the affairs of the country. People like these must surely be blind for we have the largest surplus-except one-that

Canada has ever known and that was two years since, and under Liberal rule. The Finance Minister assures us that the revenue for the ensuing year will he far larger and that he exjiects the revenue for this year, 1902-03, to reach the handsome total of $65,000,000.
Amongst the causes which have contributed to this remarkable state of affairs must be counted the just, and wise expenditure and administration of the departments. The Post Office Department is one, which, notwithstanding the efforts of the opposition to explain away its very wise administration by the Postmaster General, makes a record. They cannot conceive that the best and most modern methods have been adopted and abuses done away with. And it is entirely beyond their conception how a deficit of $700,000 in 1896 was reduced to a deficit of $105,000 in 1901-2 ; nor do they seem to realize that the postal services were extended and enlarged during that period. The number of post offices has increased as follows
1896		 9,103
1897		 9,191
1898		 9,282
1899		 9,420
1900		 9,627
1901		 9,834
1902		 9,958
An increase of 855 post offices during the seven years of Liberal rule. What does this mean ? It means an increase in the expenditure of the department and if anything could account for an Increase in the expenditure I think it is this statement which I have just read showing the extensions which have been made in the post office service. It costs money to open new post offices. Postmasters have to be appointed, mail routes have to be provided for; these are expenses which the government cannot well get over and of course they are included in the large expenditure of this department. It was stated by one lion, member the other night, I think, by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) that the Postmaster General had wiped out the deficit in his department by a public grant of money. That is no doubt true, but I am informed that the reason was this. I have a statement of the post office revenue, expenditure and deficits since confederation :-
Year.	Revenue.	Expenditure	Deficit.$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.June 30,	1868.	525,691.80	616,802.21	91,110.41"	1869.	535,315.14	787,886.32	252,571.18"	1870.	573,565.84	808,622.77	235,056.93"	1871.	612,630.67	815,470.59	202,839.92"	1872.	. 692,374.98	929,609.33	237,234.33"	1873.	833,657.21	1,067,866.09	234,208.88"	1874.	.1,139,973.15	1,387,270.48	247,297.331875.	.1,155,332.09	1,520,861.21	365,529.121876.	1,102,540.32	1,622,827.10	520,286.78"	1877.	.1,114,945.78	1,705,311.54	590,365.76**	1878.	.1,207,790.15	1,724,938.52	517,148.37"	1879.	.1,172,418.14	1,784,423.88	612,005.74Mr.	ROSS	(Ontario).	Year.	Revenue.	Expenditure	Deficit.$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.June 30,	1880.	1,252,498.22	1,818,271.05	565,772.83"	1881.	.1,352,109.64	1,876,657.96	524,548.321882.	1,587,888.15	1,980,567.25	392,679.101883.	1,800,391.37	2,176,089.08	375,697.711884.	.1,755,674.49	2,312,965.27	557,290.78"	1885.	.1,841,372.22	2,488,315.36	646,943.14"	1886.	.1,901,690.25	2,763,186.41	861,496.161887.	2,020,623.51	2,818,907.22	798,283.711888.	2,379,241.57	2,889,728.59	510,487.021889.	2,220,503.66	2,982,321.48	761,817.82"	1890.	.2,357,388.95	3,074,469.91	717,080.96"	1890.	.2,357,388.95	3,074,469.91	717,080.96"	1891.	.2,515,823.44	3,161,675.72	645,852.281892.	.2,652,745.79	3,316,120.03	663,374.241893.	.2,773,507.71	3,421,203.17	647,695.46"	1894.	.2,809,341.06	3,517,261.31	707,920.251895.	.2,792,789.64	3,593,647.47	800,857.83"	1896.	.2,964,014.23	3,665,011.30	700,997.07Expenditure	to June 30	1896 which	was unpaid and	provided for by special rate, $685,447.03.	Year.	Revenue.	Expenditure	Deficit.$ cts.	8 cts.	$ cts.1897.	.3,202,938.42	3,789,478.34	'586,539.92*[DOT]	1898.	.3,527,809.69	3,575,411.99	47,602.391899.	3,193,777 53	3,603,799.10	410,021.57"	1900.	.3,205,535.16	3,758,014.61	552,479.451901.	.3,441,504.93	3,931,446.01	489,941.081902.	.3,918.415.55	4,023,636.82	105,221.27There was a deficit as shown by the public accounts for the year 1896, but when the new Postmaster General came into ofljee he found that there was an unpaid expenditure to the 30th of June. He considered this a handicap and it was provided for by a special vote. This expenditure amounted to $085,447.03, so that, in addition to the deficit as shown by the public accounts of $700,997.07 there was this expenditure of $085,447.03 which had not been accounted for. The hon. Postmaster General said ; I do not care to take upon myself that enormous liability in connection with the Post Office Department. I wish parliament to take that difficulty off my hands and parliament took the responsibility of providing for the unpaid accounts amounting to $085,447.03 and they were paid out of the general funds of the country. Notwithstanding all the improvements which he has made in the service these deficits have been considerably reduced. In 1897 the deficit was $586,539.92 ;	in	1898,	$47,602.39 ; in	1S99,$410,021.57 ;	in	1900.	$552,479.45 ; in	1901,$489,941.08; and in 1902, $105,221.27. I think this is a remarkable showing. The Yukon service has been inaugurated at a net total additional cost to the department up to June 30, 1902, of $283,162.86. The rate on foreign	postage	was reduced	fromfive to two cents, the inland postage rate was reduced	from	five to two	cents
and who says that the department is not efficient ? I think I am justified in saying that the administration of the hon. Postmaster General has been exceedingly good and that the service of the country lias not been starved. I know it has not been in my riding or in places where I have travelled. I say that the post office is more
2041 APRIL 29, 1903 2042	
efficient now than it has been at any time in the history of Canada. In a large department doing a business of $4,000,000 some friction to accomplish this will naturally arise; but with stiff-bent, careful, business-like and modern methods' employed-and I claim that they have been so employed, and, that if there is any one branch of the public service of which the people of this country should feel proud it is the Post Office Department. I might go on to mention the extension of the railway mail service, the inauguration of the postal note system in 1898, the increase in the money orders, and other improvements, but hon. gentlemen will find these in the reports and I do not wish to take up too much of the valuable time of the House. Mr. BROCK. Twenty-eight dollars a minute. Mr. ROSS (Ontario). Twenty-eight dollars a minute, as my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) remarks. There is a matter of public interest to which I am sure, in due time, the Postmaster General will direct his attention : It is the matter of free rural deliveries. I will admit that the conditions existing in this country on account of its great extent and sparse settlements are not ideal ones. But there are some of the older settled portions of the country where it might well be introduced. It will be acceded that there has been no time in the world's history when enlightened governments have made such efforts to ameliorate the conditions of life which contribute and conduce to the happiness of the people as in the present. And our government, I am sure, will not be behind in matters which are so vital to the welfare of the great farming community. I can speak with some authority on this matter, as I come from a constituency where the greater number of our people are farmers. The recent census taken in Canada, as well as that in the United States, go far to show that city life has its attractions over the young people in the rural districts of the country. And that wherever the great centres of population are increasing the country portions are lessened in population. In my opinion the post offices, and telephones, are to play an important part in making the lot of the farmer more congenial. And if, as is expected, the farmer has his free mail delivery, bringing his letters and daily papers with news of the outside world, a telephone in his house with which he can communicate with his neighbours and friends, and even with the more distant cities and great markets, the life of the farmer would take on a different aspect. Lonesomeness would disappear and the farmers' view would be thereby greatly enlarged. Mr. MACLEAN. Where is that ? Mr. ROSS (Ontario). Free rural mail delivery ; you are too late. It is easy to see	[low this will elevate the standard of intelligence and promote the welfare of the country people. The people of England have practically a free delivery throughout the country. The first test of rural free deliveries was made in the United States in October, 1890. if I remember rightly, the first appropriation being in the neighbourhood of $10,000. The appropriation for 1901 had grown to $1,750,000, for 1902 to $3,500,000, and I am not informed what the exact appropriation for this year is. But I am told that it is increasing and that the people of that country are delighted with the results which have been accomplished. Under these circumstances, with the knowledge I have gained regarding the working of the system of free rural deliveries, I have no hesitation in urging that at least a trial be made in this country. Let us for a moment, Mr. Speaker, examine the management of the Intercolonial Railway. True, the revenue and expenditure account of the government railway has shown no startling surplus. But on all sides it was admitted that when the present government came into power the road was in an impoverished condition. All this has been changed, and under the able management of its present Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) it is no more a reproach, and I have been informed by commercial travellers and tourists from foreign countries that there is not a more comfortable and up-to-date railway in Canada today. Living in Ontario, to which province the road does not extend, it was always very difficult for me to understand how a railway running through the old settled provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec, having a live business population, rich in natural resources, and carrying freight to all our great seaports of the Atlantic, did not pay. The present minister undertook to extend the road to Montreal, the great eastern inland seaport in Canada, and then a change occurred. And if the surplus has been small for some years of his administration this fact coupled with efficiency and economical management accounts for the better and changed condition of the road. Tf by the extension of the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal such results have been accomplished is it not fair to, at least, hope, that if the Intercolonial Railway were extended further west, to the great lakes, where it could enjoy a share of the great traffic which comes from our boundless wheat fields, greater results would follow. In connection with the very great interest which the public are taking in railways which will span the Canadian portion of this continent, one proposition is that the government should extend the track of the intercolonial Railway at least to Winnipeg and allow any railway wanting access to the western country from the east to have wheelage rights over this government road-

credit for having developed the cold storage system to a great extent. Our ocean steamers to-day are well equipped with cold storage facilities, and we have forty-five railway routes, centreing largely at Montreal equipped with these facilities. For instance, we can load a car at Port Perry, where I reside, with produce on Monday morning and have that produce put in an iced car, and the government will pay any shortage of freight there may be in connection with that car. That produce will then be delivered to its destination in as good order as when shipped.
By this means our producers have the advantage of shipping their products at various points and having it delivered in perfect condition either for the local trade or for export. What this means in the case of butter and cheese and eggs and other perishable products, it is hardly necessary to tell our farmers.
Coming to the question of public debt, not only have we a surplus revenue, but we are reducing our public debt, which is practical evidence that the surplus is a real one. Although we have been compelled to incur a large expenditure in order to meet the needs of the country-an expenditure which is perfectly justifiable-it is very gratifying to have our Finance Minister announce that practically all the additions made to the public debt by this government would be wiped out in another year, and that the net debt of our population will be $48 per head, as compared with $50 per head in 1896. He also stated that there will be loans maturing in. Canada to the amount of $2,800,000, which are now bearing 4 per cent interest and that these loans will be refloated at 34 per cent. I hope that the people of this country will subscribe to the new loan to be voted in payment of our maturing obligations. I believe that the practice of floating government loans among the people of this country is one that should be encouraged. I think it w'ould tend to increase a man's patriotism to know that he is holding a $100 or a $500 or a $1,000 bond of this government. What safer security can he have ? If everything else should go to ruin, we still have the country left, we still have the land, and we still have ample guarantee for our government bonds. There can be no security so safe as a government loan, and the people of this country might very well invest some of the $60,000,000 which they have in the Government Post Office Savings Banks in their own national securities. For these reasons I believe that a popular loan in this country would be one issued by the government of a moderate amount, bearing interest of three and a half per cent, say for twenty years, and in denominations of $100 or $500. Such a loan would encourage national sentiment. I am a great believer in allowing our people all the privileges we can give them,


William Ross: and I think the privilege of investing a small amount of money in a popular loan is one which those who have money to invest would appreciate. It is gratifying to note the abundant prosperity existing throughout Canada. It would be idle to contend that the government has created all this prosperity. But is it not fair to concede some credit to the government ? Former governments sought to impress the people in a general way with the idea that the country could not do very well without them and that it would certainly go to ruin under Liberal rule. But what is the condition to-day. Our railways are not able to handle with any degree of despatch the freight that is offering. And indeed, during many months, they have been paralyzed and conjested with traffic. I saw last night a report in one of our newspapers-the Toronto ' World,' I think it was -that the railways were not able to handle the traffic, that there were over five hundred cars in the Toronto yards waiting to be unloaded. Of course, that might be the fault of the railways not having enough labour to take care of the freight. But the same is true all over the country. I have seen it stated, time and time again, in the newspapers of the day, that the railways have plenty to keep them busy. Indeed, I was told recently by a man from the west that even If there were no crop in the west this year there was sufficient grain in the country, there were enough people going up and sufficient freight being carried to supply them, to keep the railways fully employed. This is the condition of affairs in relation to the railways, which are the pulse of the country. Banks have been doing an enormous business and showing fine yearly statements of earnings, and their record is that the deposits are larger than ever before in the history of the country. The demand for government currency has been abnormal, reaching $30,000,000, or perhaps $35,000,000 per year. Factories have sprung into existence everywhere, and the general testimony is that many of them have more orders than they can complete for months to come. Large industries employing thousands of men, especially in iron and coal, which are the great staple productions, have been established. The farmers of this great Dominion have grown wealthy, and there is no class of the community but have improved their earnings. It is needless for me to speak of the prosperity of other classes. But I do say that these conditions exist in my own section of the country. Everything is thoroughly prosperous, and the prospects of all never were so hopeful. If we consult the trade returns, we find that the total trade of the country has increased by $200,000,000 since 1895, or over $28,000,000 per year on the average. And of this increase about half was in the export trade, which is of the greatest benefit to the country. I wish particularly to congratulate the gov-

eminent on its proposal to place a surtax on German goods. The press throughout the country have approved of the government's action, particularly because of its departure from antiquated methods. I notice by the cable reports that the press of outside countries has commented favourably on the government's policy. If we are to believe the reports of many writers on trade relations, the coming years will witness a great struggle for commercial supremacy, and the action of Germany, which provoked our government to reprisals, may indicate in some measure the correctness of this view, and shows that we must take care of ourselves. No doubt, this government will be able and always willing to take care of the trade of Canada. It is satisfactory to observe the buoyancy of the revenue derived from customs duties. For, after all, this is the chief source of taxation. Though we pay for the support of government in other ways, the chief source of the government's revenue is the customs. One can idealize and theorize on a tariff and can frame a tariff in his mind which, to all intents and purposes, will be a perfect one. But it is a difficult thing to enter practically into the trade of the country and collect a revenue from the vast number of articles which are brought in and, at the same time, not materially injure or oppress any interest. Now, in a general way, I think this government has done this, and that Canada never had a tariff which could meet all the requirements of the people so well. It is not correct to say that it is a perfect tariff, but it has done the greatest good to the greatest number, and that is right. There are inequalities iu the tariff, as we must all admit, and some of these inequalities I see exemplified in the affairs of some people in my own riding. But I am sure the government will take these things into account when the proper time comes for the readjustment of the tariff. It is not fair to say that this government has vacillated and has no policy. Our opponents have stated over and over again that their policy lias been adopted. But, to my mind at least, a tariff is largely a compromise, and I repeat again that the task of harmonizing the various interests of the country has been well performed by this government. In view of what I have said, and of a good deal more that I might say, and in view of the progress of the country, I cannot support the amendment of the leader of the opposition. He asks us to declare that the present tariff is unsatisfactory. I do not believe that it is unsatisfactory ; I believe it is satisfactory ; that it has, in a great measure, created prospei'ity in the country. I presume I have the right to my opinion, and that is my opinion-that the present tariff has in great measure contributed to the success and welfare of the Dominion.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 23) to incorporate the Kootenay, Cariboo and Pacific Railway Company.- Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 35) to incorporate the Coast Yukon Railway Company.-Mr. McPherson.
Bill (No. 52) to incorporate the Joliette and Lake Manuan Colonization Railway Company.-Mr. Bazinet.
Bill (No. 69) to incorporate the North-west Coal and Coke Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver.	.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 121) to incorporate the Consolidated Trust Corporation.-Mr. McColl.
Bill (No. 123) to incorporate the Huron, Erie and Buffalo Railway Company.-Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 124) respecting the Hudson's Bay and Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Stewart.
Bill (No. 125) to incorporate the Guelph and Georgian Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 126) respecting the Mexican Light and Power Company, Limited.-Mr. Thompson.
Bill (No. 127) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of George M. Depew.-Mr. McCarthy.

["I regret to say, Sir, that I am not in a position to add anything to the information given in the public press. The Prime Minister received a short telegram concerning the matter this afternoon, and instructions were at once given to inquire for further particulars. We hope that by to-morrow's sitting we may be in a position to give further information."]
Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, I sympathized with the opening remarks of the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Ross) when he drew the attention of the House to the fact of the very small attendance which he had to speak to. He had before him one Minister of the Crown. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) who, so far as all outward appearances were concerned, was fast asleep. The hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), however, came in shortly after he commenced his speech, and although I am not honoured with his presence, it is evident that he intends, himself, to make a speech and was desirous of getting some pointers from the hon. member for South Ontario. The hon. gentleman, I noticed, listened very attentively to the observations to the hon. member for South Ontario, until that hon. gentleman commenced to read from the blue-books of the various departments when he took occasion to leave the chamber in order that he might take a long breath of fresh air. In listening to the hon. member for South On-


Albert Edward Kemp: their face value, this government must have been the means of increasing the trade of nearly all the civilized nations of the world for the trade of the civilized nations of the world has been greatly Increased and we can take it for granted that the same conditions which caused the increase in our trade have caused the increase in the trade of the nations of the world. Therefore, it is fair to assume that it was all owing to the wise tariff legislation of the present administration. My hon. friend from South Ontario referred to the great amount of money which is flowing into the treasury of this country and he seemed to be rather satisfied with the condition of affairs which exists. In the year 1S96 the revenue of this country, as he stated it, was $36,618,590. The revenue, according to the figures of the hen. Minister of Finance, for the current year, ending June 30, 1903, is estimated at $65,000,000. That shows that for the current year the people of this country will pay into the treasury $28,381,410 in excess of what they paid into the treasury in the last year under the former administration.
I take issue with my hon. friend from Ontario (Mr. Ross) on that. I think this government is pursuing a wrong principle in taking that amount of money out of the pockets of the people at the present time. We have no need for it. The people are being unnecessarily taxed ; the treasury is overflowing. This invites demands for all kinds of subsidies and grants and unnecessary public undertakings. The time has come, Sir" when we should have some kind of defined policy as to what manner of public enterprise will be undertaken by this government, and what their extent will be. The tariff is now principally on an ad valorem basis and the value of goods being high it necessarily produces this condition of affairs. It is called, rightly enough I think, a revenue tariff; its aims and object is to raise revenue. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ross) refers to the surplus of $13,350,000, but in my opinion that money had better be left in the pockets of the people in as much as we do not need it for the requirements of government. The hon. gentleman selected for his special praise the Post Office Department and the Department of Railways and Canals. He was pleased to know, as he alleged, that the Intercolonial Railway was well managed and that it was producing good results. He pointed to the fact that private railway companies were enlarging their capital, and he did not see why the Intercolonial Railway should not increase its capital if the government so desired. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that the amount oPTnoney which the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island railways wrote to capital account during the past year was $5,146,588, and I would remind him that the Intercolonial Railway is not like other railways, in that it does not pay dividends. The Intercolonial Railway for the most part
2053	APEIL 29, 1903	2054
runs through a country where the freight rates are profitable and where there is so much traffic that I have heard that it is the intention to double track some portions of the system. I contend, Sir, that the time has come when we should not only carry a very small amount yearly to capital account in connection with the government railways, but that we should be able to appropriate a certain amount for a dividend. That is a reasonable proposition and if the Intercolonial Railway was as well managed as other railways it could be easily done. On the- whole, we have no cause whatever to congratulate ourselves on the management of the Intercolonial Railway. For my part I look upon it as being a sort of a sink hole which swallows up the revenues of this country and I think we might very well economize in its administration.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ross) refers to the Postmaster General's Department; and here is were the two extremes meet, when we compare the lavish expenditure of the Minister of Railways on the Intercolonial Railway with the tremendous economy of the Postmaster General. It is quite evident that the Postmaster General is economical in some directions for hardly a day passes that members of this House do not receive letters from the employees of the Post Office Department throughout Canada, complaining of their treatment and pointing out that although the cost of living has greatly increased, their salaries have not increased in the same proportion as have the salaries of employees in private concerns. That, I believe, to be the case.
The Minister of Finance, in his budget speech, made reference to Germany and to the German tariff and he read the correspondence which took place between this government and Lord Strathcona, and between this government and the Imperial German Consul. Let me say, Sir, that in the session of 1901, I asked for any correspondence which had passed between the parliament of the Dominion or the British government, or the government of Germany with reference to this question. At that time demands were being made upon this government by boards of trade throughout Canada, asking them to do something in the line of passing retaliatory legislation if necessary in order to off-set the humiliating position in which Germany had, placed Canada. The Prime Minister replied in answer to my question :	That there was no
correspondence on the question to be brought down. Well, Sir, in looking over the correspondence which has now been placed before the House I find that on June 27th, 1898, Lord Strathcona sent a cable to the Minister of Trade and Commerce to this effect :	Shall I enter protest against Germany's action; and lie followed that cable up with a letter. Let me point out to the House the very dilatory manner in which the Canadian government treated this very 65i
important question. This cable was on June 27, 1898, and on August 2, of that year the Department of Trade and Commerce replied, thanking Lord Strathcona for his prompt action in connection with the matter, but giving him no further instructions whatever. That is the only letter so far as I am able to discover in this correspondence, which passed between the government and any party or parties in respect to this question until the Prime Minister took the matter up with the German Imperial Consul at Montreal, November, 1901. Lord Strathcona, on September 17, 1899, asked of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to be favoured with instructions by the govenynent on this subject, and remarkably strange to say the Canadian government gave no reply to that letter. Again on May 8, 1901, Lord Strathcona wrote to the Minister of Trade and Commerce telling what lie was doing and adding :	I trust it will meet with the approval of the government. As in the former case Lord Strathcona received no reply or acknowledgment to this letter. Again on August 1, 1901, Lord Strathcona addressed a letter to this government which was treated in the like manner, and that brings us down to the correspondence of November 4, 1901, in which the Prime Minister asked the German Imperial Consul to call upon him in order that they might discuss the matter. What I claim, Sir, is, that the correspondence which was then in the hands of the government should have been brought down when we asked for it. The government treated the correspondence as though it were of a serious nature, but there was nothing secret or private about it. In the session of 1902 my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) again asked for this correspondence and it was again refused. Ii is very easily seen from the correspondence itself that it is of a comparatively trifling character, and my only explanation as to why the government refused to bring it before the House is, that they were ashamed to show how little attention they had given to this German business. It is only when we on this side of the House moved in the matter and forced the hands of the government that they really took the question up seriously. However that may be, I am prepared to endorse the action of the government in the stand they have taken towards Germany. I take no stock whatever in the attitude of Germany or the German press towards us. In discussing this question with shippers of grain and cereals in this country, since the Minister of Finance brought this question to an issue, they have assured me that Germany has already done all she can do against Canada.
If Germany or any other country institutes against this country a tariff which is almost prohibitive, what difference does it make how much they increase that tariff- whether they double or treble it ? Whatever it is, it cuts us out of the German mar-

ket; and I think we can afford to let other countries know that on fiscal questions we are independent and can do as we desire, though being a dependency of Great Britain. The answer that I would give to Germany, if she continues to attack us, is simply this : Why should the German tariff on our products be more than it is upon the products of the United States ? That is a simple way of putting the case, and I venture to say that there is no answer to it. We need not go into a discussion of the Belgian and German treaties or favoured-nation treatment. This country imports more proportionately from Germany than the United States, and our tariff is very much lower than the tariff of the United States. Therefore, I think our government have taken the right stand, and I do not anticipate any further legislation from Germany, of a character that will hurt us. 1 really cannot understand the attitude of Germany. We are on a par with the United States in everything. Does Germany choose to treat Canada in this way because it is a dependency of Great Britain ? Is it because of the easy-going methods of the British people on trade matters that Germany undertakes to discriminate against us in this way ? At any rate, I feel that we are on safe ground, and I am pleased at the stand the government have taken in regard to the matter.
I do not propose at this stage to discuss the very important question of protection which has been so much discussed in this House. I hope I shall have an opportunity at a later date to express my views on the very important subject. I may say, however, that I shall heartily support the amendment which has been placed before the House by the hon. leader of the opposition.
I would like, however, for a few moments to take up the time of the House in regard to the question of preferential trade. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that a year ago we had a discussion in reference to the invitation which was sent to the government to attend the coronation ceremonies and the colonial conference in London. We on this side of the House expressed the opinion that the government had replied to that invitation in a way that was entirely unwarranted. The invitation stated that it was desirable that the colonial conference should discuss three matters :	Political
relations existing within the empire, the question of defence, and the question of commercial relations. The reply of the government to this invitation stated that the only question which gave promise of useful discussion was that of commercial relations. We on this side of the House took the position that the government should go to the conference with an open mind, willing to discuss any question which might come before it. At the bottom of their reply to the invitation the government did say that they would be willing to discuss any question


Albert Edward Kemp: which came up, but it did not appear to me that that statement qualified their main position to any great extent. The position I take in regard to Canada not being able to secure from Great Britain a preference on our cereals, which I think we should have secured under the grain tax, was due to our attitude on the subject of defence. Hon. members will know in regard to this important question what my views are, as I put them on record last session and they are not too radical. As this question has not been considered to any great extent since the abolition of the war tax on grain in Great Britain, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the very serious way in which the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Chamberlain, discussed the question of imperial defence at the colonial conference. As I want to place his views before the House, I will take the liberty of reading what he said on the subject in his opening address :
As regards imperial defence, I propose to lay before you, for your information, a paper which will show the comparative amount of the ordinary naval and military expenditure of the United Kingdom and of the different self-governing colonies. You will find that in the case of the United Kingdom the cost of our armaments has enormously increased since 1897. That increase is not entirely due to our initiative, but it is forced upon us by the action of other powers who have made great advances, especially in connection with the navy, which we have found it to be our duty and necessity to equal. But the net result is extraordinary. At the present moment the estimates for the present year for naval and military expenditure in the United Kingdom-not including the extraordinary war expenses, but the normal estimates-Involve an expenditure per head of the population of the United Kingdom of 29 shillings 3d.-29s. 3d. per head per annum.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Is the military and naval together ?


The SECRETARY OF STATE.: Military and naval together. In Canada the same items involve an expenditure of only two shillings per head of the population, about one-fifteenth of that incurred by the United Kingdom. In New South Wales-I have not the figures for the Commonwealth as a whole, but I am giving those as illustrations-and I find that in New Sofith Wales the expenditure is 3 shillings 5d.; in Victoria, 3 shillings 3d.; in New Zealand, 3 shillings 4d.; and in the Cape and Natal, I think it is between two shillings and three shillings. Now, no one, I think, will pretend that that is a fair distribution of the burdens of the empire. No one will believe that the United Kingdom can, for all time, make this inordinate sacrifice. While the colonies were young and poor, in the first place they did not offer anything like the same temptation to the ambitions of others, and, in the second place, they were clearly incapable of providing large sums for their own defence, and therefore it was perfectly right and natural that the mother country should undertake the protection of her children. But now that the colonies are rich and powerful, that every day they are growing by leaps and bounds, their material prosperity promises to rival that of the United Kingdom itself, and I think it is incon-

In his budget speech in 1898, the lion. Minister of Finance referred to it as a measure of tariff reform and the hon. Minister of the Interior, in the House in 1901, said :
When we give preference, if it is to he at any one's expense, it is at the expense of the manufacturer and the workingman of Canada. We go a little further, and say that it is the policy of the Liberal party of Canada to reduce the duties and to remove to some extent the burden of the excessive tariff which was imposed on imported goods by the late Conservative government.
These are the views of two of the ministers of this government. The right hon. Prime Minister, however, said something different. In Interviews and speeches in 1897, he said :
I have too great a belief in British common sense to think that they will do any such thing

He was referring to the adoption of protection by Great Britain.
What we have done in the way of tariff preference, we have done out of gratitude to England.
Therefore it can easily be seen that this government were using this preferential tariff as a sort of a political weapon which could cut any way they chose.
But when we come down to the present session, we do not see in the reply by the right hon. First Minister to the speech from the Throne any reference to the scheme which he propounded at that colonial conference with reference to a Canadian naval force. On the contrary, the government have studiously avoided any reference to that important question, which was discussed at the conference. I do not find that the hon. Minister of Finance, in his speech on the budget, made any reference whatever to this statement which was made at the colonial conference, but he held out the hope to the country that when the British budget came down, we would find in it a return for what wo gave in the shape of a preference. The British budget has since been brought down; and I am at a loss to know how the Minister of Finance could have expected, after what I may term the bungling way in which this question has been treated, any such preference from Great Britain as he anticipated. The British people, realizing what had taken place at the conference and the vacillating way in which the question of defence has been treated, knowing that we were the only country that had given a preference and had been asking a preference in return, feeling that we had not assumed the obligation which we ought to have assumed, hearing of our overflowing treasury yet, knowing that we were not ready to do anything on behalf of the British navy, or the establishment of a navy of our own they swept the whole thing out of existence and thus declared that they would do no more. When you think of the teeming thousands coming into Mr. KEMP.
this country from the United States, is it not easy to see that one of the greatest ben-fits this country could have offered to these Americans who, we hope will become good Canadians, would have been to say to them: You can get a preference of from four to five cents a bushel on your grain grown in Canada. That would have satisfied them and would have had a good effect upon their minds in regard to the advantage of living in this country. But, what do we find ? For instance, what do we find to be the position the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has taken in regard to this question ? He has coined a phrase, and expects to escape under it. I think it runs,
1 Canada must keep free from the vortex of European militiarism.' I do not think that, when the question is sifted to the bottom, that phrase will be accepted in place of what the government should have done by the people of this country. I do not think there was any danger to any course of a magnanimous character that we might adopt with regard to this question of defence, that would lead us into the vertex of militarism. Why could we not have said something of an encouraging character to the British people, why could not our representatives have been resourceful enough to have suggested some way whereby our own vessels might relieve to some extent the British war vessels that patrol our coasts and protect our commerce ? We shall be willing to face these responsibilities that all other nations must face, and I claim that we are occupying a humiliating position, a position which we cannot very long occupy, and which the British people have stated very plainly, through Mr. Chamberlain, that we cannot expect to occupy in not being willing to face the responsibility and perform this duty. We do not want the British taxpayers to protect us. We are in the same position as the most helpless, most significant British colony. We might have retained all our rights and yet have done something to satisfy the British people. I repeat that I am surprised that the Finance Minister expected to get any consideration when the British budget was brought down. Various unfavourable comments have been made on our attitude by the British press. Sir William Vernon Hareourt has said in speaking on the recent British Budget
The colonies ought to contribute to the navy. No sober-minded man could justify the enormous expenditure of the government.
So, we know what the feeling is in regard to this matter in Great Britain. But what is to be done in regard to this preference ? The government gave it as a measure of tariff reform and as a tribute of gratitude to the mother country. But when the Minister of Finance, the other day, brought in his budget, he almost repeated the words which were in the memorandum ! laid before the conference. He said

But, putting aside other considerations, it the British government and people do not show any appreciation of the value of the preference, then, so far as the British government and the people are concerned, they cannot complain if we see fit to modify or change that preferential tariff.
I was in the House when the hon. gentleman uttered those words, and nearly every hon. gentleman on the other side applauded. Is not this a notable thing when we remember that when the preference was introduced in 1897, hon. gentlemen opposite sang the National Anthem. Now we see that the government is in a most peculiar and erratic position, an inconsistent position, with regard to this matter. They have charged us with huckstering in regard to our policy on the preference. What have they been doing ? Huckstering of the very worst kind. When, from time to time, we have criticised this kind of a preference, and condemned the government for bringing it into effect, they have sought to meet us with the challenge : Move a resolution to do away with it. Our reply has been that it was not our affair. We have criticised it on what we consider a sound basis. What we have always advocated is what we call a mutual preference throughout the empire, and nothing short of that would be satisfactory. I contend that the government made a mistake when they did not proceed along the lines proposed by the opposition in this House. We are anxious to know what their policy is. Now is the time to state it. The Minister of Finance has excused himself for not changing the tariff this year. One of his excuses was the hope of a British preference to be announced in the British budget. We now have the British budget before us and know where we are. Now we ask, and reasonably ask, what the policy of the government is going to be in regard to this important matter. We have finished, I trust, in sending delegations of this character to Great Britain. In 1897 we sent a delegation to attend the Jubilee, and again, in 1902, we sent a delegation to the coronation. So far as I am concerned I should be ashamed to face the British nation or to go to Great Britain at the present time, after what we have done. I hope the day is not far distant when we shall take up t>.ifi question Of defence and decide what our po'ricy is to be. We have had enough frivolity in regard to the lavish way in which our statesmen have been entertained on the other side of the water. We have had enough cou-t dresses; we have had enough cocked ha'-g; we have had enough garden parties; we have had enough excursions; we have hai enough reviews; we have had enough afte,. dinner speeches; we have had enough Cobde. club medals. Let us now get down to our serious duties ; let us discharge our obligations


Mr. W. A. GALLIHER (Yale and Cariboo).: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join the speakers who have preceded me on this side of the House in congratulating the hon. Minister of Finance and his colleagues upon the splendid showing detailed in the budget speech so ably delivered by that hon. gentleman, a showing which, I believe, has never been equalled in the history of Canada. It must be a source of gratification to every Canadian to know that his country is in such a prosperous condition as it is, to know that our finances are being ably administered by the Finance Minister and that those finances are in a healthy condition. I know that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are wont to attribute much of the prosperity Canada is enjoying at the present time to a beneficient Providence. We on this side of the House equally recognize that Providence has been kind to Canada. But while we recognize this, we claim and I think we justly claim, that Canada should feel herself fortunate in having an administration at the helm capable of turning these beneficient gifts of Providence to good account. Now, I listened with considerable pleasure to the speech of tlie Finance Minister. I followed him closely throughout his speech, and I may say I listened to it with considerable pride. However, there was one thing that I did not like. It seems there is no cup so replete with sweetness that some person may not find therein a little bitterness. The sweetness lasted, so far as the people I represent are concerned, pretty nearly until the end of the minister's speech. The little bitterness that crept in came when the minister dealt with the question of adjusting the tariff on lead products. We were told that the government could not see their way clear to grant the request that had been made to them by the silver lead miners of British Columbia.
Now I may say that in British Columbia the people have always been an uncomplaining people. I have) lived there myself for the past seven years, and before that I had lived for some fifteen years in the city of AYinnipeg and west of that towards the coast, and I am well acquainted with the western people. We have always paid taxes in British Columbia by way of duty, either directly or indirectly, on every product that was brought into that country. We pay a duty direct or indirect on all we consume, on all we wear, on all our mining machinery that is not manufactured in Canada, practically on all our mining supplies; and yet I do not think that this government or any other government has ever heard any serious complaint from British Columbia on that score. But when the conditions of lead mining became such that it absolutely required assistance in some way, tfien the people of British Columbia came to this parliament. Delegations waited upon the govern-

ment, and their representatives in parliament have urged their cause. We hoped therefore that so far as lead was concerned there would he a readjustment of the tariff.
Now let me contrast the duties on lead with the duties on other products which we have to buy in British Columbia. I think I am safe in saying that probably the duties will average nearly 30 per cent on the articles that we consume and use in daily life in British Columbia. In regard to lead, let me first take the article of pig lead. We find that on pig lead there is a duty of 15 per cent; with the preference of 33& per cent deducted from all lead sent from London, that duty amounts to 10 per cent. Now probably every member in the House knows what pig lead is, but as possibly some one may not, I will explain that the lead ore is first smelted, and with the lead silver is frequently found. The smelted product of lead ore is called bullion. That bullion is then sent to the refinery where it is desilverized, and assumes the form of pig lead. Now note that the tariff of 15 per cent is levied on lead which has reached that state; and as I said before, with the preference of only 10 per cent as against London. Now we go further and take up the question of corroded lead, or what is known as white lead. Now note the anomaly. On corroded lead, which is lead advanced a further stage, the duty is only 5 per cent. Taking that fact into consideration, it is no wonder that we have no lead corroding works in Canada. That duty of 5 per cent would also have to be reduced by one-third in case the corroded lead came from England.
Now what is our position to-day ? Canada is consuming to-day of lead products in various forms, such as sheet lead, white lead, shot and corroded leads, something in the neighbourhood of 15,000 tons. This consumption is rapidly increasing from year to year, and in view of the great immigration coming into Canada at the present time it is certain to increase very rapidly in the future. Therefore we should not be surprised to find that within a very few years Canada! may be using 20,000 to 25,000 tons of lead in all forms. We have in British Columbia, particularly in tho district I represent-indeed I think I represent most all the silver lead mining interests in Canada, certainly all those in British Columbia-we have there at the present time mines capable of producing 30,000 tons of lead, and even more. As I have already said, Canada is consuming at the present time some
15.000	tons. Now how much of that lead is produced in British Columbia ? About
4.000	tons, or at the outside, 5,000 tons. You may/ ask me how that happens. The reason is that we are thrown into competition with Mexican lead. As I have shown, we are protected by no existing duty that is of any practical benefit to the mine owner or the producer; certainly the existing duty


William Alfred Galliher: is no benefit to the producer of lead as it stands to-day. Therefore we are thrown into competition with lead that is sent in from the United States, although not by any means produced in that country. But the United States have what is called a bonding privilege with Mexico, where there are large lead mines and where a great quantity of lead is mined. "That Mexican lead is sent into the United States in bond, is treated by United States manufacturers in bond, and then shipped out of the United States into Canada. That lead is very cheaply produced. The cost of labour employed in producing that lead is only 50 cents a day. I understand the miners are paid 50 cents in the Mexican mines. Against that we have to pay our miners $3.50 a day. You can readily see under these circumstances that we cannot possibly compete with the Mexican lead, unless some protection is afforded our miners in one way or another. If that lead is sent to London, or if Spanish lead is sent to London and refined there, and then sent out to Canada, that cheap lead comes in here with this preference deducted from the duty of 15 per cent on pig lead and 5 per cent on corroded lead.
Now, I wish for a moment to conti'ast the conditions of the United States miner and the Canadian miner of lead. For that purpose, I will take one of the western states, which hasi the greatetet lead [DOT]producing' camp in the world, the Cordellaines, in the state of Idaho, which is some 200 or 300 miles south of us. I select that because the conditions there are very similar to the conditions in British Columbia, where we are operating our mines. I find that in the United States at the present time the mine owner receives for his lead in ore $3.90 per hundred. In Canada I find that the mine owner receives for his lead in ore $1.90 per hundred. That is based upon this : We receive and are settled with on the basis of the London price. The price of lead on the London market varies from time to time, varies probably every day, or few days, a few points, but at the present time the London price is $2.90 per hundred pounds. The mine owner receives only $1.90, the other dollar being taken for freight, treatment and what are called marketing charges. So that, as contrasted with the mine owner hi the United States who receives $3.90, the mine owner in Canada, 200 or 300 miles north of him, receives only $l.ol. Now, taking pig lead in the New Y>rk market, we find that at present the pi'ice is about $4.37 per hundred. In Montreal they buy pig lead (not the United states pig lead), and the price of pig pad in Montreal is $3.07 per hundred. 7 am quoting these figures to come to tie point that I do not see why the chard' to the Canadian consumer of mixed paints should be as much as the charge t' tlle American consumer of mixed paints and yet we find that such is

tlie case. Pig lead in New York is worth $4.37 and in Montreal $3.07. Then, we find that corroded lead in New York is worth $4.75 per hundred and in Montreal $3.75 per hundred, but when it comes down to mixed paints we find that they are quoted in both countries at about $6 per hundred. One thing is sure, that the mine owner does not get the benefit of that. Why when there is such a difference in the price of pig lead and the price of corroded lead in Montreal and in New York the price of mixed paints is the same, is something that is difficult to understand. When it is mixed in with the oil and becomes mixed paint we find that, although the American paint mixer has to pay much more for the corroded lead that is used in the mixing of the paint than does the paint mixer in Montreal, practically the consumer in the United States pays the same as the consumer in Canada. This is something the government might look into.
I wish to place before the government and the House the importance of this lead industry in British Columbia, to show what it was when the conditions were favourable to mining operations there and to contrast the conditions then with the conditions today and with the conditions that have prevailed for some little time. These figures have been carefully compiled toy men who made it their special business to arrive at the figures in order to be able to present them to the government when they came here as accredited delegates from British Columbia. There has been invested in silver lead mines in that district over $20,000,000. That is the actual purchase price of the mines. It does not include any stock dealings or anything of that kind ; it is the actual purchase price of the mines and money expended in developing these mines. In connection with that, there have been railway and steamship lines built, and they were built very largely for the purpose of conveying these ores, because there were practically no other industries in certain parts of the silver lead mining district. There has been expended in that direction by the Great Northern Railway Company some $3,000,000. There has Been expended by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for a similar purpose some $10,000,000. In Slocan district, which is entirely dependent on silver lead mining, we find that in the various mining camps and small towns the assessed value! of improved property amounts to about $1,750,000. The assessed value of the city of Nelson, outside of that amount, is placed at about $2,500,000. There has been invested in smelters for the reduction of these lead ores some $750,000 or $1,000,000, this investment being represented by the smelters at Pilot Bay, at the city of Nelson and at Trail. I will take the year 1900. because in that year the mines were working under favourable conditions and were working to their normal capacity. In that year,
while working to their normal capacity, these lead mines gave employment to 2,500 miners. This does not include men who might be employed in cutting trails or in cutting wood in connection with these mines, but actual miners, and the wages paid to these miners amounted to about $2,750,000 in that year. The value of the ores shipped from these mines in 1900 was about $5,000,000. These mines were supporting a population of some 20,000 people, I may say, almost absolutely dependent on the successful operation of the mines. Take the conditions two years later, and what do we find ? We find that the value of the ores shipped from these mines had dropped from $5,000,000 to $1,154,000. We find that the population of
20,000	people that were being supported by these mines had dwindled to some 10,090 people, and that number to-day is greatly decreasing. We find that the 2,500 men who were employed in 1900, when conditions were favourable, are reduced to 500 men, and consequently, instead of having 2,500 men working in our silver lead mines, as in 1900, we have 500 men. Instead of having $2,-
750,000	expenditure in the shape of wages, we have now only about $500,900. You will readily see, Mr. Speaker, the great necessity there is for something being done to help this industry. It is an industry which is not only of great value to my district, but it is an industry which is of interest to all of British Columbia, to the North-west, to Manitoba, aye, and to Eastern Canada as well. If I were urging something that was only local in its character, I would not have such a strong case in coming to this House and to the government to ask for assistance. But, Sir, this is an industry which concerns the whole of Canada, and in which all Canada has deep concern.
Now, Sir, this falling off in the production of the mines is not due in any sense to the fact that the mines have petered out. ' The silver lead mines of the Slocan and of the East Kootenay are in a more advanced stage of development to-day than they have been in any period in the history of lead mining in British Columbia. They have ore in great quantity, and the ore is just as valuable as ever it was. It has been suggested by some that the falling off might be attributed to exorbitant freight charges on the railways and exorbitant treatment charges by the smelters, but I can assure the House that such is not the case. The mines are as productive as ever ; the ore is there to be taken out, and the railways and smelters have made cut after cut in their rates in order to try and keep that industry alive. There was a two day's session in the city of Nelson, last fall, where the representatives of the silver lead mining industry met the smelter people and the railway people, and threshed the matter out. The representatives of the silver lend mines in British Columbia satisfied themselves then, that they were receiving fair treat-

ment both from the railway companies and from the smelters. In fact I am told that the rates charged were even better than the rates given to our neighbours across the line. It may be asked :	What then is the
cause of this slump in lead mining in British Columbia. Well it is due to more causes than one. In the first place, a good deal of our lead carries silver with it, and the price of silver and lead in the markets of the world is low. The second reason is, that owing to the conditions that prevail we cannot get any appreciable amount of the Canadian market for the Canadian product of lead. We are thrown into competition with cheap Mexican and Spanish lead which is foisted into Canada through the United States and through Great Britain. Another reason, and a very strong reason is, that during 1900 and prior to that for some years we were shipping our lead ores into the United States first, under the old Wilson tariff of three-quarters of a cent a pound, but afterwards the Dingley tariff raised the rate to one and a half cents a pound against us. When we had the American market for our products, our mines were going ahead, everything was prosperous with ns, and we were able to carry on our works to their fullest capacity. But suddenly what is known as the American Smelting Trust was formed, and so soon as that trust came into existence all the smelters gave notice that at the expiration of the contracts which they then had with the mine owners of British Columbia, they would take no more Canadian ore. Therefore, the American market has been shut off to Canada by the action of that trust. Now when these conditions got to be practically unbearable, when it was seen that unless something was done to relieve the lead miners, that industry would perish ; we in the lead mining district, got together to devise some scheme which we could present to the government for our relief. As the member for the district, I caused notices to be inserted last fall in the papers, asking that a meeting should be called at some stated place to discuss as to the best means of bringing about relief. That notice was heartily responded to and a meeting was called at Sandon which is probably the centre of the lead mining district. That was a very representative meeting and all the lead mines of any importance in British Columbia were represented. The managers, or engineers, or superintendents, as the case may be, met at Sandon, and after carefully discussing the question, action was taken. I may say that the men who attended that meeting were men whose daily avocation is the operating of mines ; men who should be, to my mind, in the best position to judge of what would grant the most relief to that industry in its depression. It was unanimously decided at the Sandon meeting that a delegation should be sent to Ottawa to present the facts to the government, and


William Alfred Galliher: to ask them to give us a duty on our lead that would be sufficient to place our miners -not exactly in the position of the American miners, because we felt that we could not get that-but at all events to place them in a position so that they would be able to work their mines to advantage.


Mr. BIRKETT.: What do you think a sufficient duty on lead would be ?


William Alfred Galliher: What was asked was practically the Dingley tariff, which is two and one-eighth cents a pound on pig lead, and two and seven-eighth cents a pound, I think on corroded lead.


Albert Edward Kemp: Would that be adequate V


William Alfred Galliher: Yes, that would be adequate, but I have some hesitation in using the word adequate after the explanation of its meaning given by my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Heyd). As I have said, that was the decision arrived at at that meeting. The Sandon meeting was afterwards followed by a meeting at the city of Nelson where these industries were again represented, and at the meeting in the city of Nelson the resolution of the meeting held in Sandon was practically endorsed. That was followed up, as I said before, by a meeting between the mine owners and those representing the railway and smelting interests in order that the mine owners might be convinced that the railways and smelters were dealing fairly by them both in regard to railway rates and smelting charges. The meeting ended by the mine owners being perfectly satisfled on these points. It was followed by a third and last meeting in the city of Sandon, where again all these interests were represented and the original resolution was re-endorsed. At that meeting certain delegates were appointed to come to Ottawa to interview the government with regard to that resolution ; and I may say that the men who composed that delegation were all practical men, men whose daily avocation was the operating of mines and the treatment of ores, men who understood the A B C of mining, and were capable of presenting the case to the government in a proper light, and who did present that case to the government in a much abler manner than I am presenting it to the House to-night. These delegates were assisted by Mr. Buchanan, who represented the federated Boards of Trade, a gentleman who probably has given more time to this question than any one else. So that our case was very strongly presented to the government, and we hoped that the government, if it could not see its way clear to go to the extent we asked in adjusting the duties, would at all events give us what we all claimed was our right, and what I claim to-night on the floor of this House is the right of our people-to have the tariff on our lead industries so adjusted that it should be placed upon a parity with the other industries of Canada. That, I claim, the people and the lead mining industry of British

Columbia are entitled to. The government have intimated, through the Finance Minister in his budget speech, that they do not see their way to interfere at all at this session of parliament with the tariff respecting lead notwithstanding the great anomaly that exists.
I was pleased to see that the government have asked for power, if certain conditions arose, to impose a duty on steel rails. I think that principle is right. The manufacture of steel rails is a new industry in Canada ; it may become a very important industry ; and when we have the raw material and the means of converting that raw material into the finished article, I believe in the principle of encouraging all new industries of that description. Such, I claim, is our position with regard to lead. When the present tariff was framed, we had no such industry as lead mining in Canada ; therefore, lead was practically put on the free list. Now that we have demonstrated beyond a question the value and importance of the industry and the fact that it can more than supply the demands of Canada, surely we should be placed in a position at least to control our own markets instead of seeing the lead in the different forms in which it is used in Canada come from the cheap Mexican or Spanish article, while our mines of British Columbia are shut down.
Now, I take it that the government, in asking power to place a duty of ?7 a ton on steel rails, have placed themselves on record as willing to assist a new industry under special conditions. There could not be a stronger special case made out than has been made out on behalf of our lead industry. It is an exceptionally special case ; but the lion. Minister of Finance stated, as the reason why he had practically differentiated between the steel rail industry and the lead industry, that to have afforded the relief asked for the lead industry would have necessitated interfering with a great many other items in the tariff. That may be true :	but let us see if that is a good
reason. Having once placed themselves on record as adopting the principle of assisting a new industry under special circumstances, and having applied it to a certain case, under special circumstances, I contend that they should apply the same principle to the second case of special circumstances. The fact that the application of the principle to the second case may involve a little more trouble in working it out, does not, to my mind, affect the question. The point is. is the principle established ? If it is, they should apply it in all similar cases, even if one case involves a little more difficulty than another.
In a country such as Canada is-a growing country, a country of great possibilities, a country where the conditions are changing with wonderful rapidity from year to year, and even in shorter periods-I think no government should lay down any hard and fast j policy that must govern everything. I think
there should be elasticity in the policy of every government. I think special circumstances should be dealt with specially, apart from any fixed principle or policy. If there is justice in the demand, justice should be done. It is all very well for an old country like England to adopt hard and fast rules of policy. It is different in Canada, where conditions are not settled, but where they are constantly changing, and those conditions should be met by any government in power, be it Liberal or Conservative.
Taking into consideration the sums of money which have been invested in that industry in that country, considering the importance of that Industry, not alone to British Columbia but to the North-west Territories as well, it seems to me to call for some energetic action on the part of the government. There is no other industry, not even the mining of other precious metals which so effects the entire province as does the industry cf silver lead mining. Not only does the whole province feel the evil effects of the condition now prevailing, but those evil effects are also visited on the North-west Territories. No doubt the territories are prosperous at present, and I hope that they will long continue so. There is a large immigration pouring into them, but we must not lose sight of the fact that, right at their threshold in the province of British Columbia do they find their natural market for their agricultural products. That province furnishes a very good market for the products of the farm and the ranch. We require large quantities of butter, cheese, hay, oats, cattle, hogs and various other products of the farm and the ranch, and these we get from the North-west Territories. Thus the territories find in our province a remunerative market, and they are backing us up in our application. We have received endorsation from numerous boards of trade throughout the territories and also from the boards of trade of the city of Winnipeg and other places in the province of Manitoba. Aye, Mr. Speaker, we have even received the support of the boards of trade in many parts of Ontario. So that we are not standing alone. _ We alone are not affected, but other provinces share in our loss, and that surely ought to appeal to the favourable consideration of this government. Seven years ago I found this silver mining district, which, a very few years before, had been a solitary wild, a business centre and hum of industry. The bustle of life and business was evident everywhere. Prospectors, miners, investors, business men were pouring in from all quarters, putting their capital into the country, either in mining or business venture. Mining camps, villages, towns and ambitious cities were springing up with incredible rapidity. Times were good, everybody was prospering, and the people naturally looked to a continuance of this condition. All the indications pointed to that district as being a profitable one for the investment of cap:-

tal, and the people invested largely. Bat if the present conditions o? affairs is to continue, if there is to be no help for us, [DOT]what does it mean ? It means ruin to every one of those business men -who invested their money there, and there are numerous towns in that silver lead district in which vast sums have been invested. The mine owners may close down their mines and leave the country. But the merchant, the man who has his money invested in business, cannot do that. There are bills to meet, and there are vast sums of money sunk in stores and buildings, which, if abandoned, will be irredeemably lost. It was suggested, however, by the hon. Minister of Finance-and that I confess is a ray of hope to me-that there would be some readjustment with regard to bounty and that a bounty would take the place of a duty. Well, I was pleased to hear the hon. minister say so, and I hope that the bounty will be a liberal one. An adequate bounty would tide us over our difficulties for a time until the government could see its way clear to give us at least a fair, proportionate and reasonable adjustment of duties, so that our lead products, at all events, would be on the same basis as other products of Canada.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Hear, hear.


William Alfred Galliher: If the government decides to grant us a bonus, I wish; to point out that if it is to be of any practical value, it will have to be an adequate one.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Alfred Galliher: A sufficient bonus, a liberal bonus.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Alfred Galliher: There are two things we should not lose sight of in this connection. I wish you, Sir, to bear in mind that the province of British Columbia contributes to the Dominion treasury more per capita than any other province and three times as much per capita as the average of the other provinces. I would also point out that it contributes in revenue to the coffers of this Dominion some $2,000,000 per annum more than is expended in that province. I do not mention this to say that it should be the policy of the government to expend in any one province all the money paid into its treasury by that province. ' But I merely wish to show that in asking for a large bonus, the province of British Columbia is not drawing from the revenue or resources of any other province of the Dominion. Some two years ago there was an Act Placed on the statutes providing for the payment of a bounty for refining lead. The purpose of this was to have our home product refined at home, that it might not be sent abroad to San Francisco or some other point, and freight charges and smelting charges paid upon it. That bounty ran for five years, and was $5 per ton for the Mr. GALLIHER.
first year, $4 per ton for the second year, $3 per ton for the third year, $2 per ton for the fourth year, and $1 per ton for the fifth year, but in no year might the bounty exceed $100,000. In order to gain the whole bounty the first year, it would have been necessary that 20,000 tons of lead should be mined in Canada. That bounty, so far, has cost very little to the country from the fact that the establishment of refineries cost considerable money. The only parties who took advantage of it was the Canadian Pacific Refining Company at Trail, a town near the silver lead mining district. They have expended some $40,000 or $50,000 in a plant, and in an experiment in refining lead which was then tried for the first time outside a laboratory. The system experimented with has been demonstrated to be successful. It is known as the electrolytic system. The plant at the present time is capable only of turning out some 8,000 or 10,000 tons per annum. When the mining conditions again become normal in British Columbia, lhat plant will have to be largely increased. In view of the fact that the company have shown enterprise and have introduced this new system which is successful, and is in furtherance of science, and in view of the fact that; probably only about $10,000 of the bonus for the year ending 30th June, has been earned, I would ask that the time be extended for a year, within which they may earn bounty at the rate of $5 per ton. Now, this bounty that already exists and the bounty that we propose asking must be treated separately. It will not answer the purpose of the producer of lead for us merely to have a modification in some way of the existing bounty paid to the refiner. What we will ask for, what we shall require in order that this industry may be stimulated by way of bounty, will be a bounty payable directly to the producer of the lead. Here is the man to whom, we claim, if we are to receive assistance, by way of a bounty, that bounty must be paid. Taking the average price of lead for the last twenty years, and taking our settlement at the London prices, it brings to the producer about $1.75 per hundred weight. By the closest and most careful figuring, the gentlemen who have had the matter in hand have decided that it is impossible for the mine owners in that district, outside of a very few whose quota would be small, to operate their mines successfully for less than a return of $2.50 per hundred weight for their lead. So, allowing for the price of $1.75, the bonus should be such as would give to the producer the difference between $1.75 and $2.50, or 75 cents per hundred weight, or $15 per ton. That is the bonus that will be asked. I may say that, since the speech of the Finance Minister was published throughout the country, I have received numerous telegrams, and resolutions from boards of trade both in the territories and throughout the entire province of Brit-

ish Columbia, urging upon me that I should ask the government to reconsider the question of the adjustment of duties, so far as lead is concerned. I am only a young parliamentarian, and I do not know whether this can be done or not. I see no reason why not. At all events, X am going to ask that it be done, that the Minister of Finance reconsider the question in regard to the readjustment of the duties and the bonus to be given us. As to duties, I will only ask them to touch one item, this item of corroded lead. We are assured by two separate concerns that, if a duty of 30 per cent is put on corroded lead, they are prepared to establish corroded works in the east here. If they do so-and they are responsible people-it means the establishment of a new industry in Canada, the expenditure of money in Canada, and the employment of labour in Canada ; and it means the securing the white or corroded lead market for the Canadian producer of lead. It is something, I think, worthy of consideration. And if it is possible or in accordance with the rules to reconsider that and bring it down by way of what we may term a supplementary budget, I would ask the Finance Minister and the government to do so. We in that country are placed in a position where, if adequate relief is not afforded us, either in one way or another, we can see the destruction of those erstwhile live businesslike towns that have sprung up in that country. We do not want that to occur. The people of my district are extremely excited over the matter as it is now ; and I urge in all earnestness upon the government and, if the government bring in any measure of relief I will urge in all earnestness upon the members of the House, to give this matter all due consideration. I hope I have made it clear enough that we are in dire need of assistance in one way or the other in regard to that great industry. We do not wish to see an industry of such magnitude perish ; we do not wish to see our country supplied with the products of other countries while we have within our own border an industry of this kind more than capable of supplying our wants. I care not how the government reach it, so long as they reach it.
Now I have done with the lead question, and before closing I wish to call the aten-tion of the government to another matter. We have in my district, in what is known as the Kelowna valley, along the shores of Ijake Okanagan, in Yale county, one of the finest tobacco growing districts in Canada, ft has been demonstrated that we have in that district 10,000 acres of tobacco land, capable of producing 8,000,000 pounds of tobacco leaf, an article equal in every respect to the best tobacco grown in the United States and imported by Canada, in respect of that matter, I am asking the government to do two things. First, repeal an Order in Council which was passed in June,
1901, allowing factories importing foreign leaf into Canada a rebate of ten cents per pound on foreign leaf cuttings exported from Canada. The meaning of that is this : When factories using foreign leaf import quantities of the same into Canada there is a duty payable thereon, and when they export from Canada the cuttings of this foreign leaf they receive from the government a rebate of ten cents per pound. Now that is all very well if you want to encourage the importation of foreign tobacco, or if you want to discriminate against Canadian grown tobacco*. But when we have demonstrated that we grow in that Kelowna valley tobacco equai to the best imported from the United States, and that that industry is not expanding simply because we cannot sell a pound of our tobacco to those factories that import the foreign tobacco, then something should be done ; and we call for the repeal of that Order in Council, that iniquitous order, which discriminates against our own product and hampers our own industries. , They will not buy from us, because if they do they will not get a rebate on the cuttings. Why sliould we close the door of these factories to the producer of the home grown article ? This question affects the county of Kent, the county of Essex, and all other counties in Canada that grow tobacco. Our tobacco leaf has been pronounced by experts, both from the United States and from Toronto and Montreal, in fact all the leading cities of Canada where tobacco is used, equal to the best grade of American tobacco. Last year I think something like 60,000 pounds only was grown In our district; between 60,000 pounds and 8,000,000 pounds there is, as you will see, a good margin to work on. I, therefore, ask that this Order in Council of 1901 be repealed, so that we may be in a position to sell to all the factories in Canada. I will read an extract from a letter of one of the largest tobacco growers in the Kelowna valley :
Samples of the tobacco I now have ill stock have been shown to all the largest manufacturers in Montreal, London, Toronto, &c., and declared by them to be equal to anything grown in the United States, but in face of this Order in Council I am unable to sell to any foreign leaf factory. To one firm, an actual sale of 6,000 pounds at excellent prices was made, provided it could be taken into the factory free of duty. They ascertained that this could be done, but if they took it in, the rebate on their cuttings would be lost. As their annual rebate amounted to more than the value of the tobacco, the deal of course fell through. I have tried factory after factory with the same result. In no case has any exception been taken to the quality of the leaf, its exclusion is due solely to this Order in Council, and as long as it is in force we shall practically be debarred from selling to foreign factories.
Now, I say there is something that can be remedied without interfering with the tariff, and the remedy should be applied at once.

It is an injustice to our tobacco growers in Canada, it is a discrimination against our tobacco growers in Canada, it is an encouragement of tlie importation of tlie foreign product, when we can produce tlie leaf of equal quality in our own country.
The next thing I want to ask is that only one license stamp be used, allowing all manufacturers to use the domestic and foreign leaf in any proportion they please. I understand by a ruling of the Department of Inland Revenue that the domestic leaf is allowed into factories free of duty. So far so good. But I would ask that this distinguishing stamp be taken off. Originally there were two licenses issued, one for factories in which nothing but foreign leaf was used In the manufacture of cigars. That particular license was accompanied by a gray stamp. A gray inland revenue stamp was the distinguishing mark, showing that that tobacco had been imported from some foreign country and was manufactured solely from imported leaf. The other license was what was known as a domestic license for domestic factories, in which cigars were manufactured entirely from domestic leaf, the distinguished stamp being green. But as Canadian growers gained experience, after they had brought their tobacco leaf up to a high standard, a third license was issued for combination factories, which allowed the manufacturer to make cigars partly from the domestic and partly from the imported tobacco, so long as not less than 25 per cent of the one was used in it. This amount of 25 per cent was afterwards reduced, and is now ten per cent of either domestic or imported, the distinguishing stamp being red. Now what is the object ? We have in Canada a tobacco leaf equal to any that can be imported from the United States. What is the necessity of having a different coloured stamp on our cigar boxes ? Some claim that the stamp merely marks it as Canadian tobacco, or as combination tobacco, or as all imported tobacco. I do not think one smoker in a hundred knows anything about that. He knows what brand of cigars he likes, he buys them and he smokes them ; and I claim that the use of this distinguishing mark is practically black-eying our own products, and encouraging the public to buy an article imported from foreign countries.
Now, if the object is to protect the smoker, as it more nearly affects him, do these distinguishing marks in any way protect the smoker ? We all know that there are as many grades of imported cigars as there are of domestic cigars. They range in price all the way from probably $20 or $30 per thousand to $120 per thousand. There are all these different grades and they all bear the same stamp. Is there any protection in it for the smoker ? No. You buy a certain brand of cigar and smoke it and if you do not like it you try another brand. The smoker is perfectly capable of taking Mr. GALLIHER.
care of himself and if the using of these different stamps has the effect of stamping the Canadian product as inferior in any way to the imported product, then, these stamps should be removed and we should have a uniform stamp placed on all cigars manufactured in Canada. Now, I discussed this matter with the lion. Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier) and he seemed to anticipate that there would be some difficulty in bringing this about; there may be; still I leave the matter to the consideration of the government. I think, myself, and I think any man who will reason it out will come to the same conclusion, that we should not either stamp our goods or exclude the sale of our goods in any factory in Canada to the betterment: of the American product and the encouragement and building up of the industry in the United States or any other country.


Mr. WILSON.: Come over;, we will take you.


William Alfred Galliher: I am not travelling.


Uriah Wilson: You might as well.


William Alfred Galliher: Let us consider for a moment the effect which this system has. Hon. gentlemen know how great the industry is in the United States. I do not know much about the conditions in Essex, or Kent, or in other counties in the east where tobacco is grown, but I do know what we are capable of producing in the west. I know the area that we have that is available for the growing of tobacco and I know that so soon as the conditions are made such that the people have a free hand and can act freely that industry will be started and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent. I, therefore, Mr. Speaker, leave these two matters to the consideration of the government. The more vital one is certainly that of the lead ore mining industry. The other, I consider, also, of great importance and I hope that if the government decide not to in any way interfere in regard to the adjustment of the tariff on lead at the present session they will not allow another session to go by without giving us the relief that we ask for.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member for Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher), who has just taken his seat, is entitled to the fullest sympathy' of both sides of the House. He has made, certainly, a very strong appeal on behalf of British Columbia industries. He has pointed; out to the government the mistakes they have made in dealing with that province, and so far as I am concerned, I must say that I deeply sympathize with him in the position in which he finds himself placed. When the hon. gentleman began his address, or very shortly afterwards, I noticed that not a single Minister of the Crown was to be found in the Chamber.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I wap here.


David Henderson: Not so. Tlie hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) is very rarely absent indeed.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. Mr. Fielding).: It is not very important, but I may say that I was not out of the Chamber at any moment when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) was addressing the House.


George Taylor: The hon. minister was in the gallery.


David Henderson: I know quite well where the hon. minister was; he was concealed behind a post in the upper gallery feeling quite sure that the bullets of lead with which he knew the hon. member for Yale and Cariboo was loaded would not hit him because the pillar was between him and the hon. gentleman.


Mr. COWAN.: He was in good company.


David Henderson: The hon. member for Yale and Cariboo tells the House that the budget speech was very nice, that it was very rosy, and that he was delighted with it. No doubt, when he heard of the enormous surpluses that we had during the past year and in prospect for the current year he fully expected that British Columbia would receive some kind of fair treatment, but, io and behold, he said that at the end of that speech there was a bitter pill for British Columbia. Well, Sir, that hon. gentleman does not seem to be alone in finding bitter pills in the budget speech of the hon. Minister of Finance. We find yesterday the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) bewailed the fact that the salt industry in his town had received no consideration from the government. He was a protectionist ou salt but possibly on nothing else. I do not like to characterize the hon. gentleman as a parish politician, but I have not very much regard for those protectionists who are simply protectionists in a local way. I believe that we should have the same policy for the whole country and for all the industries in the country. If the hon. gentleman was right in his contention that the salt industry should receive the paternal care of the government, why would lie refuse that paternal care to other industries which were all of just equal importance and perhaps of very much greater importance ? The hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) stands along with the hon. member for Yale in his constituency. Thousands of people are engaged in the production of vegetables for the market in Toronto and elsewhere. That hon. gentleman, when last returned to this House, I believe, secured his election by his pledge to secure for those people additional protection for that important industry. Yet, we find him here, to use an expression of his own, like a bump on a log, saying nothing at all and leaving
his constituents to suffer whilst the government takes no action in regard to the matter. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has become a protectionist for the cream separator manufacturers. Where is he going to be when the resolution moved by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is voted upon ? is he1 going to declare that the cream separator manufacturers of Guelph are not entitled to adequate protection. I question very much if he would not prefer being outside of the Chamber when the vote is taken, even if he should only be in tlie gallery. Then we had the member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) appealing on behalf of the town of Brantford and its industries. Binder twine lias given him a large amount of trouble, and the government thinks they have fairly met him, with the slight aid of riiree-eiglits of one cent a pound, whilst if our Brantford factory would send a pound of twine to the United States they would be met with a duty of two cents a pound. Then we had the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Galliher) appealing on behalf of the lead industry and the tobacco industry in his section of the country, for some material assistance. If I remember aright, we bad the member for Alberta (Mr. Davis) anxious that a duty should be placed upon borses or at any rate that an increased valuation should be put on horses so that the duty as it at present exists could be made effective in protecting the horse breeders of the west. But I was rather amazed at the member for Yale (Mr. Galliher). 1 was amazed at how well he enjoyed the bitter pill that was given him by the government. He said he had hopes. Well, there is an old saying about living in hope and dying in despair, and I am afraid that will be the lot of the member for Yale. It is no new thing to hear this appeal from British Columbia for assistance to the mining industry, but year after year goes on and the government declares that there is no necessity for doing anything for that province, because they know perfectly well that the member for Yale and others of his kidney will give them their support through thick and thin.
I was much pleased indeed at the reference which the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) made in his budget speech to the postal revenue of this country, and there was probably a good reason why the Minister of Finance should refer to it. His duty is to give a fair statement of the revenues and expenditures and I was pleased at his reference to that service because to a certain extent it corrected the statement that had gone abroad in the country-not with the intention of misleading any one I must suppose-that the Post Office Department had been so well administered that it actually showed a surplus of revenue over expenditure. The friends of the government throughout the country spoke of this with
\

great delight and great pleasure. It was the one department that showed anything like economy, and they held it up to the people as an evidence on the part of the government of a desire to fulfil their pledges as to economy. Be that as it may I fail to see why continued reference should be made to it in a budget debate. My opinion, and I think that opinion is well founded because I have carefully investigated the matter ; my opinion is that any decrease in the deficit of the Post Office Department has been brought about simply by starving the service. Men are to-day performing duties under the Postmaster General at starvation wages. It is unfair in a country like this that men should be called on to discharge such duties for the miserable pittance they receive. I refer more especially to the country postmasters, and to the mail carriers as well who have arduous duties to perform and who as a rule are not sufficiently paid. I have said, and I am prepared to back up my statement with substantial proof, that this starvation of the service alone is responsible for the alleged saving in the Post Office Department. On June 30, 1891, there were 8,061 post offices in operation in Cau-ada, and in 1896 when the Conservative government left power there were 9,103 or an increase in the five years of 1,042 post offices, or an average yearly increase of 208. Let us compare this with the conditions under the present government. On the 30th of June, 1902, there were 9,958 post offices in Canada or an increase of only 855 over the number in 1896, as against an increase in the last live years of Conservative rule of 1,042. There was an average increase during the regime of the Liberal government of only 142 per year compared with 208 per year during the last five years of the Conservative government. We have heard of the new areas that have been opened up recently to settlement in the North-west and in New Ontario, and during these past five or six years there must have been much more numerous demands for increased postal facilities than there were during the previous five years, but notwithstanding that, we find that the people of Canada are left without postal conveniencies simply in order that one member of the administration may be able to say that he had administered his department with only a small loss. Had the same rate of increased accommodation been given to the people of Canada during the last six years that had been given during the last five years of the Conservative regime, we would have today 400 more post offices opened in the Dominion of Canada than we have at present. Now, Sir, if we have large surpluses; if we have money to burn, how could we spend it better than in providing comforts, conveniencies and accommodation for our people, and I know of no way in which public money can be spent to better advantage Mr. HENDERSON.
than in giving the people of the country better post office facilities.
With reference to the financial statement of the Minister of Finance I intend to have very little to say. I congratulate hon. members who have preceded me, during the latter part of the debate especially, on the new policy of short speeches in this House, and I intend to-night not to break that, which I regard as a very wholesome rule.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


David Henderson: 

bounty on the one-tenth part of the sugar consumed in this country would be very small compared with the tax we are paying on the 400,000,000 pounds which we are consuming at present. I would give the people cheap sugar, but X would assist by a bounty the farming community in the districts where beet sugar may be produced; the growing of which has ceased to be profitable in the province of Ontario. Our farmers will tell you that. In our province we do not eat bread made from the flour ground from our own wheat, but largely from the flour we import from Manitoba. Consequently the growing of wheat in Ontario is not as profitable as it was. The cattle industry is also showing signs of failure, and practically our Ontario farmers have now only two industries on which they can rely-dairying and hog raising ; and they are attempting to supplement these industries by the introduction of a new one, that of producing their own sugar. I, therefore, hope that the government will see its way clear to give an adequate bounty in order that this new industry may be assisted and become a success in the province of Ontario, and the other provinces where it may be started.
We have heard a great deal in this debate about the reduction of taxation, but I must confess that, in my examination of the tariff and its results, as shown by the Trade and Navigation Returns, I am at a loss to find where this boasted reduction in taxation comes in. I find that the average rate of taxation is just about what it was under the Conservative regime. I do not consider that there is one-hundredth part of a cent difference to-day between the average rate of taxation in the first five years of Liberal rule and the last five years of Conservative rule. Any one who will take the trouble to investigate and make a fair comparison will find such to be the case, and that is just what the lion. Minister of Finance intended. He told us three years ago that he never intended to reduce taxation. Let me quote his own words :
It was of the utmost importance that we should maintain a strong financial position and in view of the uncertainties as to the amount of revenue that might be produced by this lower rate of taxation it became necessary that we should take some steps to make good any possible loss that might result. It was thought that it might fairly be met by providing for the raising of some additional taxation in order to balance, or make good, the loss occasioned by
the reduction of duties....It was necessary
to have an increased revenue in certain directions when we were to lose revenue in other directions.
That policy the hon. gentleman carried out. He simply has taken off something here and put something on there, but unfortunately he has upset the trade of the country by the unfair way in which he has balanced up the revenue. For example he taxes the workingman heavily on sugar.


David Henderson: 


George Taylor: And tobacco.


David Henderson: And enormously on tobacco. Perhaps those who use tobacco may not receive very much sympathy, but they are as much entitled to fair treatment from the government as any other class.
Then, under the operation of the preferential tariff, many industrial institutions of this country have been very seriously injured, but apparently the only object which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has in view is to raise a revenue, irrespective of the interests of the country. To-night, for instance, we had the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Galliher) charging the government with paying no attention to British Columbia and not caring how the mines of that province might suffer so long as the government collected 30 per cent on everything the people used out there. I might give you any number of figures to bear out the facts I have stated, but I shall confine myself to giving a recapitulation of the average rates of taxation in the various years :
In 1892 the average taxation was.. 17.56 In 1893	"	"	..	17.38In 1894	"	"	..	17.13In 1895	"	"	..	16.99In 1896	"	"	..	18.2S
In the five years, the average rate was 17'40 on goods coming into this country, dutiable and free.
Compare this with the first five years of Liberal rule. I shall not take the table set out in the Trade and Navigation Returns, because the Minister of Finance has told us that he disagrees with the Minister of Customs, and that that table is not correct. I have therefore corrected it so as to make it conform with the statement of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. The hon. Finance Minister told us some years ago that it was only fair we should eliminate from our imports the amount of corn which passed through this country in transit. And in order to make the calculation fair, I have done so, and I find this result:
The average rate of taxation on goods entered for consumption was as follows :
In	1898	
18.34In	1899	
18.14In	1900	
16.96In	1901	17.25In	1902	
16.60
And the average for the five years is 17-4C against an average of 17'46 for the last five years of Conservative rule. So that the Finance Minister has not reduced taxation one whit. It remains just where it was except that there is this difference. Under the national tariff, the taxation was so arranged as to benefit the industries in this country, whereas now it has the opposite effect. Now the duties are so adjusted as to press the harder on the people, because while a man has to pay a higher taxation, he does not receive the
20S5

help of the government in order to enable him the better to prosecute his business.
The hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell) I thought, went somewhat out of his way this afternoon to show what the government has done for the farmers. I say he went somewhat out of his way, because the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) told us that it was absolutely impossible for the government to protect the farmers. So here is a queer difference between these two gentlemen, one holding strongly to the opinion that the farmer cannot be protected, the other holding as strongly to the opinion that the government had been protecting the farmer. I turned up the report of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) for 1897, the first year of the Liberal government. The report was written and printed very shortly after hon. gentlemen opposite came into power. I turned to this report in order to find out for myself practically who it was that established cold storage in this country. I think it is only fair that X should read an extract from that report, for I am under the impression that many people in this country are a little mistaken on this question. This report gives what the Minister of Agriculture had to say in 1S97, before he became contaminated with these extraordinary ideas which seem to prevail on the other side. This is when he came in fresh from the farm. For you know, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture is a farmer, a practical farmer, an innocent youth, who, at this time was just off the farm and did not know how to misrepresent a thing, but told the facts as he found them. An hon. gentleman beside me remarks that he was green. I did not think he was. I think he was all right. He came from the farm and showed the honesty of a farmer. It is somewhat remarkable, after all the boasting I have heard of the Minister of Agriculture being a farmer that, a very short time ago, he called to his assistance, as chief executive officer of his department, a lawyer. Has the hon. gentleman lost confidence in himself ? Has he lost confidence in the ability of a farmer to administer that department ? Has the department given him a great deal of trouble ? Or what is the difficulty that has caused him to call in a lawyer in this way ? I have here what he said in his innocent youthful days when he was fresh from the farm and could not tell anything but the truth.
A cold storage service for the safe carriage of butter was begun in 1895.
Who were in power in 1895 ? Why the Conservatives.
Arrangements were made whereby refrigerator cars for carrying butter were run during the summer on the main lines of railways leading into Montreal. These cars were used to pick up small lots of butter as offered at the different railway stations. Shippers by these 664
cars were allowed to ship butter at the usual * less than car-load rates,' without any charge for icing or special service. As far as space permitted, merchants were allowed to use these cars for the shipment of dairy and creamery butter between points at which the cars touched. During 1895 cars were run for at least part of the season on the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific railways.
Arrangements were also made for the chilling of fresh-made creamery butter at the warehouses of the Montreal Cold Storage and Freezing Company, Montreal.
Arrangements were made for the fitting up of insulated and refrigerator chambers on steamships from Montreal to Avonmouth, Liverpool and Glasgow. The chambers were constructed to thoroughly insulate

Observe the word ' thoroughly ' and contrast it with what the hon. gentleman said
-their contents, and thus prevent them from being heated during the voyage by any rise of temperature outside the chamber. Galvanized iron cylinders were filled with ice to cool the interior of the chamber and the outside of the packages of the butter, in so far as they were heated during the cartage from the cold storage warehouses to the steamships.
And I find that, during the shipping season of 1894 there were exported from the port of Montreal 32,055 packages of butter. In 1895 the shipments were 69,664 packages and in 1896, 157,321 packages. And yet we listened this afternoon for upwards of half an hour to the hon. member for Glengarry trying to convince this House that the present government had established the cold storage system. I wonder that if, even today, after seven years, when the cold storage system is much better understood than in 1895, they have a very much better system than was established by the former government I think that Dr. Montague, the former Minister of Agriculture is entitled to the credit of establishing that boon to the people of this country-cold storage. It is like everything else that has been inaugurated for the benefit of the farmers-it emanated from the Conservative party. Now, the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) is willing that the farmers should pay an increased price for salt in order to benefit the town of Clinton where he chances to reside, because he wants adequate protection on salt. But I do not know whether it is for the manufacturer he wants it or for the farmer. It is the farmer who must pay the increased price if there is an increase; but, he would not need to pay it, because he could still buy his Canadian salt. And I have no doubt that he could get that salt just as cheaply if the duty were doubled. In fact, I believe that if the duty were doubled the Canadian farmer would buy his salt cheaper. In that respect, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Holmes) is a sound protectionist, he has the right principle; but he does not want to apply it to anything but salt. If he would apply it to woollen goods and cotton goods

and others, we would welcome him on this side, and would be glad to see him advocate so sound a policy for this country with that ability which does him credit. We are told by some bon. gentlemen opposite that the farmers cannot be protected. My opinion is that the farmers are protected. Some may have different ideas of protection from my own. But in my opinion to protect an industry does not mean to put it in a position to demand a higher price. To protect the farmer or to protect the woollen or cotton manufacturers is to give the market of this country to the farmer or to the manufacturer. You protect the farmers of this country when you give them the market of the country. For instance, we put a duty of thirty-five per cent on mutton, and that keeps American mutton out. Last year only $2,879 worth of mutton and lamb came into this country. The whole market of Canada with this exception was kept for the farmers of this country. That was 'adequate protection,' if hon. gentlemen opposite want to know what adequate protection is. Of fresh meats other than lamb and mutton we imported $38,198 worth. On this article there is a duty of three cents a pound.
Well, I think that three cents a pound is fairly adequate protection on an article that costs about six cents a pound. It is very good protection, and that is the protection that we believe in giving the farmers of this country. Not that we say for one moment that we are going to help the farmer to get two prices for his article, that is not the meaning of it; but we say we will put a Chinese wall right round this country, and we will not allow these Americans to come in here and monopolize the markets of this country when they do not contribute anything towards the expenses of this country. The Canadian farmer is entitled to this market, and we put that duty on to enable him to get this market, and to retain it. Fork, two cents a pound. I do not think that is adequate protection, because there were $561,414 worth of pork brought in. I believe the minister will be wise if he increases that duty to three cents and gives the Canadian farmers adequate protection. Pickled beef or barrelled beef, $77,554 worth imported. The farmers are fairly well protected on that article. The market is fairly well held by the farmers of this country. Bacon and hams, only two cents a pound. I do not think the protection is adequate. If it were made three cents we might exclude a very large amount of this $635,831 worth of bacon and ham that came in, and which we could produce in this country just as good, and, I believe a great deal better than that we get from the other side. Butter, $160,459. The farmer of this country is protected to the extent of four cents a pound. That is the duty put on to prevent tlie American farmer from coming into this country, and it is fairly successful in giving


David Henderson: the farmers of this country the market of Canada. Of cheese, $31,368 worth came in under a protection of three cents. If three cents a pound is not sufficient, I would say add more. It will not increase the price of cheese in this country, because what signifies $31,368 worth compared with all the cheese that is consumed in Canada and all that is exported out of the country. That three cents a pound on cheese has no effect whatever on the price of cheese to the consumer. It does not enhance it to the thousandth part of a cent, but it does give the farmer in this country all the market we have for cheese, and that is what the farmer has a right to ask. Flour, $144,714 worth at 60 cents a barrel. I regret that the present government when they came into power to revise the tariff, interfered with the duty on flour. Formerly it was 75 cents a barrel, and they reduced it to 60 cents, and it remains at that figure still. Wheat, formerly 15 cents, reduced to 12 cents, and yet $S9,470 worth of wheat came into this country. What, bring American wheat into this country ? Cannot Ontario and the great North-west furnish all the wheat that is necessary to feed the people of Canada ? Why should we even admit this small amount of $89,407 worth. I say the duty should be high enough to give the entire market to the people of this country. Oats, $67,223 worth came in under a protection of 10 cents a bushel, a fairly good protection. Pease, 10 cents a bushel, $15,119 worth came in.
Now, going over the list. I take it that the farmers of this country are fairly well protected so far as holding the market of Canada is concerned, and that is one of the objects of agricultural protection. No man ever dreamed that you were going to give the farmers $2 a bushel for his wheat, no man ever dreamed that you were going to give him 50 cents a bushel more than it is worth. No such idea ever prevailed. But it has occurred in this country, and it may occur again, when farmers do receive more than a normal price for wheat. I remember in 1895, in the month of June, when there was a short crop of wheat in this country, that wheat sold in the city of Toronto for 20 cents a bushel more than it sold for in the city of Liverpool. The advantage that a farmer would get in price is only when a short crop occurs, but as long as there is an abundant supply-which we always hope there will be in Canada-no farmer will expect to get an increased price by slightly raising the protection. But he does get the market. Let me give an illustration how he controls the market. In Manitoba we have enormous grist mills, I think there is one mill in Winnipeg turning out about 3,500 barrels a day. In Minneapolis they have an enormous grist-mill grinding the same quantity of wheat. No. 1 hard. The flour from Minneapolis is shipped to the seaboard, possibly it goes to Boston. The flour from

Winnipeg is also sent to the seaboard, and is possibly exported by way of Boston. Suppose a vessel goes down from Halifax loaded with fish and wants a return cargo. The owner goes to the flour dealer and he says : How do you sell flour, or what flour have you got ? He says : I have American flour from Minneapolis, and I have Canadian flour from Winnipeg, both made from No. 1 hard wheat, which will you have ? Well, says the shipper, I will take Canadian. Why does he take Canadian ? Because he knows too well that when he returns to Halifax the Canadian flour, having been shipped through in bond, comes in free of duty, but if he took American flour he would have to pay GO cents a barrel to the revenues of the Dominion of Canada before he could get a market for that flour. The duty of GO cents gives the Canadian farmer the benefit of that market, the benefit of the markets of the maritime provinces and the province of Quebec. It does the same thing in Ontario, because as I told you, in Ontario we do riot consume now the products of our own farms.
The hon. member for Huron (Mr. Holmes) says : Absolutely it is impossible to protect the farmer. Well, what do the farmers say themselves ? Let us take a look around this House. In 1900 we had a general election, and the tariff was the leading question in the province of Ontario. I am prepared to submit that question to the farmers. My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) is an example of what the farmers think of the principle of protection. North Middlesex sends a supporter (Mr. Sherritt) of the Conservative party, instead of a supporter of the hon. gentleman opposite. East Lambton sent another Conservative (Mr. Simmons), who, I regret to say, has not been able, through illness, to be in the House for some time. He replaced a Liberal who formerly sat on the other side of the House. My hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Thomson) is a living evidence of what the farmers think about protection. My hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Richardson) is also an evidence that his constituents favour the same principle. The riding of Lincoln has sent in our friend (Mr. Lancaster), another evidence of what the people of the west think about the principle of protection. South Wentworth (Mr. Smith)-why, you find them all over, the House is filled with them. South Waterloo (Mr. Clare), another evidence. West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) also, he replaces one of the most inveterate Liberals we had in the House, and though he may not perhaps, be just what we would like him to be in the way of protection, I believe that his feelings are with us. But he represents a very critical constituency, and he thinks it is just as well to be fair to all sides. However, I hope that when the vote is taken, his conscience will dictate to him what is right, and I am quite sure he will follow his conscience. East Hastings (Mr. Nortlirup), another evideuce of what the farmers of Ontario think of protection. Stormont, I believe, is another. South Victoria (Mr. Vrooinan) is another. What shall I say of West York (Mr. Campbell) ? Had it not been for the principle of protection, I do not believe that the present representative would be in the House. Here is what the farmers themselves say. They say the farmer can be protected and they are going to support the party that endorses the principle of adequate protection. Well then, how are you going to protect the farmer ? I have been endeavouring to tell you that you protect the farmer by protecting his market. You give him the home market for his commodities. In that way he receives the protection that this parliament can extend to him. So long as we keep the home market for him, we do a great deal. It is our duty as well to find foreign markets for his commodities, but in seeking the foreign market the farmer has to enter into competition with countries, such as Argentina and other wheat producing countries where they have cheap labour, thus placing our famers at a disadvantage. If we can seeure the home market in Canada for 80 per cent of the products of the farms of this country, we are doing a great deal for the farmers. It'is estimated that the entire product of the farms of Canada is worth about $500,000,000. We exported last year of animals and agricultural products. $100,000,000, in round numbers ; therefore, we consumed in Canada $400,000,000 worth of the products of the farms, or 80 per cent were consumed in our own market. Is it not a matter of importance that we should protect that home market that consumes 80 per cent of the products of the farms even if we cannot secure the same character of a market for the other 20 per cent ? I say the true policy is to hedge around this country with adequate protection for the farmers and give them all the benefits that can possibly accrue to them by retaining their own market for this large percentage of their output. The city of Montreal has a population of about 2G7.000 people.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: 300,000.


David Henderson: Well, I take the last census. Perhaps it is 300,000 now. If we consume in Canada $400,000,000 worth of the products of this country we consume on an average $70 per head worth of the products of the farms. Seventy dollars worth of the products of the farms is the average consumption of every man, woman and child in this country. I do not mean to say that each man, woman and child eats $70 worth of food, not by any means, but there are many things that are not produced on the farm such as horses and cattle, hay, and such things that are not being consumed. The average consumption in one year or another of every individual is $70. Let us look at the value of the city of Montreal with all its varied industries. I

need not attempt to enumerate them us there are bon. gentlemen who know them better than I do. That market is worth to the farmers of this country on that basis $18,000,000 and the city of Toronto is a good second. What would the farms of this country be worth if these industrial institutions were blotted out or were hampered or hindered in carrying on their operations? It would simply paralyze this country and destroy its value. I was in the city of Winnipeg in the month of October last. I admired that growing city. I believe it is destined to be a great city. I do not know the present population, but, according to the last census, it was some 42,000. I dare say it is now 50,000, or perhaps more.


Mr. EARLE.: 



David Henderson: And I suppose in five or ten years iti will have a population of 100,000. I wonder if the people of that country have any fair estimate of the value of the city of Winnipeg to the province! of Manitoba ? According to the calculation I have made 42,000 people would consume each year $3,000,000 worth of the products of the farms of Manitoba, l'n five or ten years I believe the population of that city will be doubled, and instead of $3,000,000 worth they will consume $6,000,000 worth of the products of the farms of Manitoba, affording an enormous market. What would the farmers of Manitoba do without a city like Winnipeg and without the other towns that are growing up in that country ? They would be compelled to ship out of the country all of their surplus products. They would be compelled to ship out yearly nearly a, half million more of their wheat and enormous quantities of the other products that are consumed there. Is it not better to encourage the growth of industries in a place like Winnipeg and encourage the bringing in of a consuming population which is not a producing population, but which will consume the products of the farms of that great province ? I may say the people of Manitoba are not alive to their best interests if they for one moment would hesitate in supporting a party that would give them adequate protection, and that would give to every industry that might grow up in Winnipeg adequate protection. Why should these people not make their own agricultural implements, why should they not make their own harness, why should they not make their own boots and shoes, why should they not make their own clothes, why should they not make their own furniture ? These are all possibilities and if industries of this kind were instituted there, were supported and were maintained there is no doubt at all that that city would become a very great city and become an enormous market for the products of that province and so enhance the value of every farm within range of that crowded centre. If the people of Manitoba say that Mr. HENDERSON.
they approve of that sort of thing let them send to, this parliament representatives who will support the principle of adequate protection, and in due time the capital will go into that country that will be requisite to establish these industries and to give them that market. We have been asked across the floor of the House to state what was meant by adequate protection. I am surprised, I confess, that hon. gentlemen cannot form an adequate opinion of what it means. I think it is very simple indeed. Now, there is an article made in the city of Guelph which is known as a cream separator. There is a very large number of them sold in this country. That article is admitted absolutely free into this country. The hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) wants protection on salt. Why should he say protect the salt industry and refuse protection to the cream separator industry ? To my mind the cream separator industry is just as important to be protected as the salt industry, or as the lead industry. There were imported last year $4S7.734 worth of cream separators into Canada. There are only two factories, both of them in Guelph making that article. Let me say that the cream separators^ made in Guelph are equal in every respect as to finish as the foreign made article and taking the same capacity they are ns low in price as the article brought in from the United States, or Germany, or Sweden. They are sold alongside of each other. One man buys one, another man buys another. They simply buy a certain separator because a particular agent sells it. There is no particular choice, but, as a matter of fact, there were last year imported into this country about 10,000 cream separators. Let ns consider what an advantage it would be to the city of Guelph if the trade of Guelph were extended by the additional labour that would be required to bring about the manufacture of these goods. Ten thousand cream separators will require a very considerable amount of labour. The money that would be paid for the construction of these machines would be paid out again to the workmen of the city of Guelph. These workmen in turn would pay it out to the farmers for their beef, butter, eggs, cheese, potatoes and flour and all the piroducts of the farm. The money goes back to the farmer and he buys his cream' separator and pays for it. The money simply keeps circulating; it does not go out of the country and you never see it again, as it would if the farmer bought an American separator, or a German separator, or a Swedish separator. The farmers are alive to this fact and they are beginning to see that their true interests lie in the protection of the industries that brings protection to the farmer. That is one of the ways to protect the farmer. If you want to give the farmer true protection, and all the protection you can give, you will have to surround the industries of this country with

a tariff that will force largely the manufacture of goods in this country, so that the markets of Canada will be increased by the addition of an Industrial population who must of necessity live on the products of the farm, and thus enhance the value of the farms.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hoar.


David Henderson: That argument applies not only to the cream separator, but it applies to the woollen industry, to the cotton industry and to every industi'y in this country as well.


George Taylor: The agricultural implement industry to ?


David Henderson: Yes, the agricultural implement industry as well. The trouble in this country at the present time is that we have too much taxation and too little protection. We simply want the Finance Minister to reverse the order-give us a little more protection and less taxation.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


David Henderson: Many lion, gentle-ment in this House seem to.think that high protection means high taxation. That is a most absurd idea. I do not believe that you will get the Finance Minister to propound that doctrine. X do not think that he would sacrifice his reputation and standing by getting up here and telling us that high protection means, of necessity, high taxation. Why it is the reverse. They tell us that their tariff is a tariff for revenue only. Well, it is not that. It is neither one thing or the other. They have a duty of three cents a pound on fresh meat and very little fresh meat comes into Canada. If they want a tariff for revenue only, let them reduce that duty to one cent a pound, and I will undertake to say that they will get three times more revenue than they get now at three cents a( pound. If their tariff is a tariff for revenue only why do they not put a duty on tea and coffee ? We cannot produce these in Canada. . If they are afraid of protecting or helping the people of the country; if they are alarmed that any industry would be benefited by their fiscal policy, let them raise their revenue on tea and coffee and other articles which we cannot produce, and which would not interfere with any industry, -and that would be a tariff f" revenue only. But that is not their policy. They adopted the old Conservative tariff to the extent that they still give us free coffee and free tea. I have said, that what we want is more protection and less taxation, and that if we had that we would not be troubled with these enormous surpluses which the Minister of Finance scarcely knows what to do with. Adequate protection does not mean higher taxation; it means lower taxation. I go further and I say that adequate protection does not mean higher prices. I know that
there are gentlemen in this House who will not agree with me when I say that adequate protection does not of necessity mean higher prices, but I can tell them that if there was 25 per cent put upon cream separators to-day, the farmers of Ontario would buy them for ,$5 less, and if the minister does not credit it, I will undertake to procure for him a bond from those manufacturers that they will do it. If the minister will give a protection sufficiently reasonable .to protect these men and give them the large market of this country, I will undertake to say that the farmers of Canada will benefit to the extent of from $5 to $10 on every separator they buy. And this is the reason. The manufacturer in Guelph sends out his agent to sell cream separators, but he meets agents from the United States, from Germany, from Sweden, from England, all selling cream separators. The country is flooded with the foreign article., and the agent of the Guelph manufacturer is possibly not able to sell more than one machine a day, whereas if he had the whole market within his reach he could possibly sell three times as many. Therefore the manufacturer's agent could sell three machines for the same expense which it now costs him to sell one. In this way the Canadian manufacturer could afford to sell a machine to the farmer for $5 or $10 less, and the manufacturer would have just as much money in his pocket as he lias now. That is an example and it is an example that will apply in very many things. When I was going out to Manitoba last year a manufacturer in my own town said to me : You can tell the people out there that if I were given adequate protection so as to secure the market in this country along with those who manufacture the same article in Canada, I will undertake to reduce my prices 10 per cent; and he could do it if it were nothing) more than his saving on the cost of his travellers who would sell double the quantity they do now at the same expense. I am not one of those who believe in that bugaboo that high protection means high prices. Of course if you make it exclusive, it is another thing, but that is not adequate protection. We are not asking for exclusive protection; we are not asking that everything be excluded. All that we want is adequate; just enough to accomplish the purpose of giving the markets of this country to the Canadian manufacturers and i Canadian; farmers so that they can make a reasonable living profit. I have said that adequate protection does not mean higher taxation, and does not mean higher prices, i but I tell you honestly that it does mean
>
higher prosperity. If you want evidence ! regarding .that you can get it from the . speech of the hon. member for Huron (Mr. * Holmes) yesterday. He gave us a quotation
>
from a pamphlet which he said came into i his possession, and did not doubt the correct-t ness of it. It was a pamphlet he said that

was sent out by the Canadian Cotton Goods Company, and in the pamphlet I find a paragraph headed ' Canadian goods cheap to the consumer,' and he goes on to say :
There is not the least doubt that the Canadian consumer saves nothing on imported goods.
The hon. member for Huron (Mr. Holmes) quoted that as authority. But he gives this as an illustration, and his illustration is a very good one :
. An illustration of this fact recently came to light. A wholesaler imported a line of fancy shirtings and laid them down at eight cents and a half a yard. He sold them to the retailers at eleven and a half cents, who resold at seventeen cents.
A pretty good profit by the way :
A Canadian firm duplicated the pattern; sold it at- eight cents, the wholesaler sold at ten cents, while the consumer got it at twelve and a half cents, meaning a saving of four and a half cents per yard to the wearer of the shirt.
That is a pretty good showing for Canadian goods. Who says that Canadian goods cannot be produced just its cheap as foreign goods ? The Canadian manufacturer was able to compete with his foreign competitor, he was able to reproduce that article at a price below the imported article which he was able to undersell. But what advantage was there in that ? Suppose he was able to do it, where was he going to sell it ? The importers had flooded the country with that class of goods, everybody had been supplied, and when the Canadian turned out his product, he had no market for it. He might sell it at half a cent less, or even at two cents less, yet lie would not find the demand for it, because the demand had been filled. That is the case with very many commodities. Let us take the case of coloured cottons to show how the Canadian manufacturer is handicapped as against the British. The latter has a market in cold climates and in warm climates. The calico printer makes his plates. In the first year the product of those plates is sold in England ; the next year it finds its way to Canada and the United States ; the third year it goes to Australia, possibly to South America ; the fourth year it is sent to South Africa, and some other distant countries ; and the fifth year it is sold in India and Japan, where the latest fashion is not so much thought of. The English manufacturer can turn out goods from the same plates for five years, and turn them out all the year round, because he has markets in colder climates and in warmer climates in various parts of the world, while the Canadian manufacturer lias a limited market in Canada, and can only produce one impression from the same plates. There is no doubt that he is handicapped to a great extent, and an industry of that kind ought to have the help of the government. We have the evidence of the hon. member for


David Henderson: West Huron that the Canadian manufacturer is able to produce these goods at half a cent less than the importer could buy them for in the old country. But he had not fair treatment; he had not adequate protection. It was immaterial whether he produced them or not. If he did, they simply lay on his hands,	because the market had been monopolized by the larger producer in the old country. If there had been adequate protection to keep the English goods out, the moment the Canadian manufacturer produced his goods, he would have been able to get a fair price for them, and the Canadian consumer would have been able to get his goods at four and one-half cents less than he had to pay for the imported article. You cannot expect men to risk their capital in large industries of that kind, unless they are given to understand beforehand that they are going to have the paternal care and protection of the government to guarantee them a fair return for what they produce. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been telling us all along that these goods would be dearer under protection, and we find that statement refuted.
There is one question which I never could solve in listening to hon. gentlemen opposite. They said : Take down the tariff wall and let us get into the United States, and we shall be able to buy everything cheap. Take down the tariff wall of 20 per cent, and we shall get our agricultural implements from Chicago and other places on the other side of the line a great deal cheaper than we get them now. The strange part of it is the people who talk in that way want to get their goods in the most highly protected country in the world. To get cheap goods, they want to go to the highly protected United States, or to highly protected Germany. If these hon. gentlemen reflected for a moment, would they not see the propriety of joining with us and giving a policy of adequate protection to the manufacturers of Canada, so that we could have cheap goods without going out of Canada ? If high protection in the United States makes cheap goods, high protection in this country will make cheap goods as well. I have demonstrated that high protection does not mean higher prices. I think I can safely make this statement without fear of successful contradiction, that y(e never had cheaper agricultural implements in Canada than we had under the 35 per cent tariff, when the national policy was in full swing. We took 15 per cent off, but there was not a drop of 15 per cent in the price. I do not say that a binder or a mower may not cost more money to-day than it did ten or fifteen years ago ; but it is a very different implement from what it was then. It has various improvements and attachments which were not on it at that time, and it is worth more money. I also say, as a practical business man who has been handling goods for
2097'

many years, that we never had cheaper cottons than we had under the national policy. We never had better or cheaper woollen goods than we had under the national policy. We never had cheaper coal oil than we had under the national policy. What do we pay tor it now ? If you want to buy a barrel of Canadian oil in the part of the country where I live to-day, you have to pay 19J cents a gallon for it, whereas we used to pay 121 cents, a difference of 7J cents, although a cent a gallon has been taken off the duty. Barbed wire was cheaper under the national policy than it is to-day, and I understand it is free.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Labour was cheaper too.


David Henderson: Under the national
policy ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Certainly ; cheaper than it is to-day ; wages were lower.


David Henderson: And wages will be lower again, perhaps, and wages were lower, before the national policy was inaugurated. The hon. minister will remember the days of the soup kitchens under the Mackenzie government, when the labouring classes were praying for a national policy, and when the government were turned out of power because they would not give it-just what this government will come to if they do not give this country adequate protection. Binder twine is nearly double the price to-day that it was under the national policy. It is no better, I suppose. Labour is dearer. How much labour does it take to make a pound of twine ? Seven and a half cents of labour to make one pound of twine ? Great heavens ! It is a big industry. Is it the labour that makes the difference ? Why, I understand that it is made in the penitentiary, where the labour does not cost anything; and yet the price is away up. It cannot be the labour, Mr. Minister; you must be mistaken. I will take a common article now; we will come down just to what any gentleman can understand. Take a common article like sewing thread. Under the national policy, in 1895, a farmer's wife got two spools for five cents, each spool containing 200 yards of the thread. But now she has to pay five cents for one spool. I suppose it is the difference in labour which is the cause. I believe it is the difference in duty. The government destroyed the protective principle applied to the thread industry, and the manufacturers were compelled to join the English combine, which they did and the prices went up. Then take sugar. Why, I remember when we used to shovel out 30 pounds of sugar for a dollar under the old national policy. No doubt the labour again is at fault. Why, I was almost going to say that I was grateful to the government, as a business man, for having made the change, because the labour we had to hire to
weigh it out [DOT] made the business almost unprofitable. I regret very much that my hon. friend, the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) has gone out. I was going to submit to him a proposition. No doubt, when he gets up to address the House on this question, lie will repeat the old story that high protection means high prices and that the more duty you put on, the more you will enhance prices. The hon. gentleman himself is engaged in a legitimate business, the manufacture of biscuits-a commodity which is practically a spot cash article and for which there is a very large demand throughout the country. There is a duty of twenty-five per cent on common biscuits, not sweetened, and twenty-seven and a half per cent on biscuits sweetened. The hon. gentleman is not responsible for putting that duty on biscuits, for that is just the tariff we left him. We considered that that industry was entitled to that amount of protection. We considered that an adequate protection and the hon. gentleman has never thought fit to change it. I believe that if he thought for one moment that the object of that tariff was to enable him to raise the prices and extort more money out of the pockets of the consumer, he would reduce it. The fact that he has not done so is proof that he believes these duties are perfectly legitimate. If he believed that they were too high, if he believed that they enabled either his firm or any other to extort undue prices for a spot cash article, which enters into the consumption of every family in the country, I am convinced that, as an honest man- which I believe he is-he would reduce that duty. And if he does not do so it is no doubt because he considers it a fair protection, which gives him and the others in that line the market of Canada. That is what these duties are for, and not to enable him or any other manufacturers of biscuits to get extortionate prices. That was not the intention of the Conservative party which imposed the tariff. But what we wanted was to give our Canadian market to our Canadian manufacturers as much as possible. That they have got. I find that we only imported $14,496 worth of sweetened biscuits.


Mr. SCOTT.: Where from ?


David Henderson: That was the entire importation of sweetened biscuits.


Thomas Walter Scott: Where from ?


David Henderson: One half came from England.


Thomas Walter Scott: Under the preferential rate ?


David Henderson: Certainly.


Thomas Walter Scott: Then one-third was taken off the duty ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Then the Minister of Customs did reduce the duty. A moment ago you said lie did not.


David Henderson: 
Thomas Walter Scott: Does the hon. gentleman not think that water will find its own level.


David Henderson: Yes, and 1 think that the hon. gentleman has struck his level. Ret me tell the hon. gentleman how many of those common biscuits came from the old country, and no doubt he will argue that because we imported $2,189 worth of biscuits from England, that importation reduced the price of the $1,000,000 manufactured in this country. I intended making a short speech, and if I have trespassed more than I intended on the time of the House, at any rate I have introduced a new feature into the debate. I have endeavoured to go along the line of adequate protection and show this House and country the advantages of a system of adequate protection and dissipate the absurd idea that because you protect an industry you of necessity enhance prices, and That high protection means high prices or high taxation. It does not mean either, but what it does mean is higher prosperity. If you want high taxation, reduce; the duties. Put them down 10 per cent, and instead of a surplus of $13,500,000 the Finance Minister will be able to show a surplus of $20,000,000. Import more goods and you will collect more duties, but that is not what the people want. We want to make our goods in this country.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Does the hon. gentleman think that increased protection will increase the price of lead. He says that increased protection will not increase the prices.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Ask Mr. Galliher.


David Henderson: That is a pretty heavy question.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it is.


David Henderson: Lead is a pretty heavy article to deal with. Suppose it does-
The MINISTER OF FINANCE-that is enough.


David Henderson: I am not saying anything about that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend says that it does not.


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: 


David Henderson: I do not know that it will. It depends a good deal on the kind of protection you give. If you give it adequate protection, I do not know that it would. But if you give it an excessive protection, I have no doubt it would. 1 think it depends a great deal on the kind of [DOT] protection you give. I have no doubt that the hon. Finance Minister will settle that point with the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Galliher) who seems very disturbed to-night.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend has helped me to settle it.


David Henderson: I am very glad indeed to help the hon. gentleman, and if he will meet me on fair ground, I am sure we can settle the whole fiscal policy of the country in the interest of the country.
Mr. GRANT moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Walter Scott: I would ask the government if they have received any report respecting the subject of the startling rumour which has been in circulation, of a volcanic eruption in the North-west Territories ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I regret to say, Sir, that I am not in a position to add anything to the information given in the public press. The Prime Minister received a short telegram concerning the matter this afternoon, and instructions were at once given to inquire for further particulars. We hope that by to-morrow's sitting we may be in a position to give further information.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 30, 1903.