1903-06-17

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SCOTT-by Mr. McCreary-asked :
1.	With respect to lands voted to railway companies, and earned, but not reserved for
Hon. Mr. FISHER.: selection, if any, what is the area in each case?
2.	With respect to lands voted and not earned, but which may under existing legislation be earned, what is the area reserved in each case, if any. (a) in Manitoba ; (b) in the North-west Territories ? And what is the description of the same by township and range ?
3.	With respect to lands earned and reserved, but not selected by the company, what steps, if any. have been, or are to be, taken by the Department of the Interior, or the government, to compel or expedite selection ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hou. Sir William Mulock) :: 1.	The Saskatchewan and Western Railway has earned a total area of 98,880 acres by construction of Its line from Minnedosa to Rapid City, but no reservation has been made to satisfy this grant.
2.	The question whether the Red Deer Valley Railway and Coal Company may yet earn any land by construction was dealt with recently in answer to a_ question in the House.
The only other company which may yet earn land by construction is the Canadian Northern Railway Company. The reservation which was made out of which the company could select lands to make up the area earned and which may yet he earned, lies partly in Manitoba and partly in the North-west Territories.	[DOT]
About 310,000 acres have been selected on account of area earned, all in Manitoba except 15,700 acres.
The land in the reservation is all unsurveyed except a small proportion in Manitoba and a few townships in the North-west Territories. The area reserved is estimated from latest plans at about 4,924,440 acres in Manitoba and in the North-west Territories south of township 50, about 3,304,000 acres. There is also reserved in the Northwest Territories a tract estimated to contain about 22,000,000 acres lying between town- ' ship 49 and Hudson bay and along the projected line of the railway. This latter tract is entirely unsurveyed and largely unexplored.
The description by township and range, except the tract north of township 49, may be given as follows :


IN MANITOBA.
[Stage Direction]
Township.	Range. Mer.
Fractional 17, 25 and 26	
4	E.	1st.Fractional 17	
3	E.	1st.25 and 26	
3	E.	1st.Fractional 16	
2	E.	1st.17	to 26 inclusive	
2	E.	1st.Fractional 27, 28 and 29	
2	E.	1st.Fractional 16	
1	E.	1st.17 to 26 inclusive	
1	E.	1st.Fractional 27, 28 and 29	
1	E.	1st.Fractional 16	
1	W.	1st.17 to 26 inclusive	
1	W.	1st.Fractional 27	
1	W.	1st.28	
1	W.	1st.Fractional 17, 18 and 19	
2	W.	1st.20 to 26 inclusive	
2	W.	1st.Fractional 27	
2	W.	1st.
Township.	Range. Mer.
28	
2	W. 1st.Fractional 17	
3	W. 1st.18	
3	AV. 1st.Fractional 19	
3	AV. 1st.20 to 26 inclusive	
3	AV. 1st.Fractional 27	
3	AV. 1st.28 to 32 inclusive	
3	AV. 1st.Fractional 33	
3	AV. 1st.Fractional 17	
4	AV. 1st.18 to 26 inclusive	
4	AV. 1st.Fractional 27	
4	AV. 1st.28 to 33 inclusive	
4	AV. 1st.Fractional 18 and 19	
5	AV. 1st.20	to 26 inclusive	
5	AV. 1st.Fractional 27	
5	AV. 1st.28 to 33 inclusive	
5	AV. 1st.Fractional 34 and 35	
5	AV. 1st.Fractional 20	
6	AV. 1st.21	to 26 inclusive	
6	AV. 1st.Fractional 27	
6	AV. 1st.28 to 31 inclusive	
6	AV. 1st.Fractional 32 and 33	
6	W. 1st.34 to 37 inclusive	
6	AV. 1st.Fractional 21	
7	AV. 1st.22	
7	AV. 1st.Fractional 23 and 24	
7	AV. 1st.25	and 26	
7	AV. 1st.Fractional 27	
7	AV. 1st.28 and 29	
7	AV. 1st.Fractional 30 to 33	inclusive	
7	AV. 1st.34 to 38 inclusive	
7	AV. 1st.Fractional 22 to 27	inclusive	
8	AV. 1st.28	
8	AV. 1st.Fractional 29 to 32 inclusive	
8	AV.	1st.33 to 40 inclusive	
8	AV.	1st.Fractional 19 and 20	
9	AV.	1st.Fractional 22 to 27 inclusive	
9	AV.	1st.28 and 29	
9	AV.	1st.Fractional 30 and 31	
9	AV.	1st.32 to 41 inclusive	
9	AV.	1st.Fractional 42 to 43	
9	AV.	1st.18 and 19	10	AV.	1st.Fractional 20 to 31 inclusive	10	AV.	1st.32 to 42 inclusive	10	AV.	1st.Fractional 43 and 44	10	AV.	1st.18 to 21 inclusive	11	AV.	1st.Fractional 22 to 31 inclusive	11	AV.	1st.32	to 36 inclusive	11	AV.	1st.Fractional 37	11	AV.	1st.38	to 44 inclusive	11	AV.	1st.18 to 22 inclusive	12	AV.	1st.Fractional 23 to 32 inclusive	12	AV.	1st.33	to 44 inclusive	
12	AV.	1st.18 to 26 inclusive	13	AV.	1st.Fractional 27	13	AV.	1st.28	13	AV.	1st.Fractional 29 to 32 inclusive	13	W.	1st.33 to 44 inclusive	13	AV.	1st.18 to 26 inclusive	14	AV.	1st.Fractional 27	14	AV.	1st.28 and 29	[DOT]. .. 14 AV. 1st.Fractional 30 to 32 inclusive	14	AV.	1st.33 to 38 inclusive	14	AV.	1st.Fractional 39 to 42 inclusive	14	AV.	1st.43 and 44	14	AV.	1st.18 to 24 inclusive	15	W.	1st.Fractional 25	15	AV.	1st.26	15	AV.	1st.Fractional 27	15	AV.	1st.28 and 29	*..15	AV.	1st.Fractional 30, 31 and 32	15	AV.	1st.33	15	AV.	1st.Fractional 34 to 38 inclusive	15	AV.	1st.39	and 40	15	AV.	1st.Fractional 41 and 42	15	AV.	1st.43 and 44	15	AA . 1st.18 to 23 inclusive	16	W.	1st.Fractional 24 to 27 inclusive	16	AAA	1st.Township.	Range.	Mer.28	and 29	16	AV. 1st.Fractional 30 to 44 inclusive	16	AV. 1st.IS to 23 inclusive	17	AV'. 1st.Fractional 24, 25, 27 and 28	17	AV. 1st.29	
17	AV. 1st.Fractional 30 to 41 inclusive	17	AV. 1st.18	and 19	is	AV. 1st.Fractional 20 and 29	18	AAA 1st.30	is	AV. 1st.Fractional 30, 40 and 41	18	AV. 1st.18, 19 and 20	
19 AAA 1st.Fractional 21 and 29	19	AV. 1st.30	and 31	19	AV. 1st.
Fractional 32, 33, 34, 39 and 40.. .. 19 AAA 1st.
41	19	AV. 1st.Fractional 42, 43 and 44	19	AAA 1st.
Fractional 18, 19 and 20, 21 and 29.. 20 AAA 1st.
30	to 34 inclusive	20 AV. 1st.Fractional 35	
20	AV. 1st.36	
20	AAA 1st.Fractional 37 and 38	
20 W. 1st.39 and 40	
20	AV. 1st.Fractional 41 to 44 inclusive	20	AV. 1st.19	and 20	21	AV. 1st.Fractional 30	21	AV. 1st.31	to 40 inclusive	21	AV. 1st.Fractional 41 to 44 inclusive	21	AV. 1st.19 and 20	
22	AAA 1st.Fractional 30	
22	AV. 1st.31	to 38 inclusive	
22	AV. 1st.Fractional 39 and 40	
22	AV. 1st.41 to 44 inclusive	
22	AAA 1st.Fractional 30	
23	AV. 1st.31	to 38 inclusive	23	AV. 1st.Fractional 39 to 44 inclusive	23	AV. 1st.Fractional 30	
24	AV. 1st.31 to 39 inclusive	24	AV. 1st.Fractional 40 to 44 inclusive	24	AV. 1st.Fractional 30	
25	AA7. 1st.31 to 43 inclusive	: .... 25 AAA 1st.Fractional 44	
25	AV. 1st.Fractional 30	
26	AAA 1st.31	to 44 inclusive	26	AAA 1st.30 to 44 inclusive	*	27	AV. 1st.30 to 44 inclusive	28	AV. 1st.29 and 30	
29	AAA 1st.Fractional 31	29	AA7. 1st.32	to 44 inclusive	
29	AA7.1st.IN THE NORTH-AA7EST TERRITORIES. Township.	Range.	Mer.Fractional 46	
9	AA7.1st.Fractional 45 and 46	10	AAA 1st.Fractional 45	11	AAA 1st.46	11	AV. 1st.45 and 46	12	AV. 1st.45 to 47 inclusive	13	AA7.1st.45 to 47 inclusive	
14 AAA 1st.Fractional 48 and 49	14	W. 1st.45 to 47 inclusive	
15	AAA 1st.Fractional 48 and 49	
15	AA7. 1st.Fractional 45 and 46	16	AA7. 1st.47	16	AV. 1st.Fractional 48 and 49	16	AA7. 1st.Fractional 45 to 49 inclusive	17	AA7. 1st.Fractional 47 and 48	18	AA7.1st.Fractional 47 and 48	19	AAA 1st.Fractional 45, 47 and 48	
20	AV. 1st.Fractional 45, 46, 47 and 48	21	AA7. IsAFractional 45, 46, 47 and 48	
22	AAA 1st.49	'	22 AA7. 1st.Fractional 45	
23	AA7. 1st.Fractional 46 and 47	
23	AAA 1st.48	and 49	
23	AA7. 1st.Fractional 45, 46, 47 and 48	
24	AAA 1st.49	
24	AV. 1st.' Fractional 45, 46, 47 and 48	
25	AAA 1st.
[Stage Direction]
Township.
49	
Fractional 45 and 46	
47, 48 and 49	
Fractional 45 and 46	
47, 48 and 49	
Fractional 45 and 46	
47, 48 and 49	
45 to 49 inclusive	
27 to 32 inclusive	
37	to 49 inclusive	
Fractional 30 and 31	
32	and 37 to 49 inclusive.. ..
Fractional 32 and 33	
34	
Fractional 35 to 49 inclusive Fractional 32	
33	to 49 inclusive	
Fractional 32	
33	to 49 inclusive	
32	to 49 inclusive	
33	to 49 inclusive	
33	to 49 inclusive	
34	to 49 inclusive	
35	to 49 inclusive	
35 to 49 inclusive	
35 to 48 inclusive	
Fractional 49	
35 to 49 inclusive	
38	to 49 inclusive	
Fractional 38 and 39	
40 to 49 inclusive	
38 to 49 inclusive	
38 to 49 inclusive	
38 to 49 inclusive	
38 to 41 inclusive	
Fractional 42	
43, 48 and 49	
48	and 49	
49		
49	
Range. Mer.	
. 25	W. 1st.
	W. 1st.
. 26	W. 1st.
	W. 1st.
. 27	W. 1st.
	W. 1st.
	W. 1st.
	W. 1st.
30	W. 1st.
. 30	W. 1st.
. 31	W. 1st.
. 31	W. 1st.
. 32	W. 1st.
. 32	W. 1st.
. 32	W. 1st.
. 1	W. 2nd.
.. 1	W. 2nd.
.. 2	W. 2nd.
.. 2	W. 2nd.
.. 3	W. 2nd.
.. 4	W. 2nd.
.. 5	W. 2nd.
.. 6	W. 2nd.
	W. 2nd.
.. S	W. 2nd.
.. 9	W. 2nd.
.. 9	W. 2nd.
.. 10	W. 2nd.
.. 11	W. 2nd.
.. 12	W. 2nd.
.. 12	W. 2nd.
.. 13	W. 2nd.
.. 14	W. 2nd.
.. 15	W. 2nd.
.. 16	W. 2nd.
.. 16	W. 2nd.
.. 16	W. 2nd.
.. 17	W. 2nd.
.. 18	W. 2nd.
.. 19	W. 2nd.
3.	The selection by the following railway companies is entirely completed :	Alberta Railway and Coal Company, Canadian Pacific Railway, Pipestone extension of Souris branch, Great North-west Central Railway Company.
The selection by the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company is all completed except 1,610-71 acres.
The selection by the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway Company is practically completed.
The selection by the following railway-companies is proceeding rapidly in surveyed districts. In each case large portions of the areas reserved and in which selections are not yet made are unsurveyed : Canadian Pacific Railway, main liue ; Canadian Northern Railway Company, Manitoba South-western Colonization Railway Company, and Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railroad and Steamboat Company.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: No selection has yet been made except a few sections by the Canadian Piicific Railway Company on account of its Souris branch, as the greater part of the reserves made for this land grant are not surveyed.
Since 1883, when the first railway lands were patented, to the present time, there has been patented to the different railway companies on account of land subsidies a total of about 14,S00,000 acres, of which about 11,800,000 acres have been patented since February, 1901.
The department is making every possible effort to have the balance, which remains to be patented in each case, surveyed, selected and patented at the earliest possible date.
GOVERNMENT LANDS IN NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES. &e.


Mr. RICHARDSON asked :: How many acres of government lands are there available for settlement in British Columbia, Manitoba, and the North-west Territories, each ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: In reply I beg to say :
The superficial area, not yet taken up, included within Manitoba, and North-west Territories, comprising provisional districts of Assiniboia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Athabasca (less laud covered with water), 295,319,206 acres. British Columbia, (comprising lands within the railway belt and northern reserve), 13,089,340 acres ; total 308,408,546 acres.
From this approximate area, however, must be deducted the area of land unfit for settlement owing to swamps, mountains, sterility of soil and such other causes ns may render the land useless.
FIRE AT MORTIMER & COMPANY.


Mr. BELL asked :: 1.	What property of the government was lost in the fire which destroyed the premises of Mortimer & Company ?
2.	What was the value, and what will be the total loss to the government 7
3.	Under what conditions was such property on the premises 7
4.	Has the government any legal claim for compensation ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: 
GRAIN INSPECTION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE asked
1.	Is grain which has been inspected at Toronto. for export from Montreal, inspected again at Montreal before shipment ? And if so, why is the second inspection necessary ?
2.	What is the cost per car of each inspection?
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: 1. Not necessarily if identity is preserved, and not unless requested by the owner, shipper or carriers. This often occurs for reason that its condition has changed and buyers almost invariably under such circumstances require sea-board inspection.
2. Forty cents per car, or when in cargoes, fifty cents per 1,000 bushels.


LOUISIANA PURCHASE EXPOSITION-LIVE STOCK EXHIBIT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOYD asked
What Live Stock Associations have asked the government for a grant to enable them to make 152*
an exhibit worthy of Canadian breeders at the St. Louis fair ? What are the names and post office addresses of the individuals who have written to the Minister of Agriculture, or the government, refusing or objecting to send their live stock on account of the anticipated heat of the weather during the said fair ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: Copies of the following resolutions have been received at the departmentAt a joint meeting of the live stock and poultry interests of the Dominion, held in the city of Guelph on February 24th. 1903, the following resolution was moved by Mr. Robert Miller, of Stouffville, Ontario, seconded by Mr. Peter Christie, of Manchester, Ontario, and unanimously carried
That, in the opinion of this joint meeting of representatives of Canadian live stock an! poultry breeders, it is most important that we make a strong exhibit of live stock and poultry at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition at St. Louis in 1904. We feel that the breeding of pure bred animals is one of the most important industries in Canada, and the government of Canada should make a liberal grant to pay the expenses of such an exhibit and provide a liberal prize list as well. We think that a grant of $250,000 at least would be necessary, and that the exhibit would be of great benefit to and appreciated by the people of this country, and we pledge ourselves to do all we can to uphold the good name that Canada has already in the live stock world.
At the fifth annual meeting of the Canadian Ayrshire Breeders' Association, held in Montreal on Friday. February 13th. 1903. it was moved by ,T. G. Clark, of Ottawa,

4S40
seconded by W. W. Ballantyne, of Stratford, and carried unanimously
That the Canadian Ayrshire Breeders' Association petition the Dominion government for assistance in making a creditable exhibit at the St. Louis fair.
At a meeting of the Eastern Ontario Poultry Association, held at Ottawa, February 11th, 1903, the following resolution was unanimously adopted :-
That it is the unanimous opinion of this association that it would be very desirable in the interests of Canada that the Dominion government and the local governments give every assistance in their power and use every means to secure a good poultry exhibit at the World's fair to be held at St. Louis, 1904.
The following is an extract from the deliberations of the Council of Agriculture of the province of Quebec, at its meeting on March 18th, 1903
Second resolution :-Moved by Mr. W. H. Walker. seconded by Mr. Jno. Draper, and resolved: -That in view of the vast importance of the World's fair to be held in St. Louis in 1904, this council is of the opinion that the Dominion of Canada through its Department of Agriculture should use every effort in its power to make the Canadian exhibit of live stock at this exposition fully up to the best standard that this country can produce, and that with this objee' in view a sufficient sum be provided in the estimates to uphold the names already gained at Chicago and Buffalo, and that this council use its best endeavours to send stock of highest class to keep up the reputation we have already gained in the past. Certified correct :
(Signed) OCT. OUELLETTE, Secretary Council of Agriculture.
The following is a copy of a communication received from the Secretary of the Dominion Shorthorn Breeders' Association on February 26th, 1903 :-
The following resolution was moved by Mr. W. D. Flatt, seconded by Captain Robson, and unanimously carried :-
Hon. Sydney Fisher,
Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa. Ont.
Dear Sir,-We, the Dominion Shorthorn Breeders' Association, here assembled this 27th day of January, 1903, respectfully ask that your government encourage and assist the live stock breeders of Canada financially and otherwise in making a large exhibit at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition at St. Louis, Mo., in 1904. It is said that the state of Missouri alone are to give $200,000 in premiums on live stock bred in that state, and we believe that this will be one of the greatest contests of the various breeds ever known in the world. We are confident that your government would be acting in the best interests of our Dominion by aiding our breeders in making an exhibit that would in every sense be a lasting credit to this country. The good work done along this line by your department at the Pan-American, Buffalo, last year is gratefully acknowledged, but we feel you should go much further as the live stock industry is the greatest of all industries.
We also desire that the government announee their intention in regard to this matter to the breeders of Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No individuals have written to the Minister of Agriculture or the government, refusing or objecting to send their live stock to the St. Louis fair on account of the anticipated heat of the weather during the said fair.


TRANSPORTATION AND TREADGOLD COMMISSIONS.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if he can give any information with regard to the two commissions I mentioned yesterday ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am sorry to say, not to-day. At an early day.


GOOD SHEPHERD REFORMATORY, ST.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 199) respecting the Good Shepherd Reformatory in the city of St. John, New Brunswick, was read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Mr. CLARKE.: What is the necessity for passing this Bill ? Are there no penal institutions maintained by the province of New Brunswick for the incarceration of female prisoners ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (lion. Charles Fitzpatrick).: It is deemed desirable by the Attorney General of New Brunswick that this legislation should he had. I would remind the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) that there is in the province of Ontario such an institution as the Mercer Reformatory. The principle of this Bill is absolutely the same as that applicable to the Mercer Reformatory. The object is to make special provision for the care of female prisoners who ordinarily would be sent to prison, but this provides that, instead of being detained in the ordinary jail, they may be sent to this institution. This is applicable to Roman Catholics only, and to the city and county of St. John only.
Jit-. CLARKE. But the Mercer Reformatory is a public institution maintained by the province. Is this a public institution ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In what respect does my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) mean ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The Mercer Reformatory in the province of Ontario is an institution under the administration of the provincial government of the province. I want to know if there is any difference between that and the institution referred to in this Bill. I am simply making these inquiries for the sake of information.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: So far as we are concerned, we have no control over

the jails in the provinces. So long as the Attorney General in the province is satisfied with the regulations of this institution, I do not think we are called upon to interfere. The province may designate an institution of this sort to which prisoners may be sent. It is for the Attorney General of the province to exercise such control as he deems proper.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: But the Mercer Reformatory is a public institution to which prisoners of all denominations are sent. If this government has no right to exercise control in such a matter why should we be asked to pass this Bill ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We have no control over the institution, but we have control over the prisoners. The ordinary course is to send them to the ordinary prisons of the province. But if the provinces desire to have a particular class of criminals, sent to a particular institution, it is proper that we should give effect to that desire.


Samuel Hughes: If it is proper to send criminals of a certain faith to a certain institution for punishment, there must he some reason why they are sent there. Is the punishment more severe ? Is the discipline more strict ? Is the treatment more kindly, and likely to make them better people when the term is up ? If so, then why not send Protestants there also ?


Mr. RUSSELL.: They do send Protestant children to similar institutions.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to know if this House has ever legislated to send Protestants to Protestant institutions.


Benjamin Russell: They do in Nova Scotia, I am pretty sure.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. and learned doctor should be very sure before making a statement.


Benjamin Russell: I do not agree to that. I think every member is bound to throw all the light he can on any question that is discussed. I state my belief, and I am practically certain of it, that there is legislation which enables stipendiary magistrates, instead of sending boys to be herded with criminals and to acquire confirmed criminal habits, to send them to the Protestant Industrial School, where they are taught a trade, and the Catholic boys can be sent to the St. Patrick's Home with the same object.


Samuel Hughes: Then I want to know why some such legislation is not brought in for Protestant criminals as well ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If Protestants desire such legislation as this there will not be the slightest objection. There is no desire on the part of this government to distinguish between people of different religions. Such questions never originate here.


Robert Laird Borden: I am under the impression that there is a provision of this kind with regard to the reformatory of the Good Shepherd in the city of Halifax, and I do not think it has been attended with bad results. We have in Halifax a Protestant industrial school and a Roman Catholic reformatory, the St. Patrick's Home, I think it is called ; and boys are committed to these two homes by the stipendiary magistrate in the city of Halifax under special legislation authorizing them to do so, instead of sending them to prison, the idea being that both women of this character and juvenile criminals are more likely to be improved by sending them to some such institution as this than by sending them to jail or penitentiary. That is the idea of the legislation, and I am inclined to think, from the experience of the city of Halifax, so far as lam familiar with it, that the object has to some extent been attained. I know that so far as boys are concerned a great deal of good has been done in the city of Halifax by the establishment of these homes, and that many boys who have been to these schools have gone out into life as honest, hard working, industrious citizens, when possibly a different result might have followed if they had been sent to prison in the ordinary way.


Samuel Hughes: That being the case, I would like some enactment placed in this Bill so that Protestant people, people of other denominations than those who are referred to here in New Brunswick, may be sent where they would have the beneficial influences of another institution than the prison. I would like the Minister of Justice to take hold of that, and put some enactment in this Bill which will make it general. Equal rights, equal laws and no special privileges.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand from the Minister of Justice that so far as the incarceration of prisoners is concerned, it is within the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities, and in order to enable them to send females to this reformatory institution, they must come to this parliament for a measure of this kind. Is it a matter special to New Brunswick ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, it is absolutely a matter of provincial control, but we must give effect to it by declaring that this institution is of such a Character that the magistrate may send this particular class of criminals to it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We have nothing to do with the maintenance ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Nothing at all.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT TARIFF POLICY.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['He has declared that he was here1 when the question was put.\nAmendment negatived, motion agreed to, and the House went into committee on the Bill.\nProgress reported.']
Hon. J. ISRAEL TARTE (St. Mary's, Montreal).: The government has received during the last couple of years a large number of deputations and of petitions advising them and requesting them to readjust and revise the tariff in such a manner as to make it more protective of our national interests. Latterly these deputations, requests and petitions to my hon. friends on the treasury benches have become more urgent. Let me give a statement of some of the articles in respect of which these petitions and requests have been made to the government: Iron and steel, woollens, neckwear, yarns, cottons, boots and shoes, pulp, wall paper, granite monuments, earthenware and stoneware, gloves and mitts, carriages and parts, wagons and parts, agricultural implements and parts, soap, salt, barley malt, beet sugar, glass, bicycles and parts, cutlery, lead, wire, furniture, moulding, picture frames, &c., brushes, buttons, pianofortes and parts, watch cases, jewellery, jewellery cases, coffins and caskets, lumber, shingles, lath, hats, cords, mattresses, rice, gardeners' products, cereals in packages, oatmeal and cereals, spectacles, enamelled ware, twine and cordage, canned goods, pork, ham, bacon, horses, salt (bulk), spices, ground bones, games and toys, pickles and fireworks, and dozens and dozens of other articles, the list of which I will take the) opportunity of giving to ' Hansard,' as it would take too long to read it all.


The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I would call the attention of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) to the fact that the hon. Minister of Finance is the only one who is allowed to put in statistics without reading them.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It has been allowed in former cases, but I will take note of the observation of my hon. friend.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Read.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I shall not read the list now as I do not wish to take up too much time. There are other means of letting the country know' of the industries that have applied to the government. Public bodies have also petitioned the members of the government. Let me read a resolution adopted by one of the most important bodies, if not the most important in Canada, the Board of Trade of Montreal, on the 14th October last:
Resolved, that in the opinion of this meeting it is manifestly the urgent duty of the Dominion government to adopt a comprehensive-


Mr. TAYLOR.: Mr. Speaker. I rise to a point of order. The right lion, leader of the Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
government (Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has just laid down the rule that a portion of a document not read by the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) but from which he has quoted cannot go on ' Hansard.' The hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) in answering a question to-day said that there were three or four pages that he would not read but that he would give to ' Hansard.'


Joseph Israël Tarte: That does not matter.


George Taylor: If one hon. member is to be allowed the privilege on that side of the House an independent member must be accorded the same privilege.


Joseph Israël Tarte: That does not matter. I know that the rule is as the right lion, leader of the government lias stated. I do not take any objection to it. I think it is a fair rule, but let me quote what I was going to present to the House -the resolution of the Montreal Board of Trade.
Resolved, that in the opinion of this meeting it is manifestly the urgent duty of the Dominion government to adopt a comprehensive and positive policy in regard to transportation facilities.
That this great problem should be dealt with on broad national lines covering present and providing for future requirements in so far as the progress and development of the country may be estimated ;
That as a first principle, the aim should be to provide for transportation facilities for the commerce of this country, east and west, through Canadian channels ;
That in the opinion of this meeting, to avail of the natural advantages and exceptional position of our country, the Dominion government should press forward the works already undertaken in the St. Lawrence river, with the deepening, widening and lighting of the channel with the work upon the inland waterways and canals and with the modern equipment of the harbours and ports ; and
Further resolved, that in the opinion of this meeting, in view of the changing conditions in the commercial wTorld, the Dominion government should examine carefully into the working of our present customs tariff on imports, and should so readjust the same as to secure Canadian industrial products against the competition of foreign labour.
That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his colleagues.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is that from the Board of Trade of Montreal ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: That resolution was adopted by the Board of Trade of Montreal on the 14th October last. The time seems to be opportune for a revision of our fiscal policy. The revenue is buoyant. The hon. Minister of Finance has told us that at the end of this month, which is the end of the fiscal year, we will have a surplus of $13,500.000. Such a state of our finances makes it easy for the hon. gentleman and his colleagues to deal with the fiscal situation. The hon. Minister of Finance has a broad margin to play upon. It is indeed more con-

venient and more comfortable for governments to revise tariffs when the treasury is in a prosperous condition, just as it is easier and more comfortable for a nation to prepare for war in a time of peace. Our imports are a good deal over $200,000,000 a year. We require the goods that we so import, otherwise, we would not import them. On a large volume of these goods there are duties. This year we will raise in round cumbers $32,000,000 in customs duties. Before we can remove from the custom-houses one single p.iund of merchandise that we buy from foreign countries, we have to pay certain duties-20 per cent, 25 per cent, 30 per cent, 35 per cent. These duties are clear taxation. They represent so much money taken from the pockets of the public and put into the treasury. I suggest that we remodel the Canadian tariff so as to relieve the people as much as possible from that taxation. They will be so relieved, if we manufacture and produce the goods that we can manufacture and produce advantageously ourselves. Buying foreign goods means paying tribute to foreign countries, foreign manufacturers and foreign producers. It means, in my humble opinion, giving a preference to foreigners over the sons and over the workers of our own land. Bet me read an extract from a leaflet that was published last year by Mr. Walker, in London, which is straight to the point. He says :
Articles that our own manufacturers can easily produce are supplied to us by foreign manufacturers, thus making the flow of goods from our own factories less than it ought to be and consequently causing fewer men to be employed in these factories than would be the case if foreigners had not free admission to our markets. Now, we Englishmen, living in the United Kingdom ought to have more rights and privileges in our own country in addition to those named than foreigners not living in this country, and so not under its laws.
Our laws give our government a right to tax us for the purpose of paying its expenses, and also the right to call upon us, if necessary, in time of war, to defend our country.
If we objected either to the paying of any taxes, or to any liability of being called out in time of war as defenders of our country, we should have no right to expect our country to employ us to do its work in preference to foreigners not living under its control.
The motto, ' England expects every man to do his duty,' stirs us up to do ours.
Another motto shows equal confidence, ' Englishmen, whilst doing their duty, are expecting that England is doing hers.'
England having certain claims on her sons that she has not on foreigners living in other lands, is it not natural that these sons should expect some favour from England in exchange for the claims that she has on them, and how can England grant them any favour except it be by buying their produce in preference to that which owes its origin to foreigners living in other countries ?
I leave these words to the consideration of all those who are approaching the subject under discussion with open minds. I need not say that we are blessed with immense resources ; our lands are the most fertile under G id's sun ; we have minerals in abundance; our water powers are innumerable and great ; our climate is varied and excellent; our soil produces all the comforts of life and everything that a people can desire ; our geographical position is splendid ; our waterways unite the different parts of the Dominion, and they also give us access to ail parts of the world. On the east we have the Atlantic ocean and on the west the Pacific. Through the first we have access to the markets of Europe and the motherland, and through the Pacific we have access to the Orient, to China and Japan, which, will become more and more civilized and in the not far-distant future be centres of trade and commercial activity. We have grand raw materials in our hands; we have something to work upon. May I ask those who flo not take the same view of onr fiscal policy as we do ; may I ask them not to take a narrow view of the situation as it is to-day. We who believe in protection are often told ; nay, we are often reproached that we are working for the manufacturers, for a privileged class, and that we are forgetting the interests of the community at large. Weil. Sir. the manufacturers are hut a very insignificant quantity in the great problem that we have to face now ; they are but a bucket full in the ocean of interests that present themselves to onr attention in this phase of our national life. After all, the manufacturers are only a few hundred men. Where are those few hundred going to be in say twenty years ? What portion of the American interests did the Yankee manufacturers represent thirty years ago ? In my estimation, although the manufacturing interests in Canada are of great importance, they fall far below the importance of the agricultural interests. The tillers of the soil should receive our first attention and our earnest consideration at the present juncture.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The first object of a revision of the tariff; the first object of the policy that I am now inviting the House to adopt, should be and would be, to protect and develop our farming interests. The interests of the farming community are intimately bound up with the interests of the manufacturers aud of the working men, except that they are a great deal more considerable. Permit me to quote a few words from an address delivered by Mr. Roosevelt, President of the United States, on the 3rd of December, 1901 :
With the sole exception of the farming interests no one matter is of such vital moment to our whole people as the welfare of the wage workers. If the farmer and the wage worker are well off it is absolutely certain that all others will be well off too. It is therefore a

matter for hearty congratulation that on the *whole wages are higher to-day in the United States then never before in our country and far higher than in any other country. The standard of Jiving is also higher than ever before. Every effort of legislator and administrator should be bent to secure the permanency of this condition of things and this improve-meint wherever possible.
I heard behind me a signifiacnt 'hear, hear,' when I said that the first ambition of those who want! a revision of the tariff should be to protect and develop our agricultural interests. I fervently hope that those who differ from us will not close their ears-not to my argument for that may be weak-but to the bare facts that I am going to endeavour to place before the House with all the fairness I am able to command. We are invited to think of England and to take our example from England. How often have I not been told :	Look at free
trade England. Is agriculture prosperous in free trade England ? For the benefit of my hon. friends who believe that free trade is the friend of the farmer, I shall quote some extracts and some figures also which I have gathered from the best possible sources of information. Mr. Rider Haggard, a publicist, published last year two volumes which are of deep interest. They are entitled ' Rural England,' and are the result of several years investigation and travel. Mr. Haggard was instructed by the ' Daily Express ' to go all over England, and give a report of what he would see. Let me quote from the second volume the following extract:
Rural Population.
The truth is that after some years of experience and investigation, I am driven to the conclusion that the agricultural industry in England is as steadily going down hill as the capital sums invested in it are wasting ; that the owners of the soil are becoming impoverished ; that the farmers are at best making no headway. and. owing partly to poverty and partly to the natural discouragement that results from continual non-saiccess, are losing heart and enterprise. They work on but they work like tired men who may hope for better things, but do not expect them.
Writing half a century ago. Sir James Caird said on behalf of himself and his colleagues : ' we feel that we may speak with confidence and hope of the future. . . . We rise from our task .... with the firm persuasion that, though there are many exceptions, the great body of the landlords and tenants of England have, by mutual co-operation, energy, and capacity sufficient to meet and by degrees to adapt themselves to a change iVhich in its extraordinary effect on the welfare of all other classes of the community will sooner or later bear good fruits also to them.'
The ' change ' to which he alludes in these, the last words of his book, is that from protection to free trade whereof. I believe, Sir James Caird was an ardent advocate. Not often has a prophecy been made more completely refuted by the inexorable argument of fact, or at the least the good fruits that were to come ' sooner or later ' show no signs of arrival in 1902. more than fifty years after ho Hon. Mr. TARTE.
put this deliberate opinion upon record. Whatever free trade may have done for the country at large-and I maintain that of this matter we do not as yet know all the truth-it is certain that it has brought the land and the agriculture of England very near to the brink of ruin. The destruction which the opponents cf this far-reaching revolution foretold for thess was. it is true, postponed a while owing to the introduction of steam and other causes, but it has fallen at length.
, When we turn to the question of the decrease in the inhabitants of English rural districts, it is to find .ourselves confronted with some startling figures. I read that in 1851 the agricultural labourers of England and Wales numbered 1,258,800 and that in 1891 they had shrunk to about 780.700. What the census of 1901 shows their number to be, I do not yet know, but I shall ibe much surprised if it records any advance. Taking it on the 1891 basis, however, it would seem that whereas between 1851 and 1891 the population of England and W'ales had increased by about half, its agricultural inhabitants during this same period had actually decreased by over one-third, with the result that whereas in 1891 the urban districts could show a total of about 25,000,000 people, the rural districts held only about 7,500,000, that is some twenty-three per cent of the population, as against seventy-seven per cent living in towns or their immediate neighbourhood. These figures are very eloquent and very ominous, especially if a careful analysis of those of the last census should prove them to be progressive in the same directions.
Since the above was written X read in a prospectus issued by ' The Small Holdings Association. Limited.' that * It will be found on examining the census returns (for 19011 that there are decreases in the population in no less than 401 of our rural districts, and that in many cases the decrease has exceeded 1.400 persons.
People are deserting the villages wholesale, lea vine; behind them the mentally incompetent and the physically unfit; nor, at. any rate in many parts of England does the steady flow to the cities show signs of ceasing. Yet-and this is one of the strangest circumstances connected with the movement-those cities -whither thev go are full of misery.
Now, Sir. let ns have a few figures of the acreage under cultivation in Great Britain. The record published in 1902 established that there was in the area under wheat in 1901 a diminution of 144.000 acres, in 1900 a diminution of 15R.OOO acres, and in 1899 a diminution of 101.000 acres, making all told a diminution of 400.000 acres in these three years. There was also a reduction of the barley area of 1S.0O0 acres, in the oats area of 29.000 acres, in the turnips area of
24.000	acres, and in the mangolds area of Ll.OOO acres. Commenting on that diminution, Mr. Haggard says :
Because of the unremunerative price of wheat, ten thousands of acres have been withdrawn from its cultivation-indeed, free trade has sent down the corn area enormously. Whether or no their yield of the cereal could be profitably increased, as I and others firmly believe to be the case, we cannot get over the fact that our wheat acreage is now less than half what it was in 1857.
What about live stock ? The official records are to the effect that in 1901 the

number of cattle in Great Britain was reduced by 41,000 head, the number of ewes was reduced by 1S8.000 in 1901, and by
111.000	in 1900, or a diminution of oyer
300.000	ewes in the two years. The diminution in the number of pigs in 1901 was 202,000, a lower level than had been reached in any year since 1893. What about horsebreeding, one of the great agricultural interests of England formerly ? Sir Walter Gilbey, speaking at Bishop Stortford on September the 17th, 1902, said :
He was sorry he was unable to give then anything like satisfactory figures in regard to horse breeding in England, which he could only describe as being in a deplorable state. He did not wish to alarm them, but government rereturns showed a state of things in England at present which were very disheartening. It appeared that in ten years, from 1863 to 1873, we imported into this country 29,000 horses, while in ten years, from 1891 to 1901, we imported no less than 342,000 horses. Those were startling figures enough, but what was even more alarming was the fact that the horse-breeding business was getting worse every six months.
Mr. Haggard describes the condition of rural England in a very graphic manner in the following words :
The real peril, both to agriculture and, what is even more important, to the country at large, lies, however, in the fact that the supply is being cut at its source. The results of my inquiries on this point are even worse than I feared. Everywhere the young men and women are leaving the villages where they were born and going into the towns.
And again he says :
It is now common for only the dullards, the vicious or the wastrils to stay upon the land, because they are unfitted for any other life, and it is this indifferent remnant who will be the parents of the next generation of rural Englishmen. It must be remembered that the census returns will not tell the whole truth of this matter, since very often the rural districts include large townships. Also the elderly folk and many young children still remain in the villages, the latter to be reared up at the expense of the agricultural community for the service of the cities. As they mature into the fullness of manhood or womanhood, they leave their homes and are seen no more. This is certain-for I have noted it several times. Some parts of England are becoming almost as lonely as the veldt of Africa. There the ' highways lie waste, the wayfaring man ceaseth.' The farm labourer is looked down upon, especially by the young women of his own class

That Is very grave indeed.
-and consequently looks down upon himself. He is at the bottom of the social scale. Feeling ,that there is not hope for the future, he does not even take the trouble to master his business. He will not learn the old finer arts of husbandry; too often he does as little as he can, and does that little 111.
Mr. Haggard calls such a state of affairs a national question.
But behind the agricultural question lies the national question :	What will be the result of
this desertion of the countryside and the crowding of its denizens into cities ? That is a point upon which it would be easy to indulge in strong words. The evils are known, and little imagination is needed to enable a writer to paint their disastrous consequence. I will, however, content myself with a moderate statement.
It can mean nothing less than the progressive deterioration of the race. In the absence of new conditions which cannot be foreseen, if unchecked, it may in the end mean the ruin of the race.


Edward Frederick Clarke: From what is the bon. gentleman quoting ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: From Mr. Rider Haggard and the English Blue-books. I have verified the exactness of these figures in the English Blue-books, which are available in the library. Mr. Haggard is not the only publicist who has expressed such strong views on the condition of agricultural England at present.
Mr. Byng, a well known English writer, published last year a book which I hold in my hand, and which is named ' Protection.' On page 193 he quotes some words from the Duke of Wellington in the House of Commons in 1842. Said the duke :
X earnestly recommend your lordships not to lend yourselves to the destruction of our native cultivation. Its encouragement is of the utmost and deepest importance to all classes, and I earnestly beg of you not to consent to any measure which would injure the cultivation of our own soil.
Then Mr. Byng goes on :
The agriculturist and the manufacturer are both producers, and the influence which our free trade policy exerts upon their callings is in the main alike. I have maintained, and I believe proved, the disastrous effects produced upon our manufacturing industries. I now assert that the existing system exerts its baneful influence to a fully equal extent over that most important of all the nation's handicrafts : agriculture. Free trade agriculture causes dearness in production, kills enterprise, prevents invention and the Introduction of new methods. It makes attempts at technical education inoperative, puts land out of cultivation and drives labourers away	
It is now generally acknowledged that the ruin of our agricultural industries is not only a question of loss of money, but a disaster of national and political importance. The subject Is now 'engaging the minds of many politicians and specialists more competent than I to deal with it in detail. I need not, therefore, prolong this chapter, but will only add a few sentences.
We must protect our agriculture. It is the most pressing problem of the day.
In imposing protection, we must discriminate between those products which our soil and climate permit us to raise in abundance, and those we cannot grow in sufficient quantity and for the supply of which we must therefore partly depend on the importer.
If we enact duties in such a way that they can, without any cumbrous red tape, be adjusted to conform to the necessities of good and bad seasons, I feel certain such judicious protection would be immediately beneficial.
The result of such a measure would be to bring waste lands into cultivation, to encour-

4S52
age the population of the countryside, to raise rents, and the capital value of the land 'would regain hundreds of millions.
These are very significant words indeed. What has been lost to England by free trade, as far as the balances of trade are concerned ? I beg leave to quote from the ' American Economist ' of the 8th of May, 1P03, and the exactness of the figures given I have checked by the figures in the official Blue-books :
England adopted free trade as a fiscal policy in 1846, after an uninterrupted series of annual favourable balances of trade since 1815. She had a good start in the race for commercial supremacy, and did not begin to lose her annual favourable balances of from $353,000,000 (in 1846) to $578,000,000 (in 1853), till 1854, when the tide turned with an adverse balance of $177,000,000. Every year since the balance has been against her. In blocks of five years each her loss of national wealth since 1853 figures
up as follows :
1854-58	$ 791,000,000
1859-63		 1,260.000,000
1864-68		 1,396,000,000
1869-73		 1,289,000.000
1874-78		 2,667,000,000
1879-83		 2,786,000,000
1884-88		 2.161,000,000
1889-93		 2,871,000,000
1894-98		 2,619,000,000
1899-1901, three years .. ..	2,423,000,000
Total loss in 48 years. $21,263,000,000
So speak ' American Economist.' or an average loss of $443,000,000 yearly for forty-eight years. The loss was about $850,000,000 in 1902, and is accumulating at about the same rate in 1903. The half-century will show a total loss of about $22,963,000,000. The national debt of England is $3,061,000,000. Consequently the avoidance of this $22,963,000,000 of trade loss would have paid her national debt seven and one-half times over.
It must be borne in mind, Sir, that England was an ardently protectionist country tip to 1846. Nor must, it be forgotten that the full free trade policy was not initiated then. The duties were reduced gradually. In point of fact, the last duties were removed in 1860. The state of the British nation and the positions of the nations of the world were not then what they are now-far from it. Years of war followed the year 1860. There was war between Prussia and Austria ; there was the great civil war in the United States ; there was the war between France and Prussia in 1870. In point of fact, the nations of Europe and the United States began equipping themselves from an industrial standpoint only between 1872 and 1875. Free trade England, then, up to that date had not to compete against the same state of affairs, the same organization as that she has to compete against now. I have endeavoured to show you by the quotations I have brought to your notice the conditions of agriculture in England. Will you permit me then, Sir, to say a few words as to the condition of agriculture, in another country, the highest Ben. Mr. TARTE.
protectionist country in the world-I mean the United States of America. On a former occasion, I showed that the rural population in England during the last decade has increased 12-7 per cent, while the population increased 21 per cent. I beg leave to give yon now some figures which I hope will be considered with some attention by those who, as I said at the opening of my remarks do not wish to close their ears or their eyes to the great subject that is now under discussion, not only in this parliament but throughout the world at large :
Number of Farms.
In 1870	    2,659,982
L 1900:: :: ::	:	 9,m,m
In 1890 the value of farms and farm
properties was	'IS
In 1900 it was	 20,439,901,164
In 1890 the total value of farm
products was	 2,418,76b,02S
In 1901 it was	 n
In 1902 it was	
In 1890 the number of cattle was 52,801,907
In 1902 it was	
In 1890 the number of horses was 14,213,837
In 1902 it was	 16,531,224
In 1890 the number of sheep was. 44.544,7/5
In 1902 it was	 * [DOT]	62,039,091
In 1890 the production of wheat
was (bushels)	 399,262,000
In 1901 it was	 748,460,218
In 1902 it was	 670,063,008
Corn.
In 1890 the production of corn was 1,489,970,000
In 1902 it was	 2,523,648,312
Let us now compare the value, in money, of the different crops :
In 1890 In 1901
In 1890 In 1901
In 1890 In 1901 In 1902
In 1890 In 1902
In 1870 In 1900
Corn.

Wheat.
	 334,771,678
	 467,350,156
Oats.
	 222,048,486
	 293,658.777
	 303,584,852
Barley.
	 32,614,271
	 61,898,624
Implements and Machinery.

In 1870 In 1900
Live Stock.	.
	$1,525,276,457
" " ..		 3,075,477,703
Now, I may be told that these figures are all right, undoubtedly they are. but I may be asked what benefit the farmers have derived from these figures. I have often heard well meaning people say :	It is true
that the value of farm products has increased in the United States, and the value of farm properties has developed, but things are so dear that the farmers do not get any benefit from the increased value of their products. Farmers are the great consuming community, and they are obliged to pay

so high for the things they, want that the increased value of their farm products does not help them much. On this point let me quote some more figures. I know that figures are not pleasant reading in the House, but 2 and 2 make 4. In other words, figures are the strongest argument that can be made in such a debate as this. Let us see what has been the advance of the value of farm products from 1896 to 1901, and also what has been the advance of other products, so that we may find out what the farmer is able to buy in 1901 in comparison with what he was able to buy in 1896 with the same quantity of farm products. The figures which I am going to read are taken from the Statistical Year-book of the Department of Labour of the United States, published last year :
Advance in value		Advance in
from1		purchasing
1896	to 1901.	power.
Article. Per cent.		Per cent.
Farm products		. 49.30	
Food, &e	26.37	18.15Cloths and clothing	10.62	34.97Fuel and lighting	14.57	30.31Metals and implements. ..	19.42	25.OkLumber and building ma-	terials	. 24.95	19.49Drugs and chemicals .. .,	. 24.41	20.01House furnishing goods .,	. 17.98	26.55Miscellaneous articles.. ..	. 17.51	27.05Recapitulation	, 21.02	24.40
In other words, the same quantity of farm products which brought $100 in 1896, would to-day buy $149. The advance is the price of other articles has been considerable, but the advance of the purchasing power of farm products has been much greater.
Now, let us eonsideri the price of certain commodities, to prove that the farmer in every case has been greatly benefited by the protective policy which has been adopted and maintained in the United States. The price of cattle was 32'05 per cent more in the latter year than the former. Fresh beef or cattle products advanced 12'82 per cent ; beef hams, 27 per cent; mess beef, 24 per cent ; recapitulation, 21 per cent, as against 32'05 per cent. What has been the result so far as national wealth is concerned? There is no doubt in my mind, or in the mind of anybody who has studied the history of the United States, that their policy has built up that country to a marvellous degree. The following figures need no comment:



[Stage Direction]
In 1870	$30,068,518,000 00
In 1870, per capita	 779,083 00
In 1880, total wealth	 42,642,000,000 00
In 1880, per capita	 850 20
In 1890, total wealth	 65,037,091,000 00
In 1890, per capita	 1,038 57
In 1900, total wealth	 94,300,000,000 00
In 1900, per capita	 1,235 86
In 1903 the total wealth of the United States lias reached the wonderful figure of 8100,000,000,000. What has protection done
in so far as inviting capital to the United States is concerned ? The investment of foreign countries in the United States on January 1, 1899, was practically as follows : England, $2,500,000,000 : Holland, $240,000,000 ; Germany, $200,000,000 ; Switzerland, $75,000,000 ; France, $50,000,000, and the rest of Europe, $35,000,000.
We all know that the United States had a very formidable debt at one time, and that the interest on that debt was weighing heavily on the people. What is the state of affairs to-day ? The debt of the United States in 1902 was $969,457,241, and the debt of the United States per capita in the same year was $12.27. The interest per capita was 35 cents. I call the attention of the House to that figure which I take from the official statistical abstract for 1902. In 1903 the population of the United States was 79,003,000. The net debt of Canada per capita in 1902 was $49.97. The interest on the net debt per capita in the same year was $1.66. The interest per capita on the gross debt is $2.01, and the gross debt of our country per head is $67.14. In 1876 the debt of the United States per capita was $45.66, and the interest then was $2.11. Let me remind you once more, Sir, that to-day, instead of the $45.66 that the debt was in 1876, it is only $12.27, and that, instead of the interest being $2.11 per capita, it is only 35 cents per capita. In 1876 the net debt of Canada was $31.54, and the interest per capita was $1.42. The United States of America, under the impulse of the marvellous progress that has taken place there, have been able to diminish the interest charges on their debt, while we have been increasing our debt very rapidly indeed.
It is of interest to make a short comparison of the effect that a high tariff and a low tariff may have on the revenue of the country. In 1893, under the McKinley tariff, the total receipts of the United States government were $461,716,562. In 1894, under the Wilson-Gorman tariff, the revenue immediately fell to $372,802,498. In 1895 the revenue was $390,373,203. In 1896 it rose to $409,475,408. I have just been dealing with the Wilson-Gorman tariff for 1894-5-6. Mr. McKinley came into office, and the Dingley tariff was adopted in 1897. Notwithstanding the fact that the depression was still having its effect, under the impulse of the new tariff the revenue increased rapidly. In 1896 it had been $409,475,408. In 1897 it was $430,387,168. In 1898. when the new tariff began to have its full force and effect, the revenue went up to $494,333,954, in 1899 to $610,982,004. in 1900 to $669,595,431. in 1901, $699,316,531, and in 1902 it was $684,326,280.
Effect of low and high tariffs in the United
States.
(McKinley tariff.)	Total
receipts.
In 1893	$461,716,562
[Stage Direction]
Total
(Wilson-Gorman tariff.) receipts.
In 1894	 372,802,498
In 1S95	 390,373,203
In 1S96	 409,475,408
(Dingiey tariff.)
1897.
1897	$430,387,168
1898..	  494,333,954
1899	  610,982,004
1900	  669,595,431
1901	  699,316,531
1902	  684,326,280
I have shown that from an agricultural standpoint and from a financial standpoint the result of the protective tariff in the United States has been most beneficial to that progressive nation. Now, I know that I will be told that I have compared a free trade nation with a high protective nation, and that my comparison is not fair. That argument is well worth considering. Let me say that in my opinion free trade England, with its vast, powerful, old organization, with its large population, although free trade as she is, is in a better position to compete and struggle against the highly protected United States than we are with our low revenue tariff. Circumstances alter cases. We must take everything into account when we have to grapple with a difficulty such as the one we have to face now. We are no more able to compete successfully with highly protected nations such as the United States is than old guns are able to carry victory as against modern artillery. We are no more able to succeed with a revenue tariff policy than old fashioned tools can prevail against modern improved machinery. The United States, Germany, and Russia, in spite of their great progress, in spite of their large population, in spite of the fact that they have had a protective policy for years and years would not dare to-day to decrease their tariff. Far from it; they are increasing their tariff as Germany has" just done. We must take these things into consideration when we come to readjust our tariff and shape our course for the future. The Canadian tariff in which I believe should protect us as effectively as the American tariff protects the national industries of the United States.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The tariff which I advocate would give to the Canadian farmers an enriched home market. The tariff which I advocate would' give to the workingmen of Canada the development of existing industries, the creation of new ones, higher wages and better living for the toilers.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: On behalf of Canadian workingmen, I ask from this parliament a better standard of living ; X ask permanency of employment for them. I ask for capital security and fair dividends.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I ask for all these Canadian interests and industries preference over foreigners and foreign industries.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I know that objections will be made ; I have heard those objections often. It is not the first time that I have discussed this important question. I started my political life in discussing it, and although political hazards have been pretty numerous in my career, 1 am working to-day on the same lines that I was working on twenty-five years ago.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I trust that I may be able to convince and to bring to our way of thought, some of our friends who say that a high tariff means the exclusion of imported goods and the restriction of trade. I take issue with them on that. Let me call their attention to what has happened in other countries. In the fiscal book of the United States we can learn a great many useful lessons indeed. I declare that high tariffs do not exclude imports. A high protective tariff will change the nature of imports. It will increase the wealth of the country ; it will make the circulation of money greater and more active ; it gives to the people greater purchasing power. The United States is a striking example to those who say that a high tariff will exclude imports. One has only to compare the imports under the low tariff years of the Cleveland administration with the high tariff years of Mr. McKinley, to see the effect of both policies. It goes without saying that if money is circulating abundantly, articles of common use, the luxuries of life, are more readily bought. Let us compare the importation of luxuries under the Cleveland and McKinley regimes. I quote from the Statistical Abstract of 1902 the official record of the United States :
Importation of luxuries including the same articles in the years mentioned into the United
States.
1894.
1900
1902

The general importations into the United States weret as follows .
1894	$636,614,420
1902	 903,327,071
And this year, if the imports keep up at the same rate to the end of the year, they will reach one billion dollars. It seems to me that these figures are so convincing that there is no use arguing any more upon them.
Now, Sir, there are things thfit we cannot produce and we must expect to import those things, but there are things that we can produce and surely we will be able to discover what these things are. We are

4S58
often told in this House that the duties on agricultural implements, for instance, should not only not be made higher, but that they should be made lower, because it is said that if we manufactured them in Canada they will not be sold as cheaply as if we imported them from the United States or any other country. I take exception to such an empty national policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 1 mention agricultural implements as I would mention any other article that we can produce in our country with Canadian material and Canadian hands. Our American friends are the greatest producers of agricultural implements in the world. They are a very highly protected nation. For many years agricultural implements in the United States had a protection of 45 per cent and even today some of them are protected by a tariff of 45 per cent. The industry has developed to a marvellous extent In the United States. Before 1894, the duty on agricultural implements in the United States was for many years 49 per cent, and it has always been very high. Then the following clause was inserted in the tariff :
Ploughs, tooth and disc harrows, harvesters, reapers, agricultural drills and planters, mowers, horserakes, cultivators, threshing machines and cotton gins (free) : provided, that all articles mentioned in this paragraph, if imported from a country which lays an import duty on like articles imported from the United States, shall be subject to the duties existing prior to the passage of this Act.
In other words, the duties were abolished for countries which would not impose any duties on American articles ; otherwise the duties remained at 45 per cent. In point of fact, the duty on agricultural implements was never abolished in the United States. After Mr. McKinley's election, the Dingley tariff put up a duty of 20 per cent ad valorem on agricultural implements of all kinds, and the duty of 45 per cent was kept on manufactures of metal, that is to say, on the parts of agricultural implements composed of iron and steel.
The result of that protective policy of the United States has been marvellous. The agricultural implement makers of that country annually distribute over the world about
200.000	self-binding harvesters, 250,000 reapers, 20,000 corn harvesters. A single establishment in the United States is said to manufacture each year nearly a quarter of a million machines of various classes ; and it is in the United States that agricultural implements are the cheapest. They have been highly protected, and they have been able to implant themselves solidly, because they were permitted to enjoy the benefit of their home market. The farmers of that country have the benefit of the wise and enlightened policy that has been followed by our friends on the other side. We are importing a large volume of agricultural
implements which we could manufacture ourselves, and which we could sell just as cheaply as we buy them now. Our imports of agricultural implements since 1896 has been as follows :
1896		$ 445,070
1897		 575,409
1898		 905,140
1899		 1,639,888
1900		 1,826,944
1901		 1,896,760
1902		 2,655,468
Total	$9,944,674
In the month of February we imported from the United States $192,034, and in the corresponding month of last year we im ported $153,342.
I am asking whether we are able to manufacture agricultural implements as cheaply as the United States. I say without any hesitation that we can do so, and I have not yet heard a single argument to the contrary. We have in this country about sixty manufacturers of agricultural implements. Surely home competition should produce the same results here that it has produced on the other side of the line. In free trade England people are paying more for their agricultural implements than the people of this country or the people of the United States. There is no reason why, with a strong Canadian tariff, we should not manufacture our agricultural implements just ns cheaply as they are manufactured on the other side of the line.


Mr. McCREARY.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the farmers of Great Britain are paying more for agricultural implements than the farmers of the United States and Canada ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Most assuredly.


William Forsythe McCreary: I would like to see the figures.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The figures are very well known. They have been placed before me and before my former colleagues in a memorandum presented to us a couple of years ago by one of the best friends of the Liberal party, Mr. Melvin Jones ; and those figures are available. We have the raw material under our hands, we have the labour, we have the lumber and the timber, and we can have the iron for manufacturing purposes. To-dhy the iron for manufacturing purposes is imported free. There is no reason why we cannot produce as cheaply as the United States. My hon. friend (Mr. McCreary) is from the North-west. 1 understand his anxiety, and I share his desire to see the farmers of the great Northwest, in which we all take the same interest as he does, not obliged to pay more than is necessary for their implements ; but if we can supply them with Canadian articles, there is no reason why we should not do so.

What is true of agricultural implements is true of all the industries of the United States. I will refer to one more industry, the boot and shoe industry. The duty on boots and shoes is not very high to-day in the United States-only 25 per cent but how did they start that large industry ? They started it early. In 1789 they put a duty of 50 cents a pair on boots and shoes. That did not work well. In 1795 they increased that duty to 75 cents a pair ; in 1812 they raised it to $1.50 ; in 1842 they lowered it to $1.25 a pair. Since then the duties have varied from 20 to 25 and 30 per cent, and to-day they have an industry which is well worth speaking of. In 1860 the output of the boot and shoe industry was $91,000,000 ; in 1900, the output was $255,180,000. This is sound business.
What is true of the boot and shoe industry is also true of the iron industry. To-day the United States is the leading iron-producing country in the world. Its production of iron in 1902 reached the wonderful figure of over 17,000,000 tons.
On the point of cheap production let me quote again from Mr. Byng's book. Mr. Byng lays down as a cardinal principle that the manufacturer in a protected country can manufacture at a cheaper rate than the manufacturer in a free trade country. I for one believe in that doctrine and I believe the result if examined would prove beyond doubt. Mr. Byng said :
The basis of the theory of cheapness of manufacture is the following often stated by free traders : the cost of production of a manufactured article depends on three factors. First, the cost of the material; second, the cost of labour; and third, expenses. This may have been true to some extent sixty years ago, but it is not true to-day as every manufacturer knows, because this reasoning leaves out one consideration, which we may call the independent factor, the quantity produced, and in most cases this factor influences the cost of labour and expenses to such an extent that it entirely overshadows both.
I have here a little book that is well worth reading, published by Mr. Walker. Let me quote a few lines on the point under discussion, that of cheapness:
Free traders love cheapness. Cheapness to a certain extent is good. Free traders love a thing which to a certain extent is good. But, unfortunately, they love cheap things because they are cheap, and quite apart from any effect that cheap things may have on their own country. Now, cheap things, which send money out of a country, ruin its farmers, miners and manufacturers, are practically much dearer to the country than things produced by natives, and which are sold at high prices, but which the country can buy without loss of money to itself when no foreign raw materials are used, at the cost of raw materials only.
The country that is buying cheapness at the expense of its own trade and industries, is a country that is getting fried in its own fat, as an old cartoon represented a city as getting this done to it, when it was under siege.


Joseph Israël Tarte: One word more from Mr. Byng. I take it from that short chapter entitled : ' England the dumping ground of the world,' which are the very words used by Mr. Chamberlain lately :
Take any flourishing old established English industry. The foreigner establishes a similar one in his country based upon experience he has been careful to acquire here. Under the protection, and with the assistance of his government, he erects large works and puts down the best machinery, capable of lurning out large quantities of gpods. Having satisfied his home demand, he seeks the free trade English market and here offers his goods at very low prices, which need not involve any loss to the foreigner, as I have already shown. But the prices are so low as to mean a considerable loss to the English manufacturer and the latter has to give up making the article. During the whole of this process we in England have been getting cheap prices, and the free trader rejoices. He has killed an English industry but that does not concern him, for has he not got cheap prices ? The period of cheapnss is, however, of short duration. It invariably happens that as soon as the English competition is killed, the prices charged by the foreigner goes up to its old level. Then the English manufacturer may start again. But if he does so, the process is repeated : down goes the price, and the Englishman, and after that the foreign charge goes up again and the cheapness is no more !
A few days ago Mr. Chamberlain addressed a letter to one of his electors, from which I shall quote a word or two sent across to us by cable. Mr. Chamberlain said :
We have been apt in the past to consider too much the advantage of buying cheaply and not to pay sufficient attention to the methods whereby we may have the means that erable us to pay at all. Increased wages are even more important to the working classes then reduced cost of living.
Mr. Chamberlain rightly says that it is more important for the workingmen to have high wages than to buy cheap things. I shall take the liberty later on of saying a word cr two regarding the policy which Mr. Chamberlain is suggesting to the British empire. But before doing so let me remind you that there was a go-d deal of discussion going on in the United Kingdom on the conditions of the British islands and of the workingmen in the British islands and in the United States. An enterprising manufacturer and wealthy Scotchman, Mr. Mosely, had the very original ideas of inviting the different trades of the United Kingdom to elect delegates who would visit the United States, and make on the spot a complete inspection of file condition of affairs in that country. The party consisted of twelve delegates elected by their fellow' workingmen in the shops and representing the following trades: Pottery, painting, decorating, upholstering, wood work, engineering, railway building, mining, textile working, metallurgy, coach building and electricity. Mr. Mosely was at
4S61

the head of the delegation. The report I received a day or two ago. The ' London Times ' of April the 20th, 1903, commented as follows on that report :
Several of the delegates discuss a problem mentioned by Mr. Mosely, in the words, ' How is it that the American manufacturer can afford to pay wages of fifty per cent, one hundred per cent, and even more in some instances, above ours, and yet be able to compete successfully in the markets of the world ? Mr. Mosely himself suggests that it is 1 the extra speed at which machinery is run, the high specialization of work whereby each man becomes an expert in his own particular branch, which in itself mean efficiency and an increased output, the economy of hands in attending machines and the excellent organization of the factories whereby the smallest items of time and labour are saved, that make all the difference between high profits and none, and a high rate of wages for the men as against the comparatively low standard known in this country.'	[DOT]
Then, the ' Times ' goes on to say that Mr. Mosely
does not include mention of the fact that the American manufacturer, thanks to disposing of a very large proportion of his output in the home markets secured by a protective tariff, obtains higher prices from many of his commodities than are enjoyed by his English competitor for similar articles. Several of the delegates show themselves well aware that the high tariff is a factor that must be taken into
account, Mr. Cox stating that the wealthiest iron and steel manufacturers strenuously assert the continued existence of protective tariffs as the only means of maintaining and securing their home trade against outside competitors.
The United States government published in 189S a bulletin, No. 18, which has been supplemented in 1900. The inquiry covered several countries of the world. I intend making a comparison from the official source between the wages paid to workmen in the United States and the wages paid to workmen in England. These statistics show about 100 per cent more paid to the wage earners in the United States than paid to the wage earners of Great Britain. The statistics covered three cities, and I would compare them with three American cities. The cities of the United States that I take are New York, Chicago, and St. Louis, while the British cities are Loudon, Glasgow, and Manchester. I think it is of great importance that, once for all, these questions are placed before the public in the light of the facts borne out by figures. If it is true-and it is true-that the wage-earners of the United States receive about 100 per cent more under high protective tariff than the wage-earners working in the same lines in Great Britain, it seems to me that tfhe lesson is obvious.
	New York.	Chicago.	St. Louis.	London.		Glasgow.	Manchester.
							
$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.Blacksmiths	
...	2 45	2 801	2 261	1 621	1 48	1 401 694	1 65	0 851	0 931Bricklayers	4 00	4 00"	4 40	1 68s	I 554	1 84Carpenters	3 491	2 54	2 SO	1 68s	1 55|	1 504Compositors	3 14	2 00	2 91	1 54:	1 68	1 422 78J	2 30	1 62	1 5112 55	2 52^	1 46*Painters, house	3 50	2 61	2 50'	1 48'	1 381	1 4013 72j	1 74+	
2 884				1 581
							
Mr. Mosely confirms all these figures in these words at page seventy-six of his report.
My personal conclusion that the true-born American is a better conducted, better housed, better fed, better clothed and more energetic man than his British brother, and infinitely more sober. As a natural consequence, he is more capable of using his brains as well as his hands. Many of the men, however, holding leading positions, are either English or Scotch, and the American mostly is justly proud of his British descent. One of the principal reasons wty the American workmen is better than the British is that he has received a better and sounder education, whereby he has been more thoroughly fitted for the struggles of after life, and I believe that my delegates were themselves immensely impressed by the general high standard of education in the United States, a standard which it would be well for our own nation to copy as practicable.
Then he says :-
How is it that the American manufacturer can afford to pay wages fifty per cent and one hundred per cent and even more in some instances above ours ?
And he goes on :
That the American workman earns higher wages is beyond question. As a consequence the average married man owns the house he lives in, which not only gives him a stake in the country, but saves payment of rent, enabling him either to increase his savings or to purchase further comforts.
Food ; I will deal with that point, because there are people who believe that the cost of living is cheaper In England than it is in

the United States. Here is what Mr. Mosely says :
Food is as cheap (if not cheaper) in the United States as in England, while general necessaries may, I think, be put on the same level.
The last contribution to this question of the comparative cost of living in the two countries is to be found in Professor So-beck's statement, which has been published in the ' American Economist ' of May 15. It is there shown clearly, as it is also shown in Mr. Mosely's report, that the cost of living of the American workingman is as cheap as is the cost of living of his English brother. Now, Sir, I have endeavoured to place before our people the situation in the United States and in England, because in preparing our fiscal policy we must have in mind these two countries chiefly. We cannot lose sight of any country in the world, because I hope we will grow big enough to trade with them all. But we are especially interested with the United States and with England, so far as our trade is concerned. The United States, as I have said, has become the leading exporting nation of the world. Mr. Mosely, who is a wide-awake man, has a large conception of the possibilities of the United States. He says :
The United States is advancing by leaps and bounds. She is beginning to feel the beneficial [DOT] effects of the education of her masses, and an enormous territory teeming with natural resources as but yet meagrely developed. In the latter respect she has been more blessed, and her natural advantages are bound to make her not only the leading manufacturing country of the world (a position she may already be said to have attained), but must place her in the same position relatively that England herself occupied some fifty years ago. It is more than necessary that both capital and labour should bear this point well in mind. At the present time the home market of the United States is so fully occupied with its own developments that the export trade has as yet been comparatively little thought of; but as time goes on and the numerous factories that are being erected ail over the country come into full bearing, America is bound to be the keenest competitor in the markets of the world. That already she has her eye on the export trade is plain to every one, except the wilfully blind; but at present she is only getting ready.
' She is only getting ready,' and still she is the leading export country in the world. I think Mr. Mosely is right, the United States, although they have progressed marvellously, are still, if I may say so, are still in their infancy. Mr. Hill made, a few months ago, the prophesy that before forty years are over the population of the United States will be 150,000,000. They have an immense accumulation of capital, and that accumulation has strengthened their home market. They have to-day a population of 80,000,000. These circumstances, the accumulation of capital, the perfection of their organization, and the home market that their manufactures have enjoyed in the past and are enjoying to-day, make it impossible for any Hon. Mr. TARTE.
man who has sense or reason to believe that we can possibly compete with them, unless we use the same weapons in dealing with them that they use in dealing with us. They have protected their agricultural as well as their manufacturing interests.
There is some question of reciprocity at the present time. Indeed, we have been told that one of the reasons why my hon. friends on the treasury benches have not grappled this year with the fiscal situation is that they expect the Joint High Commission will meet again. I do not like the way some of our public men are inviting the Americans to meet us again on that High Commission. I am sorry the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) is not in his seat. I am going to quote an article from his pen which was published in the ' Outlook ' of February 28, this year, and reproduced in the * National Reciprocity Organ ' of March, 1903.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where is that organ published ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: 

given a preference to Great Britain in certain manufactured articles. The mother country does not expect from us that we will open our markets to all manufactured products of English origin. What is to prevent us from raising our tariff as against all foreign countries that have high tariffs against us on articles that we can buy from the motherland ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Let us have a tariff against all the nations that decline to deal with us in a fair way, and let us have a preferential tariff in favour of England ; a moderate reasonable tariff in favour of England on all these articles that we cannot manufacture advantageously. That is a fair proposition.
My name has been mentioned, in connection with an English seat in the Imperial House of Commons. My voice is a very feeble voice indeed, but I would like as a Canadian-as a French Canadian-I would like to make a campaign on this platform in the British Isles. In the press and elsewhere I have expressed an earnest desire to see more Canadians advocating a broad policy in the British parliament. I could not do justice to the case as my right hon. friend the Prime Minister could if he were to share the views I entertain. But, Sir, I feel in my bones and sinews that a Canadian could have some effect in advocating these great national principles on the other side of the ocean. All the nations of the world are raising tariff walls against us as they are against the< British Empire. Germany, Russia, France, the United States, Austria, nearly all the nations of the world have a high tariff. What are we going to do V We must sell our products somewhere. The British market is there. It is the largest market for the importation of the foodstuffs which we produce abundantly in Canada. We1 have the St. Lawrence as a great imperial carrier ; we have that marvellous channel for conveying the trade of the great west, both American and Canadian, to England. The St. Lawrence belongs to us as a nation. It seems to me that those circumstances make it a duty for us to give Mr. Chamberlain's suggestion our earnest consideration. We have nothing to surrender, far from it, we have much to gain. If England should give us a preference, it would not in my humble opinion increase the cost of living in England. A small preference scattered over a population of 40,000,000 would not injure England, and it would help the colonies to a very great extent indeed. It would help the agriculture of England also. I apprehend* that Mr. Chamberlain has not in view tile Biltisb colonies exclusively. He is looking to avert the destruction of the agriculture of his native land. He wants to protect the agricultural interests of England. But free trade has taken such a hold on the mind of most Hon. Mr. TARTE.
Englishmen, that he is obliged perhaps to use some of those circuitous arguments that are familiar to all politicians. Be that as it may, his policy would have the dual effect of helping England from an agricultural and industrial standpoint, and of helping the British colonies, and Canada more perhaps than any other. Our own home market is, of course, the most important for us, and I will deal with that aspect of the case at 8 o'clock.
At six o'clock,' the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
. TORONTO AND HAMILTON RAILWAY.
On the Order,
House in committee on Bill (No. 147) to incorporate the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Mr. CAMPBELL.: Mr. Speaker, after this Bill passed the Railway Committee, some of the rural municipalities that are interested considered that it interfered somewhat with their rights and liberties, and desired that it should stand for further consideration. So it has been mutually agreed to let the Bill stand until a week from Friday, and in the meantime discussion can be had on the Bill in the hope that concessions will be made that will be acceptable to all parties. I would, therefore, ask that the Bill be allowed to stand.


Mr. SPEAKER.: As the Order has been called, the regular proceeding will be to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Mr. TALBOT moved that the debate be now adjourned.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 73) to incorporate the Ontario and Quebec Power Company.-Mr. Belcourt.
On section 11,
Mr. WADE.: Since the clause you have just read, Mr. Chairman, was agreed to, it has come to the notice of the parties interested and to the committee that between the Chaudiere and Deschene there are the Remoux Rapids, which might technically be called a water power. It is not really a water power of any service, and it was agreed that this company should have the right to flood it out. I propose to add the words ' except the Remoux rapids ' after the word ' river.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Bill reported.

Mr. BELCOURT moved the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. BIRKETT.: I would suggest that the Bill be reprinted before third reading, and I do not think Mr. Belcourt will object.


Mr. BELCOURT.: The Bill has been agreed to by every body. It is the result of an agreement between the parties, and I do not see any reason for delay.


Mr. BARKER.: I for one do not wish to put any obstruction in the way of this or any other Bill ; but I do not think it is right that Bills should pass the House in this way. I believe that half a dozen members of the House outside of those who stood at the Table when the amendments were being made knew what was passing.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The Bill was referred to a sub-committee of the Private Bills Committee and was discussed night after night for weeks. I think that the sub-committee had as many as half a dozen meetings, and that the Bill was very fully discussed. I do not see why the Bill could not be as easily understood as if it were printed. It is typewritten, and any hon. member can see it and understand it as well as if it were printed.


Mr. LENNOX.: I do not think the hon. member (Mr. Belcourt). has the right to ask that the Bill be passed now. It may be true that it was considered very fully by the sub-committee, but this very evening alterations have been made, and hon. members have not had the opportunity of knowing what they are. Therefore, I submit the Bill should be re-printed that hon. members may have an opportunity to see what it is before they are called upon to deal with it finally.


Benjamin Russell: This is only a private Bill after all, and there cannot be much in it that affects the public. And, so far as individuals are concerned in it, the committee have had all the private persons who could have any interest in it before them night after night. I do not believe there is a Bill before the House of a private character that has been so thoroughly considered as this one. The committee had expert witnesses from this city and also from Montreal, and the whole question was very carefully considered. The result that was reached was accepted, as I understand, hy all the parties. So, I think we should unnecessarily delay the busines if we waited to have this Bill reprinted. As everybody has agreed to everything that is in the Bill, and as*it does not concern the interest of the public, I do not see why it should not be read the third time now.


Mr. MONK.: It seems to me that the expression of a wish on the part of so many hon. members to have an opportunity to see
153i
and study the amendments that have been made is a good reason for leaving it over. For my part I have no objection to the Bill, but I take exception to the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Russell) that Bills of this nature do not interest the public.


Benjamin Russell: I did not say that. I do not wish to be understood that way. The point is that the interest of the public is exactly as it was in the original Bill.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is a different matter ; it is not what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Russell) said. Of course, it is for those gentlemen who find it in their interest to take cognizance of the amendments made to express their wish, because it is only by unanimous consent that the Bill can take its last stage to-night.


Thomas Birkett: What the hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) says is perfectly correct. The Bill was referred to a special committee of five, and that committee took every pains to learn all the facts in the case. But the Bill as amended has never gone back to the committee to be adopted, and has only come before the five or six members of the special committee. But the Bill as it is now in the hands of hon. members is entirely different from the Bill that was referred to the special committee. Therefore, I think it is due to hon. members of the House that the Bill should be printed, so that they may understand exactly what it is before the third reading is proposed.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: The very important nature of this Bill is sufficient to make the request for delay a reasonable one. An ordinary railway Bill and many other private Bills do not so greatly affect the important public interest. The whole question of handling these water powers is one of the most important that we have to legislate about. This makes it all the more important that any amendments made in the Bill should be thoroughly understood by all the members in the House. I could not hear what was said to-night when the amendments were being discussed, and many hon. members must have been in the same position. Therefore, the request for delay of the third reading is quite reasonable. In any case, I think the delay will only facilitate the Bill, because a long discussion of it here will only draw attention to the matter in the other House. I do not think this Bill was considered by the whole Committee on Private Bills


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Yes, certainly.


David Tisdale: It was considered by the special committee, reported and passed without consideration.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: No, it was reconsidered by the committee on the report of the sub-committee.


David Tisdale: Then, why are these amendments made here to-night ? If there are important amendments, as I understand there are


Fletcher Bath Wade: There is only one technical amendment which is agreed to by all parties.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: When shall this Bill be read the third time 1 'Now ?


Mr. HENDERSON.: Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in the Bill, but I have always understood that the rule of the House was that when a private Bill was amended in committee it required the unanimous consent of the House before it could take another stage. If I am correct upon that point of order, I submit that this Bill cannot proceed further to-night. I say this in deference to the wishes of hon. members on this side who seem to be particularly interested in the Bill. I am not interested in it, and do not know the nature of it; but I do realize that the House has some rights, and, if we ignore these rights on this occasion, we shall be called upon to ignore them on other occasions.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I think the point of order raised by the hon. member (Mr. Henderson) is well taken. The Bill is reported from the Committee of the Whole with some amendments. And, that being so, it cannot be read the third time without the unanimous consent of the House. On Friday next.
Order allowed to stand.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MoCARTHY moved that the House go into committee on Bill (No. 64) to incorporate the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.
Mr. ROBERT A. PRINGLE (Cornwall and Stormont).: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice of an amendment that on the motion that Bill (No. 64) to incorporate the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, be referred to the Committee of the Whole House, I would move that the said Bill be referred back to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, with instructions to add to the said Bill the following clause :
40. In the event of any subsidy, or subsidies, being granted to said company, they shall be subject to the condition that the company shall, as far as practicable, construct, equip and operate their line or lines of railway with railway supplies, structural iron and steel, iail fastenings and cement and rolling stock of Canadian manufacture whenever such railway supplies and rolling stock can be procured as cheaply and upon as good terms in Canada as elsewhere, having regard to quality and price among other things, and unless the Governor in Council shall approve of the same being procured elsewhere.
I am not quite sure that I have a right to refer to anything that took place in the com-Mr. BELCOURT.
mittee. This motion was discussed very fully in the committee, and I do not intend now to take up the time of the House in a prolonged discussion upon it. My object in presenting this motion is to protect to a slight extent, if possible, our Canadian manufactures and to see that any subsidies which may possibly be granted to the Grand Trunk Pacific, be expended, so far as practicable, in the Dominion of Canada in the purchase of supplies of Canadian manufacture. I may be told that I have followed the clause adopted in the Subsidy Bill of the province of Ontario, and that it would be well if I did not press this motion, and that possibly the government, when they come down with a subsidy Bill, will insert a clause similar or to the same effect as this clause. Now, Mr. Speaker, my reason for pressing to have this clause inserted in the Bill incorporating the Grand Trunk Pacific is simply this : We send the Grand Trunk Pacific away from here with a charter to construct a line from the Atlantic to the Pacific, it is just possible that they may obtain subsidies from the different provinces of the Dominion. If, for instance, they obtained a subsidy from the province of British Columbia nothing we could put in a Subsidy Bill would in any way give us control of the expenditure of the money which the company obtained from British Columbia. I see no reason why we should not now insert a clause in the Act incorporating this company which shall compel them, so far as practicable, to expend any subsidies which they may obtain-I am not assuming that this government will give aid either in the shape of a cash bonus or in the way of guaranteeing bonds-but it is simply a precautionary measure so that in the event of any subsidy being granted, then the company shall purchase their supplies in Canada so far as practicable. It has been said that this is a subject to be dealt with when the Subsidy Bill comes down. I say in answer that we can only control subsidies which are granted by this House, we cannot in any way control subsidies which may come from the provinces, and I understand an application is now being made by the Grand Trunk Pacific for subsidies from the different provinces. In this clause I have followed very closely the clause in the Ontario statute, II Edward 7, chapter 25, which reads as follows :-
The subsidies hereby granted shall be subject to the condition that the companies to which the same are granted shall as far as practicable construct, equip and operate their lines of railway with railway supplies, structural iron and steel, fail fastenings and cement, and rolling stock of Canadian manufacture, whenever such railway supplies and [DOT]rolling stock can be procured as cheaply and upon as good terms in Canada as elsewhere, having regard to quality and price among other things, and unless the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall approve of the same being procured elsewhere.

The clause which I suggest is practically that clause. Now, if you look at section 7 of the same Act you will find it provides as follows :-
No cash subsidy or land grant, granted at the present session of the legislature or heretofore or hereafter granted to any railway company by any Act of this legislature, shall be deemed to be earned, nor shall the same be paid, granted or conveyed, unless the rails, structural iron and steel, rail fastenings and cement used in the construction of the railway, or any part thereof hereafter constructed, to which such subsidy or land grant applies, shall have been manufactured in Ontario, provided that the rails, structural iron, steel, rail fastenings, and cement necessary for such construction were procurable in Ontario, or if not procurable in Ontario, then elsewhere In the Dominion of Canada, at a price not greater than the open market price in Great Britain or the United States of America.
Now, Sir, I think there is nothing unfair or unreasonable in attaching this clause to the present Bill. We are not compelling the Grand Trunk Pacific to purchase any of the articles which they may require in Canada, in the event of their not being able to obtain them on as good terms as elsewhere, having regard to quality and price. Now, I do not wish to say anything disparaging of the Grand Trunk Railway. I have been informed, perhaps wrongly, that the Grand Trunk Railway at present purchase large quantities of their supplies in foreign mar-' kets which I suppose can be procured in the Dominion of Canada. I do not know whether that is true, but I have been informed that is the case. Now, it seems to me that we should be of one opinion on this matter, that we should make an effort to see that this money, if any money is given by our own country, is not sent to a foreign country. I think we should do what we can, legitimately and without in any way injuring the enterprise, to encourage our own Canadian manufactures. There is another way possibly by which this result could be obtained and which I would be satisfied if the government adopted that is by amendment to the general Railway Act, by a clause similar to this, so that the same end might be accomplished. If the government adopt that course then I think probably it would cover all that is necessary. I do not want to be understood as being hostile in any way to the Grand Trunk Pacific. I am not going to enter into any discussion now as to the necessity of another transcontinental line, that is a matter which no doubt will come up at the proper time. But I say that in this way we can protect the manufactures of this country, we can keep the money, if any is granted to this enterprise, largely in our own country. I would therefore move that this Bill be referred back to the Railway Committtee for the purpose of having this clause inserted which I have just read.
House divided on amendment (S Pringle).
 YEAS : Messieurs	
Alcorn.	Lefurgey,
Angers,	Lennox.
Ball,	LSonard,
Beil.	Logan.
Bennett.	McCormick,
Birkett.	McGowan.
Blain.	McIntosh.
Borden (Halifax),	Monk,
Brock.	Morin.
Broder.	Northrup,
Bruce,	Osier.
Carscallen.	Pringle.
Clancy,	Puttee.
Clarke,	Reid (Grenville),
Cochrane.	Richardson.
Copp,	Roche (Marquette),
Ouibert.	Sherritt,
Earle.	Simmons.
Fowler.	Smith (Wentworth),
Gilmiour.	Sproule.
Gourley,	Talbot.
Hackett.	Tarte.
Henderson.	Taylor.
Johnston (Cape Breton), Thomson (Grey),	
Johnston (Cardwell), Tolton.	
Kidd.	Vrooman.
Lancaster, LaRivi&re.	Wilmot-55.
 NAYS : Messieurs
Arcbambault,	Macdonald.
Bazinet.	Mackie.
Beith,	MacKinnon.
Bel and.	MacLaren
Beleourt,	(Huntingdon),
Bernier,	Macpherson,
Bickerdike,	McCarthy,
Bourbonnais,	McColl.
Brown,	Me Cool.
Bruneau.	McCreary,
Bureau.	McEwen,
Calvert.	McGugan,
Campbell.	Mclsaac.
Carbonneau,	McLennan,
Champagne,	Madore,
Christie.	Malouin.
Cowan,	M-arcil (Bonaventure)
Davis.	Martineau,
Demers (Ldvis),	Matheson,
Demers (St. John),
Desjardins,
Douglas,
Dugas,
Dvment.
Erb.
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fitzpatrick,
Fortier,
Fraser.
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion.
German,
Gibson,
Girard.
Gould,
Harwood,
Heyd,
Holmes,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.),Stephens,
Mayrand,
Meigs.
Mignault,
Monet.
Morrison.
Muiock (Sir William), Parmelee,
Paterson.
Prefontaine,
Proulx,
Reid (Restigouche), Riley,
Roche (Halifax),
Ross (Ontario),
Ross (Rimouski), Ross (Victoria, N.S.), Rousseau.
Russell,
Schell.
Scott.
Hyman,
Kendall,
Lang,
Stewart.
Sutherland (Essex), Sutherland (Oxford).

Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Tisdale. Laurier (L'Assomption), Tobin.
Lavergne,
Law.
LeBIanc.
Lemieux.
Lewis.
Lovell.
Loy,
Tucker.
Turcot.
Turgeon,
Wade.
Wilson.
Wright-102.


George Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call your attention to the fact that the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) has not voted, and that the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Archambault) voted although he was not in the Chamber when the question was put.


Mr. PORTER.: Mr, Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) ; otherwise, I should have voted for the amendment.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Has the hon. member for Bertliier heard the question which has been put ?


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT (Berthier).: Yes.


George Taylor: The name of the hon. member from Berthier should be struck from the list.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: He has declared that he was here1 when the question was put.
Amendment negatived, motion agreed to, and the House went into committee on the Bill.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
House resumed debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance for the House to go into Committee of Supply and on the motion of Hon. Mr. Tafte in amendment thereto.
['As it is too late to proceed now, I propose that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.']
Joseph Israël Tarte: Mr. Speaker. The adoption and maintenance of a firmly protective tariff would in my opinion add to the wealth of the country and create a home market. Such a tariff would promote within a few years the manufacture of a large additional quantity of merchandise and products. Suppose, for instance, that instead of buying from foreign countries for a couple of millions dollars a year agricultural implements, we manufactured these ourselves. Suppose that, Instead of importing a few hundred thousand dollars a year of boots and shoes that we manufacture these ourselves. Suppose, that, instead of importing wagons and carriages for a million and a half a year, we manufacture these ourselves, suppose, that if instead of importing between $20,000,000 and $25,000,000 worth of structural iron, &c., we manufacture that iron, or part of it ourselves, suppose, that, instead of importing cloth, cottons, woollen goods, beet-sugar, sugar of all kinds, furniture, for a few millions more Mr. PRINGLE.
we manufacture these ourselves. Is it not a fact that it would increase our population, that it would increase our wealth and that it would increase the volume of our home market ? I have just said a word about beet-sugar. This is essentially a farmers' industry. There, are in the United States, about forty of these beet-sugar manufactories. They are considered to be of very great advantage to the farming community. I am glad to say that we have already a few of these manufactories here. The government have received a memorandum on the necessity of giving additional protection to that industry. I hope that they will see their way clear to comply with the request that has been made to them. Last year we imported over $200,000,000 worth of goods. Would it not be possible to manufacture $25,000,000, or $60,0000,000, or $40,000,000 and within a few years $50,000,000 worth of these goods here ? I want to know why that should not be the ease. And if It is possible, as I firmly believe it is, is it not beyond doubt that suclf an additional volume of production would necessarily bring about additional population and additional wealth to the country at large 7 It would give a larger market to our farming community. Centres of activity, of trade, manufacturing centres, are a great benefit to the farming community. I live in the city of Montreal. I want to ask the representatives of the district of Montreal and in point of fact all the representatives of half the province of Quebec if the Montreal market is not the best market for Canadian farmers. I see them every day taking to that great market their products, their hay, their grain, their butter, their milk, their vegetables, their meat, their cattle and all things, that, when sold in the nearest market, bring the best prices. What is true of Montreal of course, is true of all the large centres, and of all the centres, and of all the centres of less importance. We must not disregard the foreign markets, but for our manufactures, for our agricultural community, for our working men the home market is the best. If we should double the home market, is it not beyond dispute that the country at large would benefit by that ? All the progressive nations of the world are giving the greatest attention to their- home market. Russia has just decided that in future all her warships will be built at home. Since 1879 Germany has not voted a single subsidy to the German Lloyds Company, the Hamburg Company or any other country without making it a condition that the ships will be built in German yards.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria).: Great Britain does the same thing.


Joseph Israël Tarte: So much glory for Great Britain. After all, our foreign market is England and that market is open to

us and to all the world, but almost every other market Is closed against us. We were doing some business with Germany and I am sorry we have quarrelled with her, for she is a large importer of food stuffs. What has Germany done ? In the month of December last the Reichstag adopted a new tariff which nearly doubled the already high duties, especialy on farming products. Can you imagine that a duty on a bushel of wheat will be 58 cents and the duty on a barrel of flour $4.50 on the first of January next. These are prohibitive duties. The German elections which took place yesterday resulted in the party being retained in power that adopted this high tariff, although the Socialists gained fifteen seats. The United States are formidable competitors of ours in the English market, England is buying more from the United States than from any other country. Russia is becoming more and more a competitor of ours. Last year $10,000,000 worth of Siberian butter was sold in England. There may be some who believe that Russia is only half civilized, but if they look at the English Blue-books they will see that England is constantly increasing her imports from Russia. I cannot too strongly impress upon the government the necessity of giving their best attention to the importance of the home market to our workingmen, our agricultural community, our people at large. Transportation is an essential factor in this question. I believe there exists a strong feeling in Canada that no more railway subsidies should be voted by this parliament, on a large scale at any rate, but that our waterways, our harbours and our rivers should be given more attention by us than in the past. Let us make our waterways as perfect as they can be. The German government controls over 30,000 miles of railway, besides 8,000 miles of improved rivers and canals. What is the policy of Germany in respect to these ? They use their railways to give preferential rates to their manufacturers and farmers for export purposes. When they find that the United States or any other country is competing too keenly with German products, they use the German railways and the German canals to help their people. That is business, it is a national policy in a. broad sense, I earnestly advise and urge on the Canadian government to give our canals and our waterways all the attention and consideration that can be given. The United States has improved their waterways and their harbours in a manner to help their commerce greatly. They, have 20,000 vessels on the great lakes to-day carrying on trade between the east and the west, while Canada has comparatively few of these ships. The Americans have this magnificent fleet and splendid equipment, because they have imporved their waterways and their harbours and because they have made transportation by this
means cheap, commodious and speedy. Let us educate our people. Perhaps my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture will be surprised to hear me paying him a compliment.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Let me tell him that his department has done a great national work in educating our farming community to their trade. And if we have had a good deal of success in the English market with our cheese for example, it Is to a large extent due to the education that has been given to our farming community. Let us make the life of the farmers comfortable, agreeable and pleasant. My hon. friend the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mu-Iock) has administered his department with great success, he thinks. I will give him credit for what he has done ; but there is one thing which perhaps is worthy of his attention. I think the time has come when we should have a rural free delivery and a parcel post service. The United States government have inaugurated such a policy in the interest of their farming community. It was inaugurated a very short time ago. In 1899, congress voted for it the paltry sum of $15,000 ; in 1900 it voted $450,000 ; in 1901 it voted $1,750,000 ; and in 1902, the success of the rural postal service had proved to be such a blessing to the farming community that congress voted $S,000.000 for it, and there are to-day nearly 8,000,000 people served by it. It seems to me that such a policy would be a fit and proper encouragement to our farming community, as it would help them to reach more commodiously the home market.
I said at the opening of my remarks that the time is opportune for readjusting and revising the tariff. Let me say that in my humble opinion the time is pressing. There is to-day a lack of confidence in the country. That cannot be disputed, it is broadcast. One has only to go to banking institutions, to centres of trade, to boards of trade, to find out that there is a lack of confidence, that business is paralyzed. We have passed through a dangerous crisis. I ask my hon. friends on the treasury benches to tell me, what the crisis would have been if the prospects of the crop had not been good. I appeal to every busines man of this country, to answer the questions I am asking now. It proves, Sir, that our position is not sound, that we are not on a safe basis. Should we not have a definite and known policy ? Has not the time come for a clear-cut statement on the part of the government ? Inviting the country to wait and not saying why it should wait, is not a policy. If my hon. friends on the treasury benches do not believe in the wisdom of a higher tariff, let them say so, let them state their views. The country has a right to those views. When the government have stated their views, the country will know

what to do. I know that we are not all of one mind. On this side of the House men are not all of one mind. In the Liberal party outside of this parliament, people are not all of one mind. I know-I have said it already, and I say it agaiu, because it is true-that there is a large section of the Liberal party who thoroughly believe that we should have a higher tariff. I have dozens of letters in my correspondence, I have memoranda of all kinds coming from strong Liberals, endorsing the views which I had the honour to state formerly, and which I state now. This is not a party question, and I do not wish to deal with it as a party question. Surely there are questions that are above ordinary party squabbles, and if the tariff question is not one of them, I do not know any question that can be. I say again if my hon. friends on the treasury benches believe that the country should not have a higher tariff, let them say so. If they believe that the country should have a higher tariff, why don't they say so ? If they think that it is necessary to hold an inquiry on the situation, I invite them to say so. It would inspire confidence to capital and to the country at large. There are men just as big as we are in other countries-in England, for instance-who are of opinion that an inquiry should be held. The right hon. Prime Minister of England is of that mind. The Secretary for the Colonies has made public his views on that important question. In England they are going to hold an inquiry. We know what is going on there. If the government of this country believe they must resort to the same policy, we would be only too glad to know it. But let us have a policy ; let us know what it is.
Mr. Speaker, I have not made this motion as a motion of want of confidence. I do share the views of a great many Liberals on the fiscal policy of the country. 1 know that the rules of the House make my motion a motion of want of confidence, and I suppose I must take the rules as they are, although in a democratic country like Canada, the rules should perhaps be interpreted in a more lenient way. In England they are coming to more lenient parliamentary manners. Ministers there are allowed to hold different views on broad national questions. I would be only too glad to have this motion voted on its merits. I know what party discipline is, what party exigencies are. I know right well that if many of my hon. friends on this side of the House were free to express their views, they would vote for the motion I am going to make. However, I say again, I do not make the motion in any unfriendly spjii'it. I make it because I am a firm believer in a protective fiscal policy for this country. I firmly believe that it is the only policy that can make us a nation. Holding these views, I beg, Sir, to move, seconded by Mr. Brock


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Some hon. members say hear, hear. I am very glad of that interruption. It gives me the opportunity of saying why I have asked my hon. friend to be good enough to second my motion. The larger provinces of this Dominion have a common interest, the provinces of Ontario and Quebec more especially have a common interest in this question. They have both a great interest in working together in questions of this kind, which are above party politics. We should all be animated by the same interest, for in point of fact we are all equally interested. The North-west, the maritime provinces and British Columbia should work harmoniously with us. But the larger provinces are more intimately bound together, and that is one of the reasons why I have asked my hon. friend to second the motion, which reads as follows :-
This House desires to express the opinion-that in order to assure the permanency and the further progress of the existing industries, as well as the creation of many new ones that only wait the proper policy to spring up ; to inspire greater confidence to Canadian, British and foreign capital ; to secure for the farmers now tilling our soil and those that we invite to share the blessing of our institutions and the wealth that Providence has placed at our disposal, the full advantages of a prosperous home market ; to comply with the legitimate desire of the working classes to see their labour rewarded by fair and uninterrupted wages and by comfort In their families ; to render impossible the slaughtering of our markets by the produce of foreign industries, of foreign combines, of foreign agriculture and of cheap labour countries ; to bring about a quicker development and a more rapid expansion of our vast resources ; to promote closer commercial relations between the different provinces of the Dominion and between this Dominion and the mother country ;
It is the bounden and imperative duty of the government to revise and readjust, without delay, the present tariff in such a manner as to leave no doubt as to the determination of the Canadian people to adopt and maintain a fiscal policy adequate and firmly protective of the large national interest at stake. And also to carry out an energetic transportation policy which will give to our merchandise and products of all kinds commodious, quick and cheap access to the markets of our country and to those of foreign nations trading with us.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to see a tariff like the one I have described in this motion in force in this country for at least ten years. I think that the results would be marvellous. I think that such a tariff would prove as successful as the high tariff in the United States, whose good lessons we should not lose sight of.


Mr.   W.@: ft. BROCIC (Centre Toronto). I do not think that it will be a surprise to any one m this House or country, Mr. Speaker, that I should second such a resolution as las been moved by the hon. member

for St. Mary's division of Montreal. In one portion of liis remarks, my bon. friend turned to the government benches, from which he happily has emancipated himself or such a resolution as he has moved this evening would doubtless have had to be moved from this side of the House, and he asked hon. gentlemen on that side to keep an open mind on this question of protection and free trade. We know in this House how many open minds there are on the other side. Did we not last night see one of the hon. members opposite humiliated to the greatest degree by the hon. Finance Minister, who was then leading the House, insisting on his accepting the motion then made as a motion of want of confidence and voting it down.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am afraid the hon. member is transgressing the rules of the House. He has no right to refer to a previous debate.


Mr. BROOK.: I bow, Sir, to your decision, but when my hon. friend asked hon. members on his side to keep an open mind on this question, he was submitting to them a very difficult task, for we are all well aware how they are terrorized by the government and not allowed to vote as they think fit. They are not even allowed to vote as they pledged themselves to do and as they were elected to do by their constituents. On the contrary, they have to submit their independence to the dictation of the minister who insists upon taking as motions of want of confidence amendments which are not really so intended. My hon. friend who moved this resolution drew attention to the fact that we were passing through serious and troublous times. Had any one been told six months ago that, after several magnificent crops, this country could be so terribly agitated, as it has been during the last few weeks, by a financial crisis, he would have scouted the idea. But the fact remains that during the last few weeks we have passed a severe financial crisis, and the reason is not far to see. During the past seven years, we have been sending out of the country enormous sums which should have been kept at home. So long as we import enormous quantities of goods and send the money out of the country to pay for them, we will be always at the mercy of financial panics in this or in any country. At the present moment the eyes, not only of the Dominion, but of the whole empire are turned upon this parliament. During the past four or five years we have been occupying a most prominent place in the affairs of the empire, and never more so than at present. We are face to face with one of the greatest problems that can possibly engage the attention of any business community or country.
We have before us the various fiscal policies throughout the world which are being worked in such a way as to fell seriously against the great empire to which we belong. Less than a year ago, the great Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain), found that, after several years war, or dealing with rebellion, it was necessary that he should give his own personal attention to the affairs in South Africa. He visited that country ; he travelled up and down the length and breadth of it; he spoke boldly to the people there as to what the interests of their country were and what their policy should be, many times speaking to hostile audiences ; and he left that country practically peaceful. He returned to England, as another great Conservative statesman did many years ago, bringing back to the empire peace with honour. Then, with the prestige that he had gained through that successful trip, after he had been a short time in England, he visited his constituency and there made a speech which was intended not only for his constituents, not only for the inhabitants of Great Britain, but also for the people of the Greater Britain beyond the sea. He introduced a policy that almost meant a revolution as compared with any fiscal policy that they had ever had in England. Neither the government nor the opposition could be expected at once to agree with him. But when he returned to the great Prime Minister of England after having made these disturbing speeches, which were adverse to the policy the government had maintained, how was he received ? Was lie called a traitor ; was he told that he had no business to make speeches of that kind without the authority of the premier or his government. No, Sir, but the great Prime Minister of England said : You are perfectly right, I agree with you ; you are right to agitate this question, for it is a question that should be and must be discussed and discussed freely. And Mr. Chamberlain is still a member of that government. Did our Prime Minister so receive and so address his trusted colleague, one for whom he thought nothing was too good only a short time ago ? I can hardly believe that of his own notion he could have taken the step lie did in endeavouring to crush out that colleague, a man whom he had honoured and trusted. The influences about the Prime Minister must have been too strong for his own good sense and good judgment and sound political ideas.
One of the elements that will benefit most by the policy that has been brought before the House to-night is the element that some endeavour to turn against it-the element of labour. In almost every description of goods manufactured in Canada labour is the majority of value. Any protection that is given to manufacturers in this country is protection to labour, and an inducement to labour to come to Canada. Not only is it an inducement for labour to come, but it is a very great inducement for capital to be

invested here. Nothing is so sensitive as capital. Let it feel that it is in danger, and we are not likely to get it; and at the present time, capital is toeing sought for from one end of the Dominion to the other for the development of the resources of the country, and for that development we must toe largely indebted to the capital we get from other countries. At the present moment, many of the manufacturing industries of this country are suffering. Nobody knows it better than the government. Representations have been made to them toy the leading boards of trade and manufacturers' associations, and also by individual manufacturers in all parts of the country. There is hardly a manufacturing industry in this country at the present moment that Is doing more than paying expenses.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Rees Brock: True, the government tell us that the factories are full of work. Many of them are full of work, but they are full of work that they are producing at a loss, in consequence of the great difficulty under which they suffer at the present moment. There is a want of labour. How can any large factory succeed running only three-quarters of its machinery instead of running it all ? Influences are at work to prevent skilled labour coming to this country, and while that is the case manufacturers must suffer. Gentlemen in this House, who are largely engaged in manufacturing are suffering at this moment for a want of labour. And labour will only go where it is better protected than it is in this country. The United States, which is more attractive to labour than any other country on earth to-day, is the country which enjoys the highest measure of protection. This is a question which we must approach from no sectional point of view. It is a question with which the prosperity of the whole Dominion is bound up. None need hope to turn to the farming community and ask them to combine against protection, because the farmers of this country are ns largely interested as any other class- probably more than any other class, as they are the greatest producers-in advancing the cause of protection. It is quite possible to make a tariff arrangement that will protect all the industries as well as the mines and smelters and manufactures of all kind, and, at the same time, to protect labour, which protection will do more to build up this country than all the free trade that ever was given to any country in the world. Free trade, I repeat, offers no inducement to capital to come to the country, but offers every inducement for capital to leave it. The government having piled up a surplus of about $13,500,000, a large portion of which they derived from customs duties, fancy that this is an indication of a measure of success. I can assure them that every dollar that they got in that way came out of the pockets of the people. If we manu-Mr. BROCK.
factored these goods upon which duty has been paid, we should not only have saved the duty, but should have retained the value of the labour and the value of the material put into these articles. When we have urged' the government to give us a statement of their policy, I think that policy has been summed up in three words-' Not this year.' Now, if they think of raising the duty, it must be because they think it is desirable to do so. Then why not this year ? If it is good to do at all, why not do it at once ? If it is good, why not do it with courage ! The present leader of the government, just before coming into power, stated that if he got the confidence of the country and crossed the floor of the House, he would surround himself with a body of businessmen and give us a business administration. He has been in power for seven years, and for that time we have this cabinet of business men. And what has been the result ? The result is that, after seven years of great prosperity, financial panic has overtaken some financiers, so that it almost seems as if it were going to sap the foundation of the business of the country ; and all because, as I said before, the government adopted such a policy as has resulted in sending an enormous amount of money year after year out of the country to pay for foreign products.	.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution moved this evening by the hon. member for St. Mary's division, and the resolution moved by the leader of the opposition a few days ago, I contend, if acted upon, would lay the foundation for the future greatness of this country. The United States have adopted this policy, and are pursuing it with courage, they have adopted it in face of great opposition, and having persevered in it, the result is that to-day that country is the most prosperous on the face of the globe. I have before me a small cutting containing portions of a speech delivered by Senator Depew before the Springfield Board of Trade, in which he said :
Because of the protective system the United States has the greatest home market, the mightiest productive power, the most marvellous internal exchange, the highest development of productive energy, the best scale of wages, the greatest comfort and happiness among the people, and the widest distribution of wealth of all the countries that had ever existed.
Sir, I would like this country to adopt the policy which has justified a statement of this kind, which I think cannot be controverted. I would like a policy of that kind adopted in this country, and holding that view, I have great pleasure in seconding the motion which has been placed before you this evening by the hon. member for St. Mary's division, Montreal.


Mr. J. D. REID (South Grenville).: Before this motion is put to the vote, I would like to make a few remarks upon it. I have been in this House ever since the pre-

sent government attained to power, ami have listened to the statements of the hon. the Minister of Finance, as to the prosperity of this country. In his budget speech for the present session he made these remarks:
I am far from saying that there are not exceptions to this, but I think it is not too much to say that, subject to some possible exception, the general condition, not only of the country at large, but of the manufacturing interests of Canada in the main, is highly prosperous. We know that all classes have prospered in Canada of late years, and it is an interesting fact that the manufacturers have shared in the largest degree in that prosperity, for they have held their home markets to a large extent.
I must say I was surprised when the hon. member


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hou. gentleman is referring to a previous debate.


John Dowsley Reid: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I was surprised when I heard the hon. member for St. Mary's this afternoon read out a list of the manufacturing industries of this country, some thirty-nine in number-and he said he had a long list of others too numerous to mention-that had sent deputations or petitions to the government asking for increased protection. Now if this be true, was it fair to the representatives of the people in this blouse that the Minister of Finance should tell us in his budget speech that the manufacturing industries


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order. The hou. gentleman is referring to a previous debate.


John Dowsley Reid: Again I beg Mr. Speaker's pardon. Would it have been fair for the Minister of Finance to say that this country was so prosperous ? Now, Sir, the first industry that the hon. member for St. Mary's mentioned was that of iron and steel. That industry to-day is not in a prosperous condition. If it was in a prosperous condition it would not be knocking at the doors of the government for more protection. If these gentlemen are asking for more protection, it is not simply that they may make more money for themselves. I believe that if this industry is not better protected the workingmen engaged in it will be thrown out of employment, and will, therefore, be unable to earn the money necessary to keep themselves and their families from want. The gentlemen engaged in this industry are only asking for protection enough to enable them to pay their working men a liberal wage, a wage sufficient to enable them to keep their families honestly and decently as becomes Canadians. They are asking for a tariff that will enable them to raise a sufficient revenue to pay their shareholders, or to pay those who have honestly invested their money in that industry, a fair return. Is it unfair that they should make such a request V The same way with all the other industries. The woollen industry in this country is in
a bad shape. It is well known that they cannot make ends meet. What is the result ? These industries must decrease the wages of their employees or close down. What is the result ? Strikes ensue. The men are complaining that they do not receive as good wages as those on the other side of the line. The woollen manufacturers, the cotton manufacturers, the agricultural implement manufacturers and others, in asking for increased protection, are simply asking for enough to enable them to pay their men wages sufficient to keep them in this country. The agricultural implement manufacturers have now a protection of 20 per cent. The hon. member for St. Mary's explained to us this afternoon that the tariff on agricultural implements going into the United States is 45 per cent. Agricultural implements are sold in the United States to-day as cheaply, perhaps cheaper than they are in Canada, yet they have a 45 per cent protection. Now, I believe that if this government were to grant the same protection, 45 per cent, on agricultural implements to the sixty manufacturers of agricultural implements in this country- for that is the number the hon. member for St. Mary's mentioned-if the government would guarantee them that protection, there would be not a single cent of increase on the selling price of those implements over the price they are selling for to-day. The question might be raised, Why then would they want increased protection? Well, I say that if they had increased protection, a protection high enough to prevent agricultural implements coming into this country, of which $2,600,000 worth came in last year, these sixty Canadian manufacturers could turn out the $2,600,000 worth that are now imported, the result being that the increased output would decrease the cost to manufacturers, thus enabling them to pay higher wages to their men and at the same time make a profit for themselves. The same thing applies to the manufacture of boots and shoes. The boot and shoe manufacturers of this country have to compete against the importation of some half million dollars worth of boots and shoes. The labour employed in the manufacture of boots and shoes is all cheap labour and the poor people who are now employed in the manufacture of these articles are ground down to the very lowest notch simply because the manufacturers must either sell at the price at which American boots and shoes sell in this country or go out of business. I claim that when the manufacturers are knocking at the door of the government and seeking protection it is simply the labourers and the mechanics of this country who are knocking at the door and asking that they may be granted protection to enable them to provide for their families. I might go on and enumerate each one of the manufacturing industries in the same

way. Coming to the agriculturists, and it is an agricultural constituency that I represent, I ask myself the question : Wliy is it that we have to import from the United States over $1,000,000 worth of animals. We have the finest agricultural country in the world. Cannot we raise all the animals of every kind that we require ? Yet, while the tariff is in the condition in which we find it now, people in parts of the United States are able to send over some of their cattle and to pay the duty and they do it more profitably than if they were obliged to pay the freight for the carriage of these animals to some other part of their own country to get a market. The same thing might be said about grain. Why, Sir, I see that we imported about $1,200,000 worth of grain from the United States. We import of barley $3,400 worth, beans $21,923, corn $286,993, oats $69,137, pease $15,426 and so on. I for one believe that sufficient protection should be placed on each of these articles to prohibit a dollar's worth .of them being brought into tills country. We imported from the United States $170,260 worth of eggs. We are exporting eggs from here to England and taking a much less price for them than our own home market would give. If we had sufficient protection to prevent them coming into this country from the United States the farmers would get a higher price for their eggs. We purchase from the United States $90,000 worth of apples and $121,634 worth of hay. Is there any other country in the world equal to this for raising hay ? I claim that the very highest protection should be placed on every article that the farmers can (iro-duce so as to prevent one single dollar's worth of these articles coming into this country. I am satisfied that the labourer walking around the streets out of work, if the farmers want protection for food products, would be the first to hold up both hands and say :	I will grant you all the
protection you want in order that you may have this market because I know if you are granted protection I will be granted protection so that I will receive employment, and if I receive employment and have my money in my pocket to pay for everything I want I can afford to pay for the protection necessary to give you the home market. I listened to the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte), when he made a statement that in 1876 the debt of this country was $21.54 per capita and that the debt of the United States was $45.66. We were in a 100 per cent better position then than the United States but the hon. gentleman tells us, after looking at the statistics, that, to-day, the United States per capita debt is $12.27, while ours is $49.97. We are to-day over 50 per cent worse off than we were in 1876, while the United States is four times better off. Does that show that we are in a prosperous condition. Does Mr. REID (Grenville).
not that show that we are going from bad to worse ! The hon. gentleman has also fold us that in free trade England there are 3,000,000 acres of laud less arable than there were some years ago. Does not the right lion. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) feel really ashamed-
Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh, oh.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, I say ashamed because of his action in regard to the bon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's ? Does he not think it was very unkind of him to dismiss the hon. gentleman from his position in view of the attitude of the Right Ho.i. Mr. Chamberlain has taken ? I am always pleased that the right non. gentleman takes his precedents from England, and in this case I believe if Mr. Chamberlain had made his speech a year ago the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's, would be enjoying tlfe confidence of the right lion, leader of the government to-day, because, I believe, that the hon. gentleman-at least we felt it at the time-was one of the men who exerted a very strong influence in making the change of government which resulted in putting the right hon. gentleman in tile position which he occupies to-day. However, I am glad to see that the hon. gentleman has had the pluck to stand by his convictions and I appeal to the country to support him because I believe in the end tlie country will support the proposition he is now advocating. The hon. gentleman stated that protection brings money into the country. There is no question about that. At the present time we are importing $200,000,000 worth of goods. The hon. gentleman asked if we could not now, or very soon, manufacture $30,000,000 worth of those goods and prevent them from coming into this country. When the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) was making his speech in reply to the budget he gave a list of the articles that were brought into this country that could be just as easily made to-day as at any future time. And he pointed out that if these articles were made in the country it would obviate the necessity of importing some $32,000,000 worth. If that be so is it not right that the importation of these goods should be stopped ? If the government will only protect the agriculturists of this country, the labourers and the mechanics in their industry we might then hope to be on a par with the United States. To-day the United States is the cheapest country in the w-orld to live in, while at the same time it is one of the most highly protective. In each and every store in Ottawa you can find all kinds of American goods. I appeal to the government to grant the protection that will prevent these goods coming into the country. I appeal to them on behalf of my constituents and especially on behalf of the farmers for the highest protection that can

be granted on everything that our farmers raise. I also appeal on behalf of the labouring- men and mechanics of my county that protection be granted to all manufactured goods, sc that the manufacturers may enjoy prosperity and be able to give employment to British subjects.


Samuel Hughes: Were it not that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have endeavoured to show that the farmers of Canada are not in favour of the protective policy advocated by the Conservative party, I should not have risen to address the House to-night. After the last election in North Ontario the Liberals tried to make out that that election was won by them because the farmers had prouounced against protection. Some of these hon. gentlemen had even the hardihood to advance that same argument in the House. Let me compare the result in the last by-election in North Ontario with the result in the by-election a few years ago when Mr. McLeod defeated the sitting Liberal member, Mr. Duncan Graham, and that comparison will illustrate the actual condition of affairs. In the large agricultural township of Brock, the Hon. Geo. E. Foster polled 592 votes as against 581 polled by Mr. McLeod in that previous election and 336 polled by Mr. Grant in the last election and 437 polled by Mr. Duncan Graham. I refer now to the two by-elections which were engineered by the Minister of Labour or the Postmaster General or in whatever capacity he went to the riding. In the recent by-election the village of Cannington polled 115 votes for Mr. Foster, while it polled 138 for Mr. Augus McLeod in 1897, Mr. Grant's vote being increased from 104 for Mr. Graham to 157. I will not enter into an explanation as to the change of votes in that village where there are hardly any farmers, but that explanation will be given in the proper time and place. The tine agricultural township of Scott gave Mr. Foster a majority of seven while in the by-election that Mr. McLeod ran in, it gave the Liberal candidate a majority ol' twenty-one. In the agricultural township of Scott the Liberal-Conservatives gained in the last election. In the township of Thorah which adjoins Beaverton and along which there are some government works, the Conservative majority fell off, and that was the only agricultural part of the riding where it did fall off. Beaverton gave Mr. Foster only ninety-six votes, whereas is gave Mr. McLeod 108 votes, and Mr. Grant received ninety-nine as against seventy for Mr. Graham. The agricultural township of Mara polled 190 votes for Mr. Foster and only 172 for Mr. McLeod in the previous election. There again we find that in an agricultural township the farmers increased their votes for protection. When we come to the township of Rama where are situated the wood alcohol works of the company with which the government is associated, Mr. Foster polled eighty-one votes as against 118 for Mr. McLeod, showing a large falling off. In as much as the Liberals have gone around the country saying that this was a vote against protection I will quote from a few speeches delivered to the horny-handed sons of toil on that occasion as reported in the ' Globe ' of March 3. Mr. Wm. Thompson, a manufacturer at Longford and Orillia, a very esteemed young gentleman said :
The Standard Chemical Works employ twice the men they informed the government they would employ at the time the government agreed to assist the company in the disposal of a portion of their output. He explained how the money of the company is distributed through the district for wood, teaming, and wages.
That had nothing to dj with the money distributed in the election.
During the last year there had been more mortgages paid off in Muskoka than in any previous year.'
That is no doubt due to the fact that the government pays an enormous price for this wood alcohol which is sold in the United States at a far cheaper rate, and which Should be sold in Canada cheaper than ever before, because of the market that has grown up for the by-products of wood alcohol. As to the teams employed by this company, forty or fifty of them turned out to draw votes for the Liberal candidate, all of which was paid for by the people of the Dominion in the extra price which the government gives for this wood alcohol. Then we find Mr. Tudhope, a member of the local house, a very estimable gentleman, speaking thus :
In answer to the suggestion that had been made, that he was supporting the Liberal government because the government had increased the duty on buggies to 35 per cent, Mr. Tudhope explained that that duty is now really $17.50 as against $25 under the national policy. Deducting the duty on the raw material assembled by the carriage-builder, his protection really came to only 7 per cent or 8 per cent.
And yet this gentleman has grown rich by the sale of his buggies to the farmers of the Dominion of Canada, under a protection to the tune of thirty-five per cent. Mr. Tudhope's father was an honest and industrious carriage maker in the town of Orillia, and he grew rich under the national policy by selling wagons and buggies to the farmers of the counties of Simcoe and Ontario. He was a good Conservative, but his son deserted the Liberal Conservative cause, owing to the wily influence of some member of the Liberal party in inducing him to make a deal for the supply of wood alcohol to the Dominion government, and Mr. Tudhope stumped the country and used his influence on behalf of the Liberal candidate. And then these gentlemen boast that the solid farmer vote of North Ontario defeated Mr. Foster. Then we come to a speech de-

livered on that occasion by Mr. Peuclien, who said.:
He wanted a little help and went to Ottawa, thinking that as an old Conservative he would have little difficulty in his lobbying. He found it impossible to even see several of the ministers on whom he called, and he came away quite disheartened. After the change of government he went down again. He had no difficulty in seeing the ministers, received a fair and businesslike hearing, and he found that when the ministers were shown a reasonable proposition, and one that was likely to be a benefit to the country



and I presume incidentally to the gentleman concerned

-they would assist it. Assistance was promised him, and the result was the establishment of his business in five Canadian towns, and the expenditure of several millions of dollars. He did not know that the industry would have been started if there had not been a change of government.
All these speeches, you will notice, are appeals to the horny-handed sons of toil. On that occasion the Postmaster General, the Minister of Labour, Sir William Mulock, was present, and he appealed to the farmers. Did he point out where they were ground down under the iron heel of any monopoly Did he show where one cent was unfairly taken from them, directly or indirectly by the manufacturers ? No; but he quoted a little doggerel poetry. He appealed to the lower element of his hearers, and this was his appeal :
Lives of farmers all remind us We must work at every chance,
And in working get behind us Bigger patches on our pants.
I may tell my hon. friend that he never was a farmer. In the old days in Bowman-ville, near which town I had the privilege of growing up, in a good old Grit riding, there was an old agricultural implement manufacturer named Porter; my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) will know him very well. When a farmer came into his store to buy a set of harrows or a plough, the old gentleman would commence showing him beneath the implement in order to get the farmer to stoop. If he found the farmer's trousers worn out in front and not behind, the farmer was trusted for the implement. I want to tell my hon. friend the Postmaster General that he never was a farmer, otherwise he would not have insulted the intelligence of the farmers of that locality by telling them that any respectable farmer would have his trousers worn out behind. They are worn out in front. But the hon. Postmaster General did not complete the poetry. The next stanza went thus :
But if William swells the taxes,
As he is inclined to do.
The farmers soon will have no clothing For to sew the catches to.


Samuel Hughes: Then the ' Globe ' report concludes :
Mr. Grant, on rising to address the meeting, was given a welcome that was both flattering and encouraging. He gave a pathetic account of his tribulation in reaching the meeting, concluding a twenty-mile drive with a lame horse and a driver who did not know the road.
When I read that, I said to myself, what will the poor fellow do when he gets down to Ottawa and has to follow a horse much more broken up than that poor animal, and over roads very much more devious than the roads around the good old township of Hama. Not only were these speeches delivered by the Postmaster General, the genial Minister of Customs, and other ministers and speakers who came into the riding, but we find that at Bracebridge, in the presence of the Postmaster General himself, the electors were appealed to to vote for the Liberal candidate because they were going to get a wharf and a new post office. Captain Sullivan, I think, was not in the riding at that time, but there was an army of Ontario government officials there; and one of them, a very decent old gentleman, Mr. Christiej went (through the township of Morrison, where the farmers who had taken up homesteads, and who found pine trees lying on the ground, were accustomed to cut them into cordwood to provide bread and butter for themselves and their families, to keep the patches off, and to give their children an education; and this man Christie and others told these farmers that these logs belonged to timber limits which were under license from the Ontario government, and that they would be charged so many cents per cord for the wood unless they voted for the Liberal candidate. These were the kind of appeals made throughout the length and breadth of that riding ; and I regret t& say that the Postmaster General so far forgot himself as to ridicule the personal appearance of the Hon. Mr. Poster, saying that this long, lean, narrow candidate very much resembled in appearance the county of Ontario, and adding that Mr. Poster had had something to do with building that county. I want to tell the hon. Postmaster General that when he was in swaddling clothes the county of Ontario was made its present width. It is an old municipally established county, and it has been the same width for many years. And so far as the appearance of my hon. friend; the Postmaster General and the hon. George E. Poster are concerned, just tack Lake Simcoe on to the county, and I do not know but that the water would represent the Postmaster General and the solid land the Hon. Mr. Poster. I do not know that there is much difference-nothing but a little extra wind and water would constitute the difference.
We found another appeal to the farmers made along the line of imperial penny postage, and while I give my hon. friend the



[Stage Direction]
Postmaster General credit for bis conduct in that connection, in all fairness let us not forget tbe man who fought that issue for years before tbe Postmaster General was "in public life, who visited Canada, New Zealand, Australia and every British colony, and paid bis own expenses in order to educate the people of the empire into the spirit of penny postage. I refer to Mr. Henniker Heaton, of England, the father of penny postage. In the name of all that is fair, let the hon. the Postmaster General give credit to the man who expended years of labour and paid out his own dollars and cents in order to cultivate the imperial spirit and place the policy of imperial penny postage in such a position that when the Postmaster General had the opportunity of dealing with it, he found the seed well sown and the ground well tilled for the operation. We found also another appeal made to the horny-handed sons of toil along the line of the preferential tariff, although but a very short time before they had been in the same riding pushing the doctrine of free trade with the United States.
Then another appeared on the scene-a gentleman whose voice formerly rang throughout these halls-to the great edification of himself, at all events, if not to the general public and his friends. His friends showed their appreciation of him to such an extent that when they got into power they would not give him a job. I refer to the present Senator McMullen. He appeared on the scene, and although he is the same man who made the welkin ring with his advocacy of free trade between Canada and the United States, he appealed to the electors on an entirely different ground. Speaking of the question of reciprocity, he said he would not move one step to secure reciprocity with the United States, if it would interfere with the advantageous position of our products in England, in this he was adopting the policy which the old Conservative party had advocated for many years. He said further that he hoped that in any negotiations with the United States on trade questions, our government would insist on receiving dollar for dollar. With regard to the sending of their troops to' South Africa he said :
The government had acted wisely in communicating with the imperial government and fully maturing their plans before despatching the troops. He made an eloquent reference to the work of the Canadian contingent in South Africa and then went on to say that the present government had made progress in the reform of the Senate.
How any man pretending to possess that spirit of a statesman could stand before an audience and use the argument the hon. gentleman did, surpasses my comprehension.
_ The present government have made progress in the reform of the Senate. There has not been a single instance where a Senator died,
in which the government have not appointed a better man in his place. Mr. Foster, in his criticism of the government for not having reformed the Senate, meant that that body should have been brought into closer relations with the people, but what was the use of attempting anything of the kind until they had a majority in the Senate to carry it.
Well, they have a majority there now, and Senator McMullen is as dumb as an oyster and draws his $1,500 per year without a murmur.
These hon. gentlemen also refer on every possible occasion to that very aristocratic body known as the nest of traitors, and are not at all chary in their use of private slander. Then we have the gentleman from West Huron appearing on the scene, and he dilated at length on that advantage to the farmers of the Liberal policy on binder twine. He told them that the government had removed the duty, but he did not tell them that it had doubled the price. These are the lines on Which he appealed to the farmers throughout the length and breadth of that riding. From Rama he went into Morrison, where these timber agents got in their work. I must say that Mr. Christie is a decent old gentleman, but he has to do the party's work, as he frank!,y admits, or lose his position. The vote there was brought down. It was ninety-five for McLeod and seventy-three for Foster. In Bracebridge town, Mr. Foster polled the largest Conser-vate vote ever polled there, 281 as against 244 for McLeod in 1897, and 278 for McLeod in 1900, although Mr. Foster had to meet the most popular man that ever resided in Bracebridge. Mr. Grant polled 259 votes in his contest with Mr. Foster, as against 113 votes polled for the Liberal candidate in 3897 and 114 in 1900. The cause of the largely increased vote in Bracebridge is to be found in the fact that the industries of that town employ a large amount of labour. Some of the recent industries employ a large number of French Canadian countrymen, and it was not Mr. Grant nor Sir William Mulock nor the hon. Mr. Paterson, but it was Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It was vote for Sir Wilfrid
Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: And we do not blame them. Next to voting for Mr. Foster, I do not know that they could have done amiss in voting as they did, but that accounts for the large vote polled bj Mr. Grant in Bracebridge, although he still fell short of the vote given to Mi-. Foster by twenty-four. In Macauley township, Mr. Foster polled eighty-four against fifty-four in favour of Mr. McLeod on one occasion, and a hundred on another, and Macauley is entirely an agricultural township. In Draper township, Mr. Foster rolled up 306 as against 117 polled by Mr. McLeod in 1900 and seventy-eight by Mr. McGillivi-ay in 1896. In McLean township, Mr. Foster got



tlmt the.gentlemen on this side of the House would not permit them to do so if they were inclined. In other words, in place of finding as they did when the Conservative party were in power, a party loyal to Canada, and an opposition namely, the gentlemen now occupying the treasury benches, seeking every means to discredit the industries of Canada and to inspire capital with fear, making men cautious about investing their money in this country-in place I say, of finding that condition of affairs, the investor, the manufacturer, the gentlemen who wished to take part in the upbuilding of Canada, find a party on the one side who dare not tinker with the tariff, and a party on the other side that is loyal to the core in holding to protection to legitimate industries. Consequently many Canadian, British and American investors in Canada have prospered in spite of lion, gentlemen opposite. We find our American cousins, who would toe only too pleased to ship, and who could ship, their agricultural implements into the great Canadian Northwest as cheaply as we can ship them from here, we find them issuing their calenders with a little British sailor boy at the top, holding the British flag and saying, ' I am British too.' We find the Deering Manufacturing Company of Chicago establishing their industries in the Dominion of Canada, they are coming in under the old British flag, and that little Yankee boy, I trust, will grow up under the Union .lack, and it will not he many years before lie is a full grown man. We find file McCormicks coming in, the American steel industries coming in, and manufacturers of every description coming in, because they know that the men on this side are loyal to the policy that lias built up Canada while gentlemen on the other side have been disloyal.
Now I could go on and point out that we have something else to do besides putting on a little protection on garden stuff-but I will not treat that question, because I see our hon. friend opposite who is so interested in it is asleep. There are other aspects of the great question of upbuilding Canada, and one of them is the international development of our own country. We have our waterways, we have our railways, we have our seaboards on both oceans to look after. But the development of these waterways contributes hut a small portion of the protective system of the Dominion of Canada. Our friends opposite who oppose protection to the farmers and protection to the manufacturers, will not hesitate, our good friends from the prairies will not hesitate, to endorse a policy that will upbuild their country by grants of public money from the Dominion treasury, because I maintain that the western farmers get an indirect benefit and an incidental protection from protection to the manufacturers. I have referred to our internal development, but we should Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
not end there, we should go in for external development, and build up our magnificent seaports, Montreal, Quebec, St. John, Halifax, Sydney, Cape Breton, Canso, Country Harbour-I do not see the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) here, but all those magnificent harbours are there, and I maintain it is the duty of the Dominion of Canada and the people of the localities interested, to see that these places take their proper position. Let me point out that the Atlantic seaboard is not the only one to look after. We have on the Pacific ocean innumerable and magnificent harbours, and a long coast line. I want to point out further that our American friends are wideawake, and they see looming up before them a great prospective trade in the west as well as in the east. They see on the far side of the Pacific the Philippine Islands, Japan, China and all that great coast of Asia, they see also the East Indian Islands, all which will form a great market for their manufactures. The Philippine Islands alone last year imported $60,000,000 worth of products from the United States ; Japan and China imported $100,000,000 worth last year from the United States. When we consider the great coast line, our ships can easily find access to almost any part of those Islands. Sir, we find the great waterways of China being opened up and going for thousands of miles into the interior of the country. Then, it is not too bright a picture for we Canadians to draw when we say that at some time in the near future Canadian ships, and Canadian seamen will carry the goods of this country into these distant markets. They import to-day large quantities of flour, wheat, lumber, iron and manufactures of iron, implements, &c., and other manufactures generally. We find sailing from the port of San Francisco, Portland and the Puget Sound ports of Seattle and Tacoma, 361 grain vessels last year alone carrying $27,722,000 worth of wheat raised on the Pacific slope and we find that there was a total of $36,000,000 worth of grain shipped from the western coast of the United States alone. I want to point out to the right hon. leader of the government and to others that the portion of western Canada accessible to the Pacific slope has wheat fields as far ahead of the wheat fields of the western states as sunlight is ahead of moonlight. When the industries and seaports on the western coast of British Columbia are established and proper shipping facilities on that coast are available, I believe there is no limit to the future development in connection with the wheat fields of the great west. Edmonton alone stands in the centre of a wheat belt with a greater area of arable land than you will find in the whole province of Ontario. Go where you will in any direction from the town of Edmonton, north, south, east or west for 150 miles and you will

find magnificent farming land. Away to tbe north-west you can go for 400 miles and yon will still find magnificent farming land 200 or 300 miles from the Pacific ocean as soon as the railways are opened up. Then, why should we not take hold and build up this young nation ? Why should we hesitate ? Why should we be tinkering and quarrelling about little questions like market gardens ? Why should not we be upbuilding our market gardens, upbuilding our seaports, standing by our avenues of communication, extending our railways and shipping facilities, helping our manufactures, our farmers and our labouring men and making Canada what we believe it is destined to be before the end of the present century ? I have every faith that by the close of the present century Canada will stand second to no nation in the world.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St John and Iberville).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the motion brought forward as an amendment to that of the hon. Minister of Finance is the summary of a series of articles and speeches written or delivered by its mover, the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) in the course of the last ten months or so. In his speech delivered a moment ngo, the hon. member entreated the members on this side of the House to hear his appeal, to listen to the plea he was about to make.
On the whole, I do not think this new proposal made by the hon. member has much chance of winning favour either in this House or in the province of Quebec. That tariff issue, it seems to me, has been well threshed out for many years back. I do not know that there is in the province of Quebec a free trade party. The hon. member compared free trade and protection; but I repeat it, I do not know that there is in this country a party favouring free trade pure and simple. People's ideas are settled in this respect and they are in the moderate vein.
I do not think the electors will take kindly to the arguments set forth by the hon. member for St. Mary's, and that for several reasons. In the first place we read in the gospel to beware of false prophets ; and while, on the one hand, we have the hon. member's utterances for the last ten months in favour of protection, on the other hand, we have his numerous protests for ten years in the opposite sense. Which are we to believe ? To his statements of to-day we can oppose the statements of the member for L'lslet, of the candidate in Beauharnois, of the ex-Minister of Public Works and of the candidate in St. Mary's division of Montreal during the last contest.
Those who know the hon. member cannot fail to have strong objections to following him in the path into which he would fain lead away the people.
In the first place, I notice that instead 154J
of seeking commercial reciprocity with the United States, he believes to-day in increasing the customs duties. That is an entirely new departure, as I shall show. The hon. member for St. Mary's came out, in 1893, as Liberal candidate in the county of L'lslet, and was elected. Here is the programme he submitted to the electors of that county. 1 find it quoted on page 1019 of * Hansard,' for 1893, as follows
I am resolved to turn all my efforts towards obtaining changes in the tariff, such, as to permit tbe agricultural class to buy cheaply the things they need, and to sell dearer the produce of the soli.
The manufacturers in the large cities who realize hundreds of thousands of dollars profit per year, by means of the present tariff oppose these reforms. They are organized into an association. and without party distinctions they support the government, the policy of which builds their fortune. From their point of view they are right. The so-called national policy, adopted in 1879, with the object of favouring the establishment and development of our industries in preventing foreign products from entering Canada, has not to-day the same raison d'etre.
The interests of the manufacturers have been protected long enough. The hour has come for protecting the interests of agriculture. The manufacturers' interest is to keep the Canadian market closed against the manufactured products of the United States, in order to sell their own goods at higher prices.
The interest of the Canadian farmer is to work towards having the American market opened to him. in order to sell dearer his produce.
Further on, he added :
Let us see that the American market which is practically closed against us, be opened to us, so that we may sell there, our horses, our potatoes. our eggs, fowls, &c.
The Canadian farmer will find in that a double interest. First, he will pay less for what he needs, and he will sell his produce to better advantage.
The struggle is then really between the farmer, who needs the American market and the manufacturer who is afraid to make less profits if the American manufacturer can come and compete with him for the sale of furniture, farming implements, cotton fabrics, vehicles, &c.
Following up the same idea, the hon. member said :
Who does not remember, Mr. Speaker, the by-campaigns that we fought, for instance, that of Drummond and Arthabaska, In 1877 ? It is one of the contests I regret the most, be it said by the way.
That is not quite in line with his Chatham speech of 1902 :
Well, we carried those by-elections, and the general elections by saying : Let us adopt a protective tariff, and we will force the American government to treat with us. The illusion we had then must have vanished to-day ; but it has nevertheless served to carry the elections of 1891.
This was going on in 1893. In 1896, the hon. member, then a candidate for the Liberal party in the county of Beauharnois, sent out to the electors of that constitu-

ency a lengthy circular, of which I hold a copy, wherein he expressed his persistent belief that an increase of the duties would be a misfortune for the country; and that our endeavour should be to secure reciprocity with the United States. He said :
For eighteen years, the Tory party has been in power.
Notice, ' The Tory party.'
What have been the results of their administration. I am not one of those who say that everything the Conservative party have done is wrong. If I were to say so, I would be casting blame upon myself, for, up to 1891, I have followed in the ranks of that party, though at times, on certain points, at variance with its policy. But, I have no hesitation in saying that the purpose we had in view in 1S78, when the protective system was adopted, has not been attained.
Our favourite argument during the electoral contest of 1878, was that, by increasing the customs duties, we would force the United States to grant us a treaty of commercial reciprocity. Far from seeing our expectations materialize, we have from that date got to loggerheads with our neighbours, who maintained their tariff and even at times modified it in such a way as to do us the greatest harm.
So that in this respect, the hon. member has greatly varied from the opinions he held in 1893 and in 1896.
Now, in that hon. gentleman's opinion, what was in 1896 the position held, the part played by manufacturers in this country 1 His contention was that they preyed on the people ; that they were monopolists, and underpaid their men. He claimed, besides, that the farmers were being ruined. In that same speech delivered in this House, February 21, 1893, at page 1026 of ' Hansard,' he said :
There is no doubt that, thanks to protection, a certain number of manufacturers have built up large fortunes, but there is no doubt either that the public fortune is not equitably divided. In Montreal we see men who, poor in 1878, have become millionaires. We see at the same time the rural districts losing their population.
So, the country was being depopulated in 1893; had the financial condition of the farmers improved in 1896 ? Well, let us see what he said in this connection in his address to the electors of Beauharnois :
I need not say that the abolition, or at least the reduction, of the duties would be a clear gain to the farmers, and would increase in a large measure our trade with the United States.
And further on :
Then, again, by allowing the free importation into our country of certain manufactured goods, we will enable consumers to get at a lower price the goods which they need. For eighteen years past large manufacturers have enjoyed a measure of protection which is now found to be excessive. The time has come, it seems to me, for the farmer and the consumer to have their innings.
So, that the consumer and the farmer had not yet had their innings; only manu-Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville!.
facturers had been so favoured. Referring to the latter in that same manifesto, he said :
Mr. Laurier and his friends have no thought of destroying manufactures. Why would they do so ? They only wish that manufacturers should make fair profits and no more. By allowing the importation free or at reduced rates of the raw material used in industries, we shall ensure to manufactures advantages which will enable them to sell their products cheaper than they do now. Iron, coal oil and many other articles of raw material should enter our country without having to pay the heavy duties to which they are subjected to-day for the benefit of a few score of individuals. Of course, monopolists, those who make every year hundreds of thousands of dollars at the expense of the consumer, are strongly opposed to any change. They are going to make a supreme effort in the present contest, as they know Mr. Laurier will govern Canada in the interest of the people, and not In their own, as the present government is doing.
That able candidate puts the question : ' Is the government the friend of the farmer and the workingman ? ' to which he gives the following reply :
A fiscal policy which obliges consumers to pay a tribute of from 25 to 30 per cent to a privileged class, cannot be favourable to the masses. Farmers realize what their position is. A couple of years more like those we have gone through and agriculture in this country will be ruined.
Another prophecy ! So much for the workers in the country ; now, for those in cities :
Inquire from workingmen in cities what is their present condition. They do not find work half the year long ; and they are paid salaries barely sufficient to keep their families from suffering from hunger. Never has there been so much misery in the city of Montreal as during the year which has just elapsed. The same is true of all large cities. The reason for that state of things is very plain. Monopolists

Monopolists once more

-having done away with all the small factories. have now full control of the labour market. They pay to the workingman whatever wages they please. See what is going on at Valleyfleld, where a great number of robust, honest, hard-working men do not earn more than 90 cents per day. The average wage paid in that large factory does not exceed 55 cents per day.
Such was the appeal made in 1896 to th,e electors of Beauharnois by that hon. gentleman, then a candidate in that constituency. In the newspaper ' Le Cultivateur,' in 1896, the hon. member for St. Mary's published articles to the same intent. On June 13. 1896, under the heading ' Down with tributes,' I read the following:
A few years more of our fiscal system will cause our working classes to fall into a state of bondage similar to that in which monopolists in the United States have long held their employees.

"J|
Let us free ourselves from the grasp of monopolists.
On June 6, 1896, I find In the same paper :
We wish manufacturers to make reasonable profits. But it seems to us the time has come for workingmen and consumers to have their day. It is time we should cease paying tribute to men such as Mr. Simps ji and scores of others of his stamp.
The electorate followed the advice of ' Le Cultivateur.' The Liberal party came into power, and a moderate tariff favourable to manufacturing, industries inasmuch as it enables them to realize legitimate profits, was adopted. The people put their trust in the Liberal party ; they confided in the latter's promises, and the hon. member for St. Mary's was asked to enter the cabinet. Let us see what he thought of the Fielding tariff on April 24, 1897. I read the following in a letter from Ottawa which appeared in his paper, ' Le Cultivateur,' and which I take to have been written by him, as the tone betrays its author :
It is in order, it is a matter of necessity, rather, that there should be a few groans here and there, on the part of those who favour monopolists. .	.	.
Monopolies once more

-who, under the old regime, -were the real holders of power.
Further on:
It is fair, therefore, to restore equality between the manufacturer, the merchant, the consumer.
On May 1, 1897, he wrote :
Legitimate industries have no right to complain. Specific duties, which had become so obnoxious on account of the wrongful use they had been put to, are things of the past. Manufacturers who were protected by duties amounting to 30, 40, 50, 70 per cent on certain articles, should not be surprised at the changes effected. They could not expect that such an insufferable condition of things should be maintained. A margin suflieient to enable them to carry on their business has been allowed to them, but they will no longer have a monopoly.
Such were the views of the hon. gentleman expressed Inf his paper ' Le Cultivateur.'
From 1896 until the elections of 1900, Canada, under the [DOT]present administration, had increased immensely. Our trade had grown by 8150,000,000. Our exports of manufactured goods had doubled. Then, the hon. gentleman resolved to seek electiou in St. Mary's division.
I heard a moment ago the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) state that members on this side of the House do not vote in accordance with the wishes of their electors. It seems to me that the first duty of a member of parliameut is to vote in accordance with the promises he made when seeking election. Let us see what statements the hon. member for St. Mary's made in October, 1900, as shown by his organ
' La Patrie,' of October 18th. It seems to be a verbatim report of the speech.
Reference will be made in the course of the contest to the revision of the tariff ; you will be told that we granted a preference to Great Britain of 33J per cent ; that is so, and it is the best thing we have done.
Farther on :
Industries-some of them, at least-were protected to an extent which we thought excessive. We slightly reduced the duties. We gave to Great Britain a preference of 33J per cent.
Farther on :
We were killing two birds with one stone. Please notice : We were lightening the burdens of the people ; we were giving an impulse to industries at the same time as reducing the duties. We were only intelligently pricking on capitalists who had been somewhat lagging behind. What was the consequence ? Canadian industries, feeling a little more the keen edge of competition, improved their methods. Manufacturers imported new machinery in order to be in a position to compete to greater advantage. The result is now apparent. We have witnessed within the two or three last years unprecedented developments. The trade of the country has increased by $150,000,000. I repeat it, if you are not satisfied, you are rather hard to satisfy.
Since Canada's trade bas not ceased increasing in the meantime, are we not entitled to say to the hon. gentleman :	If
you are not satisfied, you are rather hard to satisfy ?
Now here is something in regard to tariff revision, which is more surprising and which most of the hon. members are not prepared for. It is an extract from the programme of the hon. gentleman to his electors, to be found in ' La Patrie ' of October 18, 1900. It is on such representations as these that the hon. member was elected in St. Mary's division :
By our revision of the tariff we have given a new impetus to industry. For one, I believe on the stability of the tariff. I do not mean that there may not be necessity later on for some readjustments ; but the main features of the tariff should not be changed.
The hon. gentleman, as we see, was quite orthodox then. He was in favour of keeping the tariff, in its main features, as it is to-day.
Well, barely two years after making these statements, when the country was enjoying an ever-increasing prosperity, and without any change having taken place in the economic conditions of the country, the hon. member thought fit to start a movement in favour of high protection, contending that on it alone the country depended for its welfare. I think we are fairly entitled to say to him that these ten months during which he has been campaigning in favour of protection do not outweigh in our estimate his efforts for a period of ten years in the ranks of the Liberal party.
We have been told by the hon. member that petitions had been addressed to the

government, asking for changes in the tariff. But who started this agitation, if not the hon. member himself ? Who travelled the country, impressing manufacturers with the idea that they urgently needed protection, if not the . hon. member ?
Last session, when the hon. member for Laval introduced his motion demanding protection for the farmers, the hon. member for St. Mary's did not speak in the same strain as to-day. He contended in the way I do now, that an agitation had been started for the purpose of having vegetables subjected to a duty. Here are his very words :
It is very easy to create ill-feeling among people who think they do not sell their products high enough ; but that grievance can easily be remedied.
As a matter of fact, that is what happened, and the proof that no real uneasiness exists is that Liberal candidates in the last by-elections had no difficulty in securing their return by increased majorities.
The hon. member made a comparison between the conditions existing in the United States, and those existing in Great Britain, between a free trade and a protectionist country, for the purpose of showing that the working classes in the United States receive a higher remuneration for their labour than those in Great Britain. An easy answer to this is that workingmen in Germany get still lower wages than British workmen, although the German tariff is highly protective. Wages are higher in America than in Europe, where workingmen are willing to work for a pittance.
On the other hand, the welfare of our farming community is undeniable. That welfare has been so marked since the introduction of the admirable tariff to which the hon. member himself gave his approval, that our farmers, instead of quitting the country to seek employment in the United States factories, now turn to settling in the North-west. And even farmers from the United States are seen constantly crossing the line, thus adding to our numbers and our wealth.
The whole thing may be summed up as follows :	On the issue of the tariff, the
hon. member for St. Mary's has evidently altered his views out and out. At a time when Canada is enjoying unprecedented prosperity, he would have the government declare in favour of high protection. By the extracts I quoted from his speech and his programme of 1893, have I not shown that he agreed at the time with the Liberal policy in asking for reciprocity with the United States ? That was his policy at the time, as well as that of the Liberal party, and no mention was made of any increase in the duties, as he considered this a mistaken policy. The Fielding tariff, which gave such excellent results, was received with satisfaction. It was not, as the hon. gentleman would have us believe, a mea-Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).
sure assented to half-heartedly by his colleagues.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: I do not rise for the purpose of confuting the logic of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Demers), because I have not the honour of understanding his language as well as my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) who seemed to enjoy the speech as much as if it were delivered in his native tongue. I understand, however, that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Demers) quoted speeches from the hon. member (Hon. Mr. Tarfe) in "the past which are supposed to contain different sentiments from those which he has announced to-night. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Demers) could profitably employ his time by taking the speeches of seven-tenths of the members on his own side of the House delivered a few years ago, and he would find that they are diametrically opposite in sentiment from the speeches which his friends delivered to-day. The hon. gentleman forgets that conditions may change in a country, that the views of public men may change with the conditions, that what was suitable in 1896 may not be suitable at the present time, and not be suitable in the future. It is the part of wisdom that public men should change their views in order to meet the requirements of the day.
I am here to-night to support this resolution because I believe it embodies principles that are beneficial to Canada at the present time. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) makes this proposition at the outset:
To Insure permanency and the further progress of existing industries and to bring about the creation of new ones.
What member of this House or what true Canadian will dissent from that principle ? His next proposition is :
To inspire confidence for the investment of Canadian, British and foreign capital.
We must inspire confidence before capital will be invested, and we must create permanence so that capitalists may have a fair return on their investment. The next proposition is :
To insure to the farmer the full advantages of a prosperous home market, and to secure better wages for the labourer.
Who will say that is wrong ? The home market is the best market for our farmers. It yields the farmer the largest return for his labour, because a portion of his profits is not consumed in the charges for transporting his products to a foreign market. The next proposition in my hou. friend's resolution is.
To render impossible the slaughtering of our markets by the products of foreign countries, foreign industries, foreign combines, and foreign agricultural products, and to bring about the more rapid expansion of our vast resources.
With these objects of the resolution we must all agree.

To promote closer trade relations between the different provinces of the Dominion of Canada and between the Dominion of Canada and the n other country.
Is there an lion, gentleman on the other side, from the premier down to the lowest member, who will say that there is anything wrong in that principle ? The hon. member (Hon. Mr. Tarte) further says in his resolution :
It is the bounden and imperative duty of the government to revise and readjust, without delay, the present tariff in such a manner as to leave no doubt as to the determination of the Canadian people to adopt and maintain a fiscal policy adequately and firmly protective of the large national interest at stake. And also to carry out an energetic transportation policy which will give to our merchandise and products of all kinds commodious, quick and cheap access to the markets of our country and to those of foreign nations trading with us.
These are the aims of the resolution proposed by the hon. member for St. Mary's division of Montreal, and these are the matters to which I shall briefly direct the attention of the House. The first question that arises is :	Is there
need of a revision of the tariff at the present time ? Year after year the government have told us that the time is coming when they must revise the tariff, but year after year they have put off revision until some time in the future. Here is one reason why the tariff should be revised now. Last year we imported .$120,000,000 worth of goods from foreign countries the greater part of which could be manufactured at home, and of that, nearly $08,000,000 worth represented manufactured goods. The aim of our manufacturers is to supply the requirements of the people of Canada, and the fact that these requirements are being supplied by foreign countries indicate the necessity for a tariff revision. It is sufficient for me to know that foreign goods are coming into the tune of $08,000,000, to believe that the tariff should be revised. In view of this it must be admitted that the present tariff works to the disadvantage of the Canadian manufacturer, the Canadian farmer, the Canadian artisan, the Canadian miner, and the Canadian labourer. In. proportion as you bring in these foreign goods, to that proportion do you deprive the Canadian workman of the labour which ought be his. These important resolutions have been moved in the House to-night and the government are silent. Do they think it is not worth their while to speak, or that it is inexpedient to do so ? Do the government think that they can sit silently by and allow the interest of our industrial classes to be sacrificed without moving hand or foot to supply a remedy. It is said that this is not an opportune time for this revision. Some weeks ago the Finance Minister told us that times were prosperous and that we should not disturb the existing
K	~	'
situation. That reminds me of the logic of the old man, who, when the rain was pouring through the roof of his shanty, was asked:	Why he did not repair it, and
he replied that it was raining and that he could not go out. Then he was asked, why he did not do it in dry weather, and he said that it did not need it then.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It did not leak then.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is the kind of logic the government is using to-day. Do they not know that bad times follow good times, and is it not provident to provide for the bad times when there is a buoyant revenue and when a change can be made without causing any material disturbance ? When hard times come as they are sure to come, and bring about decreased values and decreased consumption, and when the slaughter goods of other countries flood the Canadian market; is it then that the government think a remedy should be applied ? Will they wait until that time comes ? If they do, they are not the provident legislators the Canadian people desire to have controlling the destinies of the country. But that is what they are doing to-day. When the products of other countries flood our markets, as they did from 1874 to 1878, and bring about hard times, the worst we have experienced in Canada, then and not until then the government are prepared to move. Is that what the Canadian people want ? I say it is not. They want the very reverse of that. Every class and every industry of the country will need protection then. Many of them need it to-day. Need I mention the fact of the large importations of agricultural products to convince this House that the farmers of this country need increased protection to-day ? Need I remind the labourer of this country that the importation of $60,000,000 of manufactured goods is taking away the labour that should be enjoyed in Canada, and giving it to Americans, English, Germans and others who are manufacturing these goods ? Need I remind the miner of British Columbia, where the mining industry is stagnant to-day for the want of protection ? Need I remind the men who are manufacturing steel in our country that their industry is on the wane to-day because it needs protection to keep it alive and moving 1 I do not think so. All these people know and see plainly that there is an urgent need to-day for a revision of the tariff. What we need for the future, in my judgment, is a higher or adequate protective tariff to protect the manufacturer of the country, the farmer of the country, the labourer of the country, the miner of the country and the artisan of the country. That, I say, is one of the needs of the situation to-day. That need is growing greater and greater every day. Will the government move before the fatal day comes, be-

fore it is too late, before capital is kept out of the country, or the capital that is employed here is lost, and before the manufacturer will be obliged to close his factory and the labourer to go out of employment ? In addition to that, we need to-day an imperial zollverein, as outlined by the Eight Hon. Joseph Chamberlain a few weeks ago. That is what we need in the Dominion of Canada and the British empire to-day; and when that is brought about, I am sure we shall have better results from it than many imagine at the present time. Along with that we require cheap and quick transportation, to lay down the products of our country in the markets in which they are sold, in the shortest possible space of time and at the cheapest possible cost. That is one of the great requisites of the time. I have just returned to-day from our north-west country. The outlook there for the future is bright and hopeful. The influx of immigration is very great. The increased acreage brought under cultivation this year is immense. The crops are looking splendid, and the farmers are assured of a good crop owing to a plentiful supply of rain up to the present time. The only fear they express is that there will be blockades in the future when their grain is ready to be moved. What are the government doing to provide for that future ? The lethargy that pervades the ranks of the government to-day is noticeable. They are dealing with odds and ends. No great national scheme has been propounded for making the highways of commerce what they should be for handling the products of the country. Where is the fast Atlantic service, which we ought to have had years ago to transport our products to the British market quickly and cheaply ? We are told that the government have received two tenders, but that they are dillydallying with the subject, as they have done for years. What are they doing for the harbours of the country ? As I passed along Lake Superior, I saw that little or nothing was being done to the harbours. There is an immediate demand for action. Are the government equal to that demand. In my opinion they are not. They are not improving our harbours to-day as they should do in preparation for the transportation of the products of the west. They are leaving this work to the future, quite regardless of the consequences. The one great fear the people in the west have is that the government are not equal to the necessities of the situation. They say that the government appear to be asleep. They ask what they are doing about the improvement of the St. Andrew's rapids, that great important work should be carried to completion at the earliest moment ? There is, comparatively speaking, nothing being done in the matter. In all these lines the government seem to be doing practically little or nothing. That is not what the people of this country expected of them. In view
of these considerations, and the hon. member for St. Mary's division, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has propounded a policy that is admirably suited to the requirements of Canada. I am prepared to support it. I am glad to see the hon. member come out from his friends-his friends of the past. He can have the satisfaction of knowing that he disagreed with them on great national issues that are of vital importance to the people of Canada to-day. He can well afford to disagree with them on these lines. The people of Canada are at his back. Many of his late friends on that side of the House would, I am quite sure, get up and defend him but that they are ashamed to do so or to vote against the government. Judging by their speeches in the tariff debate, many of them would support the resolution he has moved, because it is on the lines these gentlemen talked. But will they do it to-night ? I challenge them to show that they have the courage of their convictions by standing by the very policy which they advocated in the budget debate a few weeks ago. I do not think they will do so; but because I believe in the policy propounded in this resolution by the hon. member for St. Mary's division, Montreal, I am prepared to give it my support and vote.


Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat singular, that, after the complete and carefully prepared presentation of the case made by the hon. member for St. Mary's division, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) no reply whatever has been made from the government side of the House, except that which was made in a language which I do not understand sufficiently to appreciate it; and therefore it was to me to a certain extent an unanswerable argument. There were a great many lines open to be taken by the government and their supporters in dealing with the resolution moved and supported so fully by the hon. member for St. Mary's division. The one we would rather have expected to have heard, in the light of many that we have heard in days gone by, would be a rebuttal of the strong plea made for protection by the hon. member for St. Mary's division. We know that the gentlemen on the other side of this House were at one time very conversant with all arguments in favour of free trade as opposed to the protective system.
We know that not very long ago the right lion, gentleman who leads this House held very strong opinions on the subject of protection. We know that on the occasion of his visit to England in 1S97. when the idea o:' preferential trade was mooted, involving the suggestion that we might have some such policy laid clown as is now being propounded by the hon. member for St. Marys' division (Hon. Mr. Tarte), the right hon. gentleman spoke strongly against protection, it had been the curse of Canada, he said, and he could not contemplate with anything


Thomas Simpson Sproule: like satisfaction the idea of a statesman of Great Britain taking part in any sacli policy. If these opinions were still held by the government and its supporters, we would naturally have expected them to reply to the very elaborate argument of the hon. member for St. Mary's division, but on this occasion not one hon. gentleman on that side attempts any reply. Apparently the government Has made up its mind to hold its position, relying on the majority at its back for the purpose of disposing of this amendment and deferring consideration of the important question submitted to the House until some future time. The country will thus be warned of the attitude of the government. The country will be informed that the strong feeling of antagonism to protection has entirely disappeared and the government are now prepared to consider that question impartially. That being the case, if the government do not consider this amendment opportune or convenient for the discussion of the question, at a later date, possibly this session, they may be prepared to consider it and move in the direction indicated by the hon. member for St. Mary's. That, it seems to me, is a fail-construction to be put on the position. If that be the case, the work done by the hon. member for St. Mary's-and done with a great deal of care and thoroughness-will not have been altogether lost. It has, to a certain extent, brought out this fact that we are now in this House in an entirely- different position from what the two parties occupied in 1896 when the late Conservative administration was defeated and the present government took office. At that time it was open for any one to believe that there was a wide difference between the two parties, but now the difference has disappeared and we are all of one mind in so far as the question of protection is concerned. There is no lack of argument which can be urged by any one who conscientiously believes in free trade. You will find that under a sitni-lar condition of things in the mother country, the government of the day is apparently- either moved in the direction of protection or about to appoint a commission which will warrant them in a short time in moving in the direction of protection, and you will find them met by their opponents who argue strongly in favour of the existing system of free trade in the mother country. These are powerful arguments which can be argued by those who believe that the wondrous effects which have been in the past attributed by the school of Co.bden and Bright to the doctrine of free trade, are due to that policy, hut, there is a mass of arguments which might be advanced to prove tiie contrary and we know that the mother country, to which we look for guidance, protection and example, is contemplating a change. Therefore it cannot be for the want of political example that the hon. gentlemen who constitute His Majesty's government in Canada to-day and their supporters, sit quietly- and do not reply to the lengthy and complete argument advanced by the hon. member for Montreal. To my mind tiie question which occupies the attention of every man is the question of bow we can most rapidly develop Canada.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Hear, hear.


Adam Carr Bell: That is really the question which occupies the attention of every hon. member, and to which every hon. member would most willingly devote his attention. That being the case, it cannot he doubted that the proposition of my hon. friend from St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is one of the highest importance. It has to do, not only with our position to-day but with our position in the future. No one can doubt that the hon. member for St. Mary's has made a very wonderful plea for the adoption by this country of a protective policy. JVe have in Canada to-day a measure of protection, hut I think that the arguments advanced by the hon. member are exceedingly powerful and ought to convince the government that it is necessary they should take some steps in advance and decide on a fixed and determined policy. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) capitalists are looking to Canada as a field for investment, and it is eminently desirable that they should have the assurance that there is little or no chance of a reversal of the policy of protection, which assurance they would have if the government would accept this amendment. If you can present to the world the enormous natural advantages, the enormous fund of natural wealth which Canada specially possesses, if - you can also show that there has been adopted a policy which will guarantee to capital safe investment and sure return, we shall not have long to wait for the incoming of capital so necessary for the development of our country.
There can he no doubt at all that, so long as there is uncertainty, so long as there is a possibility of a change of course and a reversal of policy, foreign capital will look carefully before it makes investment in our country. But, with stability in that respect, with an understanding reached by the people of Canada that they looked upon protection as a wise course to follow, I am sure we should not have long to wait for the capital which, with population, is all that is required to make of Canada one of the wealthiest commonwealths in the world. The hon. member for St. Mary's division interested me very much in that portion of his speech in which he dealt with the economic history of the United States, and showed that the accumulation of wealth in that country amounts at this moment-if I understood his figures-to about $1,200 per head of the population. That wealth has

probably been created In something like a hundred years. Of course, a hundred years ago the United States had made some important beginning towards commercial advancement and national wealth, but that enormous wealth involved in the idea, of a country with 80,000,000 of people who have something like $6,000 or $7,000 per family has been created almost entirely within the last hundred years. In Canada, we have an area equal to that of the United States, resources as great and a population which, in its beginning is as promising and as well adapted to attain success in commercial pursuits. We have here wealth of every kind, and we have one particular form of wealth which will count in the immediate future. In the water powers of Canada we have wealth far surpassing anything of the same kind in the United States, an element of national wealth that will count for a great deal in the near future. Therefore, we have every condition which was possessed by the United States when they entered upon the career which they have pursued with such remarkable success up to the present time. Living beside them, separated geographic-all}7 only by an imaginery line, we find upon one side amazing advancement, enormous cities, the highest and most minute development of every form of industry. Why do we find on one side such marked advancement as to attract the attention of the whole civilized world, and, on the other side comparatively steady and, to a certain extent satisfactory, yet exceedingly slow progress as compared with the country on the other side of the international boundary ? There is only one thing that we can point to as a difference between the two countries, and that is that we in Canada have lived up to this time, and especially up to 1867, under a system of exceedingly low tariffs, not intended to develop industry, while, for nearly a hundred years, that is since 1809, the United States has been constantly and persistently pursuing a course of protection intended to develop in that country great lines of manufacturing industry. There is no other appreciable difference that I can at this moment think of that would account for the marked difference in the rate of progress between the people of the United States and the people of Canada. If we had adopted a protective system in this country ; if we had developed the older provinces of this country as quickly as we should have done under a protective system, We would have realized our destiny in the form of confederation much earlier than we did ; we would, at a much earlier day, have brought the whole northern part of America under one form of government; we would have anticipated our history as a people I believe, by a great many years. For, under our old ideas, say, for instance, in the province from which I come, we had not thought Mr. BELL.
whatever of using the tariff as a means of promoting industry. We had, up to 1857, or thereabouts, a simple tariff of 10 per cent, intended to provide for the government of the day the comparatively small sums sufficient for the public affairs of a community living in the comparatively primitive and undeveloped state in which we were then living. We were simply producers of raw material. Our trade was with flie United States to a large extent. We sent them our farm products as far as they would accept them, our fish and our plaster, and we received from them almost every item of manufacture that we used. The manufacture of the simplest form of wooden-ware was unknown in our province. It was not until, by the fortunate circumstance of the United States refusing to continue the operation of the old reciprocity treaty we were forced to enter upon a course of industry which, since that day, we have been pursuing with a certain amount of success. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the House ought to affirm the resolution which has been tendered by the hon. member for St. Mary's division. At the same time, I suppose we could not expect that to be done on the present occasion. We can scarcely expect the government to have made up its mind to accept that position. We know, on the other hand, that the government has chosen to take this attitude as expressed by the Minister of Finance in the course of his budget speech, they would prefer to regard the position in which they stand and have stood for the past year since the last budget speech was made, as one that they think ought to satisfy the manufacturers of the country. Because, to quote, not with verbal precision, but with fair accuracy, the statement made by the Minister of Finance, they wish to give to the manufacturers the idea that what is uppermost in the mind of tlje government of the day is stability-no change for the better, no change for the worse, no advancement, no retreat. As I understand them they chose to stand by the tariff as they gave it to the country in 1897, with certain small changes that have been made since that time. They choose to regard that as satisfactory for the time, and they are not prepared to meet with acceptance the very strong proposition made by the hon. gentleman from St. Mary's division, because it involves the adoption of a system of extreme protection, high protection. It involves the adoption of protection so high as to be adequate, sufficient to retain for the manufacturers of this country every part of the home market; and it would involve a tariff as high as that which the United States raised against our products. I suppose we cannot expect the government of the day to accept it. But, while I heard with great pleasure the argument made by the hon. member for St. Mary's division, I have additional satisfaction in noting that no attempt has been

made on the government side to rebut or meet his argument. I take it, therefore, that we may assume that there is a practical consensus of opinion in the House on this question of protection. We have not heard a single voice raised in support of the old free trade doctrine. We have not heard a word which would lead any one to believe that the government side of the House is occupied by a party which, only seven years ago declared that protection was a system that contained within itself the germs of destruction for any community that adopted it, that it was a system accursed, injurious, and one under which no community could expect to make progress. They said it could be described as legalized robbery, that its operation was the creation of combines, the creation of barons of wealth and industry on the one hand, and of the poor, degraded classes, the downtrodden classes, on the other. We have not heard lately one word of that language with which the country was familiar for many years. Therefore. Mr. Speaker, I suppose we may fairly assume that the party now occupying the government side of the House has abandoned their old position, and that we will hear nothing more of it in the future, either in this House or in the [DOT] country. That I would look upon as an exceedingly favourable omen to this Dominion, because I am satisfied from what I have seen and know of the conditions in our country and in other countries, in the mother country and in those rival nations which are contending with it for the trade of the world. I have seen, I say, sufficient to make an argument that is practically unanswerable, that under present conditions, and in face of the commercial war that is now being waged the world over by every nation that aims at attaining a leading position, there is one weapon that must be in every one's armoury, and that weapon is protection. Without the control and maintenance of the home market, no country can hope to attain to anything like success.
After fifty years, and those fifty years representing the dominance of a school which did not permit a public man to dare to question the correctness of the free trade theory, Great Britain, under the leadership of her foremost statesman, is at this moment apparently making up her mind that Imposition is in danger of being destroyed permanently if she stands by it. We see the evidence in that startling, that epochmaking speech delivered by the secretary for the colonies after his return from South Africa, a speech which startled every one as might a thunderclap coming from the clear sky, a speech that is being talked over, reasoned about, and the prediction is freely made now that within the course of two or three months, with such education as could be given by a reasonable campaign of education, the Right Hon. Mr. Chamberlain might hope to secure the support of the majority of the electors of Great Britain. That goes to show that facts are being forced upon the minds of tfie people of Great Britain that an adherence to the old doctrine of free trade means an inevitable decline and loss of their markets, the loss of their pre-eminence. Therefore if that be the case, if Great Britain is to be driven from the position which for fifty years she has held with such apparent triumphant success, driven to abandon the doctrine of free trade and to range herself with the other nations of the world under the banner of protection, then I say that the last example which can be quoted by any supporter of the free trade doctrine will be removed. Look over the world where you will, you will find that the secret of success for a country which aspires $>
eminence in industrial pursuits and all that tends to greatness in national life, is to use the weapons of commercial war in order to maintain the existence and maintain the progress which that nation may have realized. It is too late to-night, and it is not necessary, in view of the facts that arguments are not Being made at all from the government side of the House, to enter upon an argument in support of the protectionist theory. There can be no question that Great Britain achieved her success, and her position from which she could start out triumphantly upon a free trade course, by a system of protection of the most extreme character continuing for many centuries. There can be no question that by her protective system she displaced the Dutch, who up to that time had held the leading position in the commerce of the world. There can be no doubt that when France, Germany and the other nations of the world realized that Great Britain had become the great mercantile power of the world, and held a position they would like to occupy, they attacked her position by setting up in their respective domains a protective system which gives them their own market, and from the advantage ground of which they are able to attack Great Britain in the other markets of the world. There can be no question that protection is the only system that can be adopted by any country which wishes to develop in the direction of industrial greatness.
Now I am sure while we are delighted to know that in this country we have great natural advantages, and great agricultural possibilities, and great natural wealth, there is not a gentleman in this House who would deliberately choose for Canada a future in which the people were to be only producers of raw materials, were even to sup'ply wheat or meat, or fish for other countries, to be consumed in the great manufacturing centres by a teeming population gathered there by industrial activity. That is not a future we want to see for Canada. We want to see Canada building upon the basis of all

this natural wealth, of this enormous food supply, of her wonderful fisheries, of her great mass of raw material, her extensive waterways, her sources of coal-we want to see built upon that basis a great industrial community. We want to see her industries developed, we want to see our people, not employed in the humbler, and grosser, and more poorly remunerated vocations which are required in order to supply the raw material for other people, but we want to see them engaged in the most highly developed, the most difficult, the most technical pursuits that are anywhere in the world being pursued by men of whom we think ourselves at least the equals if not the superiors. Therefore it seems to me absolutely essential that if there be any cpgency or power in the case made here today by the hon. member for St. Mary's, we ought either to controvert it or to assent to it. If we cannot controvert it, then I say it is our duty to agree with his proposition, to make it perfectly plain and unmistakable to the people of Canada and to the world generally, that for our part we have chosen that better course which is involved in adopting once for all the policy of protection, of such a character, so far-developed, as to be adequate, sufficient to effect the purpose for which it is intended, namely, to protect the industries of Canada and keep the market of Canada for Canadians.
Mi-. S. E. GOURLEY (Colchester). Mr. Speaker, I do not often intrude in the debates of this parliament, but I must do so for a few minutes this evening. There is in my county a great iron industry, which is now slowly reviving. That industry in 1896, when hon. gentlemen opposite came into power, was in a fairly flourishing condition. But these gentlemen delayed tfieir iron policy so long-they did not announce it for a year and a half or two years-that the industry expired, while this company of business physicians stood by the bedside. That industry went down in the county of Colchester, and the whole country has been suffering from that misfortune to the present day. An English company invested some 82,000,000 in endeavouring to establish an industry to make iron in Nova Scotia. It was started some twenty-five years ago. If that iron industry had been successful, it would be today in a highly developed state. But unfortunately, while the Conservative party were in power, even they did not deal with it in the strong and masterful way in which they should have dealt with it ; because at times they stood timorous before the free trade talk and doctrines of the Liberal opposition. If they had taken the iron industry strongly in hand and adopted the doctrine, of protection wisely, that industry would have survived, and these gentlemen would not have been in a position Mr. BELL.
when they came into power to strike it down, as they did strike down that industry in the county of Colchester ; causing infinite loss to hundreds of people. Hundreds of people were driven ou t of Nova Scotia, as a result of the loss they sustained. This large manufacturing industry in the centre of the county of Colchester gave a splendid market to the surrounding farmers. A town of 2,000 or 3,000 people grew up, and it purchased the produce of the farmers, in the surrounding country. Well, that industry was striken down, and within a year the whole town was deserted. The houses were closed up, the windows were barred, and the people drifted to the United Stages, and scattered in every direction. That industry was taken in hand by a number of Montreal capitalists last fall who bought an investment by Englishmen of $2,000,000 for $350,000. Under these circumstances, they undertake, in the face of the vacillating policy of the government to put the industry upon its feet and in doing that they have to take chances that the government of this country will adopt a proper iron policy. But, imagine the position of the iron industry of Nova Scotia when these English capitalists sank $2,000,000 and only secured $350,000 out of it. Today, however, that industry is about to start, and I want to say to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, if he asks for forgiveness, from the county of Colchester for his conduct, I will guarantee him absolution to-night upon his sincerely undertaking to change his whole iron policy. He must become a true penitent, however, because my church permits no absolution to its members until they are truly penitent. If the hon. gentleman shows that he has become truly penitent, and if he shows a disposition to adopt such measures as will establish that industry at Londonderry, I will ask the Conservative party to give him absolution.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman says that the industry is going to start as things are, without getting any assistance.


Mr. GOURLEY.: It is commencing to start, but the gentlemen who have had their capital invested, for three or four months, were here the other day before the door of the hon. minister, on their knees beseeching, him to save their capital.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They are going to start. I can give the hon. gentleman the assurance that they are going right on now.


Mr. OSLER.: It is a very important statement, that the hon. minister has made, that they are going on now.
' The MINISTER OF FINANCE. I was assured by a gentleman connected with the enterprise that they are going on now and that they are going to conduct vigorous

operations under the present policy. As I say my information comes from a gentleman connected with the enterprise.
Mr. GOUItLEY. They were here the other day to see the hon. gentleman. I am glad that they have given the hon. gentleman the assurance that they will go on, because I infer from that statement, that the hon. minister must have assured them of a change of policy.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman is mistaken.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: It will he all the worse for the hon. gentleman, if I am mistaken.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is going on.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I will undertake to say that no iron industry can loug survive under the present policy of the government. I will undertake to assure the hon. minister that the iron industry which the hon. gentleman has made his special pet at Sydney is about to go into the hands of a receiver.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: I think it is very improper for any hon. gentleman in this House to make a statement that is absolutely and entirely unwarranted by the facts.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And most damaging.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I would be sorry to say anything that would injure these gentlemen, but I,am giving the House what is the current report amongst the people.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Order.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I cannot accept the statement of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston, Cape Breton) because he is not a director of the company and he cannot know anything of the business management of the company. I cannot accept his statement although, if I should make a statement that would in any way injure the company, I should be sorry for it.


Alexander Johnston: As I understand the hon. gentleman, he says that he Is prepared to make the statement on the authority of a director of the company that the affairs of the company are about to pass into the hands of a receiver.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I have made no such statement, but the hon, gentleman, not being a director or a member of the company, cannot know anything of the management of the company.


Alexander Johnston: There is no intention on the part of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, to which no doubt the hon. gentleman refers, to place its business in the hands of a receiver.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: There may be no intention on the part of the company to place
their business in the hands of a receiver ; but the courts have power to place the business of the company in the hands of a receiver when they are unable to pay their debts.


The MINISTER.: |OF FINANCE. Are they unable to pay their debts ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am not aware of it. I can only take general rumour, and I think they are not. I say in all deference to hon. gentlemen opposite that the reports you hear on the streets are generally to be depended upon because as a rule, on financial affairs, they turn out to be pretty correct. I would be delighted to know that the surmise is incorrect, because during my whole life, and every platform from which I have spoken, I have stood by the industries and reputation of Canada ; and in that respect hon. gentlemen opposite are in an invidious position compared with any hon. member on this side of the House. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) thought that he noticed repentenoe on* th part of the hon. Minister of Finance in the fact that no member on the government side of the House had spoken in this debate. I took a different view. I was watching the face of the hon. minister, and I saw a grim determination and sullen defiance depicted thereon, which could not be overcome by any logic or argument from our side of the House. I am sorry, because I had hoped that the hon. minister had come to the conclusion that the policy which he has been pursuing should be changed. I want to thank the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) for the magnificent argumentative address which he has made to-day. He has made a speech which will live in the annals of Canada as one of the strongest argumentative addresses which was ever made in this House. Distinguished as it was by sound doctrine and by a recognition of the fact that Canada has arrived at the position which places her amongst the dominant nations of the earth. The name of that hon. gentleman who has thus distinguished himself, will live amongst those of the great Canadian statesmen who have, in great emergencies, done what is right. I am giving him to-night only the meed of praise to whieh he is entitled. He has followed the injunction of Holy Writ,
' Come ye out from among them, and ye will be blessed, and be ye separate.'
I will venture to say that the author of that fiat is now looking down and blessing the member for St. Mary's, who is preparing a fine measure of punishment for the gentlemen who turned out the brains, and the leadership, and the liberality of the cabinet from its charmed circle. Having listened to the hon. member for St. Mary's division of Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) I can easily understand why the other gentlemen in the cabinet could not feel comfortable in the

presence of the liberality and the breadth of mind possessed by that lion, gentleman.
Some three years ago, when we were running the general elections in Canada, X had the strongest notion that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was not a good and loyal citizen of this empire.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It was the common opinion on your side then.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am an Imperialist, believing that there is no country on earth that has the charm for an intelligent and healthy man that Canada possesses, and believing that no people in this country should be as true to the empire as the race to which the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) belongs, I read with dismay the speeches which he made in Paris, and I refuted them on everj* platform in the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: But his patriotic course since he left the cabinet has enabled me to forget all that, and I will now' give him my blessing.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Give me absolution.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Yes, I will give you absolution because I believe that you are truly penitent. And further, since I have watched the later career of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte), I believe now that evil associations were at the bottom of the speeches which he made in Paris. Since he has left the cabinet, and his bad associates ; behold the splendid speech which he has made to-night.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I understood there is an unwritten rule of parliament that a member should serve three years before he is competent to indulge at any length in the public debates of this House ; and as I was bred in a trade that believes in precedence, I bowed to that rule, and governed myself accordingly. But while I have been sitting here I have been watching the faces of the ministers, and endeavouring to draw inferences, and from my observations I had hoped that the right hon. the Prime Minister would be strong enough some day to state that he would no longer attempt to delude the people of Canada with free trade doctrines ; but that he would adopt a generous policy of protection which would be in the interest of this Dominion. I am free to declare that a policy which would suit England may not be suited to Canada, because this is a new country and we have to meet new conditions, and even if it wrsre wise to have free trade in England, I would argue as a logical conclusion that we ought to have protection on the American continent. The actual conditions must prevail Mr. GOURLEY.
to settle the fiscal values of this country, and we cannot be guided by the old world views, which may suit France or Germany or England. Speaking of auguries, I notice a very extraordinary augury in the course of this debate. The hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) occupied the Chair for a few minutes and this accidental fact impressed upon my mind that there might be something in auguries. You will recollect the splendid speeches which the hon. gentleman made on protection in West York a year ago. You will notice that, judging by his speech of last year, he did not convert himself to the doctrine of protection, while labouring to convert the electors of West York to that doctrine, which is one of the most extraordinary things I ever knew in the world. The hon. gentleman went through the constituency of West York making protection speeches, and preaching protection for the market gardeners. I believe that the only man in the whole constituency who was not converted by his speeches was the hon. member himself, because while his constituency sent him here as a protectionist he got up last night and voted free trade. If we were to apply a biblical illustration it mght be said : this sower sowed good seed, in some instances on stony ground-for example in, the mind of the member for West York. He also sowed good Conservative seed among the electors of the constituency of West York, and it grew and produced a splendid crop of protectionist sentiment, for it fell upon good soil.


William Ross: With the last rain.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: If the rain helped the protestionists of West York it did not help the member for West York or the protectionists of the cabinet, because they refused to protect the market gardeners. Now, Sir, speaking again of our iron industry in Colchester county, I will deal with it from a local standpoint in order to illustrate a general principle. I will undertake to say to you gentlemen that it is impossible for us in this country, and it is impossible for this government to apply a principle to the workmen of Colchester county that is only applicable to the workmen of England. The mechanics of Colchester county are educated men. They live in nice houses; many of them in the town of Truro hold schools at night and teach their neighbours' children free-hand drawing and other subjects of learning. Indeed, I might say that the members of the cabinet could not turn their spare time to better account than to go to these schools taught by the mechanics of Truro, and I will venture to say that they will come back more liberal minded statesmen than they are to-day.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Do they teach cabinet making ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: We have adopted in this country a system of free schools; we make

our mechanics educated men; we give them the tastes of scholars and students, and let me ask: are you going to introduce a fiscal system into this country that will give to such educated mechanics the same wages as are paid to the ignorant mechanics of France and Germany and England ? No, you must adopt a policy that is suitable to the conditions of this country. I often visit the homes of the mechanics in Truro and there you will see the mechanic's daughter playing the piano, or his son playing the violin. Everywhere there is evidence of the highest refinement ; a refinement that you perhaps may not find in the drawing rooms of the Peer of England, much less in the homes of the English mechanics.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) And all under a Liberal government.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am enforcing the principle of protection to our industries, a principle that has been enforced by the most competent and most capable men of the United States. The difficulties we are meeting in Canada to-day were met and overcome years ago in the United States by men like Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. I venture to say that the words of these men have demolished for ever on this continent, any sound argument in support of free trade. Daniel Webster very truly said : Can you compare the educated American [DOT] artisan to the ignorant dunce and the besotted workmen of some manufacturing towns in England, Germany or France. If you cannot do that, then we must adopt on this continent a policy that will suit our conditions and give our workingmen higher wages. I will undertake to say that the mechanics of this country are organizing ; they are getting educated leaders, and if you attempt to give them the small wage of $1.10 or $1.50 a day, you are making a great mistake. We must endeavour to educate the manufacturers of this country up to the point of paying to educated mechanics such wages as will give their families an education suitable to their style of life. Therefore we must have protection for our industries in order that the cheap goods of Germany and England shall be shut out. Our manufacturers, if they are compelled to pay high wages, must get good prices for their goods and be protected from the slaughtered goods of the countries that employ cheap labour. That is a doctrine which these hon. gentlemen do not seem to understand. I tell you that the mechanics of the maritime provinces are holding meetings and discussing this question, and they demand from $2 to $2.50 per day for ordinary mechanics as a minimum wage. When you discuss the question from the standpoint of the educated mechanic, recognizing that every boy and every girl must be educated, and that every home is a home' of refinement, you upset all the arguments drawn from the free trade system of
England, because they are based upon conditions of ignorance and want which I hope will never be present in Canada. You must grapple with this question as the educated men of the United States grappled with it; and when the intelligent and logical people of that country, although originally free traders, became indoctrinated with the idea that a new principle must be applied to the continent of America, they applied it to the United States, as we must apply it to Canada, or we shall ,fail in the race of development. That is the genesis of the whole question of free trade and protection on this continent. Therefore I do not feel overwhelmed when the hon. gentleman referred me to Free Trade England. I ask them to discuss the question from the standpoint of America. The conditions of life on this account are different from those of any country in Europe. We must deal with the matter according to the -conditions as we find them ; and when we find a great commercial nation like the United States, a country more filled with universities and schools, with classical, mathematical and technical education, than almost all the world beside-when we find an astute people like that adopting wholesale the principle of protection, does it not seem a folly for a gentleman like the hon. Minister of Finance, who knows nothing practically about free trade and protection, who knows nothing practically about manufacturing or the conditions of trade, to ask us to accept the policy of free trade ? When he does so he adds neither light nor argument to the subject.
I want to thank the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) for the splendid address he made. I think it was a splendid augury-I am a bit superstitious to-night- when Quebec joined hands with Ontario in establishing this new policy of protection, and when an hon. gentleman who left the cabinet, and made the most extraordinary sacrifices that a man can make-if you regard the throwing up of a high office for principle as a sacrifice-joined hands with the hon. member for Centre Toronto. I thought it was a splendid illustration of what was to come hereafter, when public men in this country would agree to throw away mere partisanship whenever the interests of the country were at stake. So far as I am concerned-I presume this will fall on very stony hearts opposite-no party will lead me ten minutes when the interests of the country and the interests of my party conflict; but the Conservative party is led so wisely and has such splendid traditions that it is impossible for such a condition of affairs ever to occur.
Hon. WILLIAM ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Mr. Speaker, I have considerable sympathy with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) who I think has forgotten his eloquence to-night in trying to belittle the

condition of England, the greatest nation on the earth. He is no true Canadian who would attempt to belittle that country, whose ships go to every part of the world, laden with its productions, and carrying civilization to every place where they go, and that under free trade. It is not right to compare the United States with England; but compare any of the old nations of the continent of Europe with England, and you will see that England under free trade outstrips them all in her power and her manufactures. It is a solid fact that there is manufactured in England to-day double the quantity of cotton that is manufactured in the United States.	,


Mr. CHANCY.: The hon. gentleman is making the comparison now himself.


William Ross: When I am done speaking, the hon. gentleman may have a chance of making his speech. I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. friend on my right (Hon. Mr. Tarte). There was nothing too bad for hon. gentlemen opposite to say about that hon. gentleman while he was supporting the present government. The men in the opposition were then grinding their teeth with hatred and malice against my hon. friend. There was no word too low or too base for them to say about him. Now they have swallowed all the dirt and everything they have said. They are all ready to clasp him in their arms and kiss him, and say, come over to us. What position will he be in when he goes over there ? I would not think my hon. friend would occupy any other position than that of leader of the Tory party in the province of Quebec; and then he will overshadow my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) because it will not do for my hon. friend to occupy a low, mean position. He must be at the head of all of them, or otherwise, with his progressive mind, he will not live; because he must rule or he cannot live at all. Now, I was afraid that the prospects of his getting a seat in a Midland county of England was very much injured by the speech he made to-night, in belittling that great country in comparison with the United States. He spoke about the United States being the greatest protective country in the world. The United States is the greatest free trade country in the world, because it has the trade of 80,000,000 people within its own borders. Of course, we had a good many quotations made by my hon. friend. He went back to the Duke of Wellington. Well, the Duke of Wellington was a great general, and we were always proud of his triumphs. But when he came to be the leader of a great political party in Great Britain, he was a great failure; he was a disgrace to the country he came from, Ireland.
I read this winter correspondence of the great Daniel O'Connell, and I formed my own opinion of the conduct of the Duke of Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria).
Wellington long ago. I must say, that, in my opinion, anything quoted from him could not be of much importance to us in this country. The hon. gentleman spoke of Daniel Webster. I used to be an admirer of Mr. Webster myself, but, like the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley), he made mistakes in his day. Fifty years ago, in a speech in Boston and at the Senate in Washington, the great Daniel Webster strongly opposed the spending of a cent of money on the west side of the great Missouri river, now so rich in states and cities. This is what he said :
That the country west of the Missouri was a vast wilderness and a region of savages and wild beasts, of deserts, shifting sands and whirlwinds of dust, of cactus and prairie dogs. ' To what use,' exclaimed the great statesman on the floor of the United States Senate, ' could we ever hope to put these great deserts in those endless mountain ranges, impregnable and covered to their base with eternal snow V
So that the great Daniel Webster was mistaken in a great many of his opinions.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Are you sure that it is not from a speech of the Hon. Edward Blake with regard to the North-west territory you are quoting ?


William Ross: No it is not. Let me give the hon. gentleman a quotation from a speech delivered by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) :
I consider the argument of free trade unanswerable. I believe that the moment Canada took a liberal step in the direction of free trade, it will go a long way to place her on the road to the greatest prosperity. The reason why I consider Canada should turn about and adopt a free trade policy is that we might free ourselves from the dominating influences of the United States and on account of the failure of the national policy, because of the startling revelations of the census of 1889.
I think that the hon. member for Pictou must have spoken in a serious and sensible moment when he uttered those words, and has been astray ever since. He asked me the other day how I could sit on this side and listen to speeches from government supporters, which might savour a. little too much of protection according to my idea. But I said to him:	Where
would I go ? Certainly not to your side of the House. I hope that when the hon. Minister of Finance brings down any changes to the present tariff, they will be in the direction of lower rates than those we have now. I think that we can carry on the government of this country and carry it on prosperously with a lower tariff, which will be a blessing to this country. My hon. friend on my right (Hon. Mr. Tarte) did justice to the hon. Minister of Finance when he said that the hon. minister understood political economy and read it. Well, I am glad that he does, and I trust he will be firm in protesting against all the influences

which are brought to bear upon him to make the tariff higher. X was amused to read the account of his meeting a delegation of the manufacturers. He wanted them to state what they wanted and they were not able. They said they would do it in secret, hut not in public. On the heel of their visit came the good sensible, honest farmers of the Dominion in a delegation to protest against the raising of the tariff. These were honourable people, and I am glad that there is a majority of such men in the Dominion. I am glad also that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance had the firmness to oppose all these influences to make him change his policy, and I hope, for the good of the country and the blessing of the Dominion, that when any change takes place it will be in the direction of lowering rather than of highering the tariff. His position to my mind reminds me of that Fitz James' contest with Roderick Dhu :
His back against the rack he bore,
He firmly set his foot before ;
Come one, come all, this rock shall fly
From its firm base as soon as I.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I cannot help congratulating the government on their showing some little sense. They have to-night evidently thrown the net over the majority of their followers, they have taken warning by the exhibition we had last night, and have been careful that not one of their followers shall get up unless it is absolutely necessary. We have had a magnificent free trade speech just now. I admire the hon. gentleman who has sat down, because he has the courage of his convictions. He says straight out and squarely that he is for free trade and wants a lower tariff. X wish there were more like him on the government side, because the country then would very quickly come to a conclusion. It is very refreshing to find a man on the opposite side who comes straight out and talks as he feels. I congratulate the hon. gentleman. One of his colleagues-I thought he was the last free trader-the government made a senator of, but there is one more free trader left, and I hope that before long he may be elevated to a softer seat and more genial chamber than the one we are now in.


William Ross: I want to be here to record my vote against the other side every time.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It is indeed refreshing to find an hon. gentleman opposite who votes as he thinks. That is an exception which was lacking last night. But what I rose particularly to say was to express my entire approval of the amendment. I agree with it so much that even if it had been proposed by the hon. Minister of Finance and if my hon. friends on this side voted against it, I would still support it. There are two great questions before the public, 155
in comparison with which all the others are absolutely insignificant. Those are the questions of transportation and protection to our industries. They cannot be disassociated.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Hear, hear.


Edmund Boyd Osler: We must have protection if we are going to be anything more than an agricultural country. What agricultural country ever made a name for itself in the world ? I know of none. Unless we have large factories, our brightest young men the best sons of our farmers, who want to go to the cities in order to find an outlet for their energies will, if we have not manufacturing industries, go to the States.
The other question is the question of transportation. Granted protection, it follows as a matter of necessity that we must carry our goods to the market for those goods. We are preparing to expend, and are expending, large sums of money in improving our transportation facilities. I think the hon. member who proposed this resolution probably forgot that we have the promise of the government that the transportation question shall be put in the hands of a very able, a first class commission, and the question is to be solved without any delay and without any doubt. It is quite true that, before these able gentlemen are to have possession of the question, the government wish to dispose of two or three small matters that might embarrass this commission. For instance, they propose, before this commission is appointed and before the government have the benefit of the commission's advice, to give away $3,000,000 to Montreal harbour. That is a trifling matter, and the commission would have nothing to say as to what is to be done with that money. It is time that our interests are considerably bound up with our connection with the North-west. There is the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme, involving about 2,000 or 2,500 miles of railway, which is to be bonused by the government to an enormous extent. That is another trifle which the government wish to have disposed of and out of the way before they ask their big commissioners to report on the question of transportation. Then, there is the Canadian Northern, a matter of eight [DOT] or nine hundred miles of railway, in the same condition. But, when these inconsiderable things are disposed of, the government are going to have the commission look into the transportation question. I think the hon. member for St. Mary's must have forgotten that the government are going to carry out so thorough a transportation scheme-after these trifles are disposed of. However, I only wished to say that I support thoroughly and entirely the resolution that is proposed, believing that it is in the true interest of Canada and that without some such policy Canada can never gain the standing to which she is entitled by
t



her position, her wealth and her natural resources.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the question is put, I wish to say a few words, and 1 promise the House 1 shall not detain them more than a few minutes. The resolution proposed by the hon. member for St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte) while somewhat more elaborate in its terms, is to all intents and purposes the same in purport as that proposed to the House by myself during the present session, and the same in purport as those 1 had the honour to propose during last session, and the session of 1901. The hon. member for St. Mary's has supported this resolution with a very able and very exhaustive speech, and he has given to the House and the country two object lessons at least in connection with this matter. In the first place, he has taken the ground that the agricultural interest of this country is of greater importance to the country as a whole than any other, and he has directed the attention of the House to the result fipon the agricultural industry of Great Britain of the policy of free trade which has been maintained there for the last fifty years. He has pointed out-or if he did not, lie might have done so-how much more fatal to the agricultural industry of this country a policy of free trade would be than to the same industry in the mother country. Because while Great Britain has been mainly a manufacturing country, she did have agricultural resources to a very considerable extent, and formerly those resources were developed under different conditions to such an extent that they were almost of as much importance as the manufacturing industry. The hon. gentleman might have shown, as I have said, that if free trade is ruinous to agriculture in Great Britain it would be infinitely more runious to this country. We are competitors with the United States in the sale of agricultural products in the markets of Europe. And we must always be so. The United States may possibly, as years roll on, find more and more a home market for their agricultural products, but they must always to some extent, look to Europe. Our competition with the United States is carried on under very peculiar conditions. Not only are the manufacturing industries of that country coming under the control of great trusts and combines, but the agricultural industry -or, at least the agricultural output-of the United States is largely coming under the control of great combines which control prices not only in the United States but throughout the world's markets. Look at the condition with regard to the iron industry to-day. The United States, with its enormous output of iron and steel controls through its combines, the output for export from Germany as well, and, in that


Edmund Boyd Osler: way, dictates the prices of iron and steel to the world. If free trade has been so injurious to the agricultural industry of the mother country I think the hon. member for St. Mary's division put it none too strongly when he pointed out how a similar policy in this country must be fatal to the agricultural industry here. Let us consider for a moment what the effect would be if we threw down our tariff wall and admitted the agricultural products of the United States on the same terms as those products are admitted into the mother country. Can any one doubt that great combines that control food products and agricultural products in the United States would bring about a condition of affairs under which our farmers would contend on mdst unequal terms with those of the United States ? So far as that is concerned, the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has, by his able and exhaustive argument, taught a lesson to the people of this country as to the necessity, not only to the manufacturing industries but to the agricultural industry, of a measure of protection.
Then, the hon. gentleman pointed out the results of a protective policy in the United States upon the manufacturing industries of that country. He pointed out that in many manufacturing industi'ies the United States had not only overtaken but surpassed the mother country. And, in answer to my hon. friend from Victoria, N.S. (Hon. Mr. Ross), I would point out that this question is assuming very important dimensions in the mother country, and that every day is adding to the acuteness of the situation as bringing more and more attention to the question whether free trade shall be maintained in Great Britain or whether England shall attempt to stem the torrent of competition throughout the world by some measure of protection to her industries.
Now I would call the policy which the hon. gentleman has advocated to-night, and which we on this side have advocated in the past, a policy of national commercial self-defence for Canada. That is what it is, nothing more and nothing less. We remember in the old days of fifty years ago, when the volunteer movement was first agitated in Great Britain, the motto of the English volunteer was ' Defence not defiance.' So it is in commercial matters in Canada to-day. We are face to face with high tariffs, with policies of protection prevailing in every country in the world ; and the question is whether we shall adopt in Canada that policy which is so well outlined in the resolution of my hon. friend for St. Mary's, and which I think we might well call a policy of national commercial selfdefence for Canada. If we do not adopt it, where are we to stand ? Are we to stand alone in the world in allowing our markets to be open to foreign competition to such an extent that our own industries will be

destroyed ? Outside of England there is nothing like our position among all the nations of the world.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the government might well have made some pronouncement to-night. It is true that the Minister of Finance made a pronouncement earlier in the session, and if I might be permitted briefly to refer to it, it amounts to this, that our industries are so prosperous in Canada, our warehouses so full and overflowing, that there is not the slightest need for a revision of the tariff. Well, I think some incidents that have taken place during the past few months have perhaps taken away something of the weight which the utterances of the Minister of Finance possessed at the time. The hon. gentleman told us that no capitalist was deterred from investing money in Canada by reason of the uncertainty of the fiscal policy of the government. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance would be so confident about that to-day, and I am not sure that if he were very frank with the House, he would jot be able to tell us that certain assurances have been required, at least, whether they have been given or not, before further capital will be invested in some of the great industries in Canada which hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House are most anxious to maintain in this country. Now let us look for a moment at the resolution of my hon. friend from St. Mary's. He declares :
That it is the bounden and imperative duty of the government to revise and readjust, without any further delay, the present tariff in such a manner as to leave no doubt as to the determination of the Canadian people to adopt and maintain a fiscal policy adequately and firmly protective of the large national interests at stake.
Now that is a pretty definite statement, it seems to me. It may be characterized by the Minister of Finance as being vague.
I do not know whether he would ask his followers to vote it down because it is too vague, or because it is inopportune, or on what other ground. But I venture to say that no hon. gentleman on the other side of the House can stand up in his place and give any adequate reason why there should not be a declared and pronounced policy in Canada to the effect stated in the resolution. At least, no hon. gentleman on the other side of the House has seen fit to do so, if I may put aside for a moment the somewhat general utterances of the hon. member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Ross), whose courage and sincerity, and whose convictions, I am sure, we all admire. But if my hon. friend the Minister of Finance and the government think that by sitting silent and refusing to discuss these motions, they are going to better their position in the country, I am inclined to think they will find themselves somewhat mistaken. They will have to answer these matters sooner or later in the end, and there will come a time when
155 i
they cannot sit dumb in their seats and say nothing about motions of this kind proposed to the House. That time may not be very far off. What are the reasons, what are the grounds, advanced in the resolution of my hon. friend ?
To assure the permanency and the further progress of the existing industries, as well as the creation of many new ones that only -wait the proper policy to spring up ; to inspire greater confidence in Canadian, British and foreign capital seeking investment in our own country.
I ask hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House whether we cannot look around Canada to-day and observe in the condition of certain industries the best possible ground for my hon. friend from St. Mary's proposing this resolution to the House, and supporting it by the arguments we have heard ? Then he proceeds :
To secure for the farmers now tilling our soil and those that we invite to share the blessings of our institutions and the wealth that Providence has placed at our disposal, the full advantage of a prosperous home market.
My hon. friend has put his grounds with regard to that so well that it is not necessary for me to amplify them, except possibly by one illustration. Would it be better or worse for the farmers of this country if we were to throw down our tariff walls, and if the great industries which are being built up, and which should be built up in the future, were built up in the United States of America ? Would it be better or worse for Canada that that should happen ? The articles which are required in Canada for use by our workingmen and by our farmers, are articles that we can manufacture in Canada ; and will anv hon. gentleman in this House, in his sane moments, say that it is not better for Canada to have the cities and centres of industry in our own country, and to supply these articles for our own people, by our own workmen, by means of our own capital? Well, that is what my hon. friend from St. Mary's proposes by this resolution, and bv the reasons which I have just adduced. The hon. gentleman points out that so far as the farmers are concerned it is better for them to have the centres of industry in our own country, because the creation of these centres of industry affords to the people a prosperous home market. Then he goes on further and he advances another reason :
To comply with the legitimate desire of the working classes to see their labour rewarded by fair and uninterrupted wages, and by comfort in their families.
That is a ground which has been taken before in this House, a ground which I myself have taken, when I pointed out, during previous sessions, the fact that the conditions of life in Canada among the labouring classes are different from those which prevail in many countries whose

goods enter into competition with our own. We know that the workmen of the continent of Europe and of some of the Southern states of the neighbouring republic do not live under the same conditions, do not have the same standard of living as that to which the people of our own country are accustomed. We cannot expect that the manufacturing industries of this country can be maintained unless they are protected by a tariff which is as much for the advantage of the workingmen who are employed in our factories and industries as it is for the advantage of the man who puts capital into these industries.
To render impossible the slaughtering ot our markets by the products of foreign industries, of foreign combines, of foreign agriculture and of cheap labour countries.
This is carrying out the idea so many times advanced in this House, that while we can deal with combines in Canada by our own legislation-and we have attempted to deal with them by legislation introduced by this government-legislation of that kind is only useful against foreign combines so long as we have an adequate protective tariff, because when you once throw down the tariff wall you admit the combine to do in Canada exactly what it is doing iu the United States, or in any other country. Yon can only guard adequately against the influence of foreign combines by giving proper protection to your home industries, and unless you do that, you will have the industries of this country, and what is more, the consumers of this country, placed at the mercy of such combines, whose effects are well known, and have been commented upon over and over again by writers on political economy in the United States of America. Then my hon. friend continues :
To bring about a quicker development and a more rapid expansion of our vast resources.
I will not pause to discuss that point. And as his last reason :
To promote closer commercial relations between the different provinces of the Dominion and between this Dominion and the mother country.
Then, in regard to that and especially iu regard to that, my hon. friend has concluded his resolution in these words :
And also to carry out an energetic transportation policy which will give to our merchandise and products of all kinds commodious, quick and cheap access to the markets of our country and to those of foreign nations trading with us.
There is this peculiarity in our situation that the portion of Canada which is more particularly inhabited is what might be called relatively a narrow strip lying for 4.000 miles alongside of tbe United States of America, and while that gives an opportunity to the merchants and manufacturers of the United States to seek Canadian markets it is very difficult for the people in the east and the people in the west of


Robert Laird Borden: I	_
Canada to have that communication between tbe different parts of this country which is essential if Canada is to become a great and united nation. My hon. friend points out that to promote closer relations between tbe different provinces of the Dominion and between this Dominion and the mother country it is not only necessary that we should have a tariff adequately and firmly protective of our national industries, but that we should have these transportation facilities which are necessary not only to enable us to send our products to the chief markets in Europe, but also to secure the advantage of the home market by enabling the products of the west and the manufactures of the east to be easily and cheaply exchanged the one for the other. That is the object and the spirit of my hon. friend's resolution as I understand it, and I do not think there is any thinking man in Canada or in this House who does not thoroughly concur in tlie spirit of the resolution, although hon. gentlemen in this House may vote down this resolution to-night. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is necessary that that particular part of the resolution should be carried out. It is necessary if we are to have transportation facilities, such as my hon. friend has said in this resolution are desirable and necessary, that this government shall come down to the House at once with some broad, well-thought-out and comprehensive scheme of transportation and not come to this House with a subsidy here or a charter there without any comprehensive scheme taking this matter'up bit by bit: not letting the House know when the charter is passed whether or not the company to which the charter is being granted is to receive a subsidy ; giving aid to 600 miles of railway without telling the House whether or not the scheme of the government includes aid for that railway to the Pacific coast, and not telling the House what is their scheme for transportation from Fort William, or Port Arthur, to the Atlantic ports. It is all very well for this government to come to the House and say "that this is simply 600 miles of railway, that it stands alone and must be dealt with alone. So far as the promoters of the railway are concerned that may be all very well, but so far as the interests of this country in regard to transportation are concerned. I most emphatically deny that it can stand alone. You must have one great transportation policy for this country and this government should do one of two things: they should either hold their hands until they are able to announce that policy to the country or they should come down and announce that policy, while we are dealing with these matters during this session. Therefore, I say it ill-becomes members of the government to sit still in their places when matters of this character are being discussed by hon. gentlemen with ability in this House. It ill becomes them

to sit still in their places and simply call upon their followers to vote down motions against the soundness of which no plausible argument can be adduced by hon. gentlemen opposite. W*e have listened to speech after speech advocating the views so ably set out in the resolution of my hon. friend, but we have not had one hon. gentleman on the treasury benches who has deigned to open his lips even to say a word about this question of transportation. Every hon. gentleman in this House and all thinking men in this country know that no question is engaging the attention of the people more fully at the present time than the policy of transportation advocated by my hon. friend and listened to by a mute government on the treasury benches to-night. Now, I did not intend to detain the House at this length when I rose to my feet. I was not iu the expectation of finding it necessary to say anything on this resolution, because 1 had taken the opportunity of explaining my views pretty freely in the opening part of this session, but having regard to the fact that not one member of the government has seen fit to say one word about this all important question, I thought it my duty not to give a silent vote but to rise and say what I have said in support of my hon. friend and in support of the resolution which he has so ably advocated in this House, and to say that I for one will take the greatest possible pleasure in voting for it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted first to refer to the last observations of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) on the question of transportation, I would desire to say that it is quite possible for us to use empty words and neglect the question of transportation. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen to speak of the great question of transportation in respect to some broad and general policy, but none of these empty phrases means anything to the business men of this country. While some hon. gentlemen are content to talk about transportation the government are acting in the matter of transportation, and we propose to go on acting in spite of my hon. friend's statement that unless some broad, general transportation policy is brought down we should not deal in a piecemeal way with it. We propose to go on dealing, if necessary, with these things in a piecemeal way, if by doing so we promote the interests of the country. If it is necessary in order to develop the western country to build 600 miles of railway, we are rea'dy to deal with the transportation question in this practical way to meet the requirements of that new and important territory. If it is necessary to aid the harbour of Montreal, which is the chief port of Canada, we bring forward a policy to advance the money to assist the commissioners at the port of Montreal in
doing what is required. That is practically transportation work. Hon. gentlemen can talk of transportation, but, as the need arises, whether it is in the far west or at the port of Montreal or in the maritime provinces, each of these duties as it arises will be met day by day, and we will work for transportation while some hon. gentlemen are content to talk about it. I trust that my hon. friend from St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) will not think it was a discourtesy on our part that we have failed to follow him through his somewhat lengthy address of this evening. For reasons which we think are good, and some of which I will venture to mention, we did not deem such a course necessary. My hon. friend's speech, which was quite full of information, was to a large extent what I might call an academic discussion on the question of free trade and protection. And it was not so much a discussion of free trade and protection in Canada as a discussion of free trade and protection in England, with which at the present moment I am not sure that the Canadian parliament has a great deal to do. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) seemed to congratulate himself upon the idea that the cause of protection was making vast progress in England. Well, I think he was a little hasty in that. Has the hon. gentleman forgotten that only a few days ago when the question of the corn duties came up in the British parliament, only twenty-eight members were found to be in favour of these duties ? My hon. friend will hardly find in that a vindication of his view, that England is running away from free trade. And even the more moderate and more comprehensive policy of Mr. Chamberlain, which has our sympathy, because he is following the Canadian policy-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is recognized in England to-day that the line that Mr. Chamberlain is taking is the outcome of the policy of Canada, and therefore what Mr. Chamberlain is doing is precisely what we have been doing for seven years in this Dominion. But even that more moderate and more comprehensive policy of Mr. Chamberlain is only meeting with a moderate degree of support at present. ( My sympathies are with that right hon. gentleman, and I trust he may go ahead and that his movement may make progress; but there is no use in our pretending to-day that England is accepting Mr. Chaplin's ideas on the corn duties, or even the larger and grander ideas of Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Chamberlain is going to have an uphill fight before he accomplishes his object. Our hearts go out to him, but at the same time let" us not shut our eyes to the fact that he is encountering a great measure of hostility and that he is not going to win in a moment. There is no reason therefore why we should

occupy ourselves in academic discussions. The leader of the opposition has talked of what would happen if we should throw-down our tariff walls. Who is proposing to throw down the tariff walls V


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman from Victoria (Hon. Mr. Ross).


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman from Victoria is not proposing anything of the sort. The hon. gentleman from Victoria was a member of a cabinet that had a tariff. There has been no free trade in Canada at any time since this Dominion existed. There is no free trade in Canada to-day. There is no likelihood of a policy of free trade being adopted in Canada in the life time of any man in this Chamber.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Why, then talk on academic questions of free trade and protection.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend from' Toronto (Mr. Osier) interrupts. Does he dissent from that ? Have I not stated the case correctly ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I was admiring how your followers applauded your statement that there was going to be no free trade in Canada.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Does m.v lion, friend know any one who says we are likely to have free trade in Canada in the early future.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Who is it ? My hon. friend knows that ever since we have been a Dominion we have had a fiscal policy which included a tariff, and in that tariff there was some measure of protection. It always has been, it is now, and it is likely to be for a long time.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Does he deny that in 1894 his leader, over and over again stated in the west that the policy of the Liberal party was free trade as it is in England ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman knows very well that the expression ' free trade ' as used in these debates


Robert Laird Borden: Free trade as it is in England.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He knows very well that in the debates that take place here the word ' free trade ' has Hob. Mr. FIELDING.
a meaning that no hon. gentleman on this side of the House is willing to attach to it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We are not free traders in that sense.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The whole Dominion of Canada in a general sense has had what some have called a free trade policy. We had free trade, some people may say, in the lower provinces before confederation, but we had a 15 per cent tariff. Sir John Macdonald was supposed to be, up to a certain point, a free trader, but he had a tariff of 15 and 171 per cent. It is nonsense to talk of the abstract questions of free trade and protection in the face of the record of this country, for there has always been a considerable tariff and there is likely to be for a considerable time to come. I do not know of anybody who has been advocating free trade of late years in the sense that the term is used in this House, unless it be my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) whose words were quoted tonight. I did not intend to refer to this, but I do not know of any man in the whole province of Nova Scotia who could be called a radical free trader, unless the speech of my hon. friend (Mr. Bell) is to be taken as a pronouncement of his views on that question.


James Clancy: What is the hon. gentleman's policy-Is it free trade or protection ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman's policy, is to have the present tariff for the present.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
The MINISTER OF -FINANCE.	The
policy of the government is set forth line upon line, figure upon figure, every item of it, and not one of the hon. gentlemen |o5>
posite has ever dared to put on the paper an item as to what their policy is. Hon. gentlemen opposite indulge in vague and general statements, but they shrink from the announcement of any particular rate of duty to be levied on any particular article. Tiie country knows that such 1ms been their record.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But one is curious to know why this resolution comes here to-night. There was a time, not so long ago either, when the relations on this question ns on other questions, of hon. gentlemen opposite and the member for St. Mary's were not as pleasant and as kindly as they are now, and in these days the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was called the master of the administration.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: I trust that my hon. friends opposite will not deem it offensive if I say that the member for St. Mary's has become the master of the opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We had a great debate on this question and all these great issues were presented to the House some weeks ago. The leader of the opposition, I have no doubt after full consultation with his friends and associates as lie properly might have, propounded his policy. He prepared a resolution ; he brought it forward here in connection with the budget debate. That was the policy of the opposition then. But the hon. member for St. Mary's comes in and says: Oh, you are all wrong, you don't know how to frame a policy for the opposition ; you have used words and expression# which will not meet the wishes of the people, and you cannot win on a policy like that; but I will teach you a great plan.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The member for St. Mary's said to them : You may bring forward your motion and talk about that, but bye and bye I will come forward and I will teach you what is the true Conservative policy. And so the member for St. Mary's brings forward his motion and the opposition humbly accept it, and the leader of the opposition is going to be a follower of the mover of that motion.


Mr. COCHRANE.: That is very clever.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: [DOT] I am glad to have the commendation of my always amiable friend from East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane). Whilst the discussion which took place was largely academic,
I must admit that there were some few patches of new colouring thrown in, some of which afforded temptation to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House to say a word. As an example, the hon. member for St. Mary's pointed out that we have a surplus of $13,000,000, and said that this is the time to readjust our tariff. I have never heard in any country where political economy of any sort was taught, that when you had a large surplus that was the time to increase the taxation of the country. If the hon. gentleman had come forward and said : You have a large surplus and therefore you should reduce the taxation of the country, he might have had a point against us, but to that we would have had a fair reply, because we could contend that the tariff is not a brudensome tariff-and hon. gentlemen opposite do not allege that it is burdensome but on the contrary they say it is too low-we could contend that the tariff is not burdensome and that the people are not complaining of it being too high, and since it is not a burden, and since under
that tariff we receive a large and liberal revenue, then we would say it is a sound policy that we should apply this surplus revenue for the payments on capital account and thus avoid going into debt.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But that would be a fair matter for debate. If the hon. gentleman had come forward with the complaint, that in the time of great surpluses we were not reducing taxation, then he might have had some point in his criticism, but there is no argument in the hon. member saying:	Because you have
a large surplus and more money than you need, therefore you must increase the taxation and take more money out of the people.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But perhaps my hon. friend would say :	You
would not take more money out of the people if you increase these duties because the effect will be that you will shut out imports. That seems to be an academic argument.


William Rees Brock: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend who seconded the motion says hear, hear, but he must have forgotten that at a later stage of his speech the hon. member jfor St. Mary's undertook to prove that an increase of duties will not shut out imports, and he elaborated that to some considerable extent. Well, Sir, if you shut out imports it must be because you make the goods more expensive at home, and you do not thereby diminish taxation. You diminish revenue, but you take as much taxation or more out of the pockets of the people, and 'instead of putting that taxation into the treasury of the country you put it into the hands of the manufacturers. I am amazed to find the pictures of blue ruin which the hon. gentlemen opposite have presented to this House to-night. The one comfort we have is that nobody is likely to take them jvery seriously. If the speeches made by (hon. gentlemen opposite in this House tonight were to go abroad and be treated ISeriously, they would have a most damaging effect upon the credit, the reputation, and the industries of this country. There is fa popular impression, based on facts, that this country is somewhat prosperous at the present time. We have not only evidence of that at home, but throughout the wide world, In the great journals of civilization, you will find articles speaking of the great progress, the wealth and the prosperity of Canada. Is it not true ? Do we not know that it is true V Yet hon. gentlemen opposite stand up to-night and tell us that it is not true-that this country is not prosperous.


William Rees Brock: Will you kindly tell us wlio said so ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend from Centre Toronto said so.


William Rees Brock: I deny it positively, and I appeal to * Hansard.' I stated that some industries of this country were not prosperous.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The industries which my hon. friend referred to chiefly were stock speculations.


William Rees Brock: I did not refer to stock speculations at all.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend's remarks on that subject might be taken as seriously as we had to take his observation on another occasion, when he held the policy of the Canadian government responsible for a slump in American stocks. My respected friend from Centre Toronto had a pitful story to tell about machinery that was idle in the factories, and about men not being able to get employment. We do not take that seriously, because I have the circular of the merchants and manufacturers of the city of Toronto which says that they cannot get men enough to do the work.


William Rees Brock: The very words I made use of this evening-that we had machinery lying idle because we could not get men.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In the midst of this picture of blue ruin, which we have had to-night, the hon. gentleman, an old and respected merchant, engaged in large affairs and interested in manufactures, confesses that the industries of Canada, as a rule, and particularly in his own city of Toronto, are so prosperous that the demand for men is greater than the supply. Then, we are told that this movement is in the interest of the farmers. There was a story years ago, when railroad accidents were frequent, that they would put an English director on the cow-catcher to meet all the accidents. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to-night to want to put the farmer at the front, where they would have us understand he is to receive the greatest benefits ; but I suspect, he is intended to meet all the difficulties that are to come. But how is it that we do not find any considerable number of applications from the farmers of this country for a higher tariff ?


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: Did you not have a deputation from the beet sugar growers ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, that is the industry which my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) wants to ruin by reducing the duty on German sugar. The deputation in the interest of beet sugar industry was not particularly a farmers' deputation, although some farmers came with it.


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: The beet sugar industry is a manufacturing industry.


Robert Johnston: Were not the great majority of that deputation farmers ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it very likely, and that makes it all the worse that my hon. friend from Halton will treat them so badly. But we had another deputation from a farmers' organization.
I do not know how large it was, but it professed to be a provincial organization.


Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria).: Four men.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have known a deputation of four men to represent a very large body. My hon. friend is only one man, and yet he represents a great many people. We had one deputation of farmers which pleaded with us not to increase the protection of the manufacturers. Then, there is the labourer-how anxious hon. gentlemen opposite are on behalf of the labourer. Yet there never was a time in the history of Canada when labour was so busily employed and so well paid as today. Can our hon. friends expect to humbug the labouring classes of Canada at a moment when they are more prosperous than they have been at any previous period in their history ? We also had a deputation from a labour organization. I was not present, but I am informed that that deputation, speaking on behalf of the working classes, appealed to this government not to increase the tariff, because they were satisfied that an increase would not be for the benefit of the labouring classes. The farmers !-why, Sir, they have been paying off their mortgages. I was talking to-night to a respected member of this House belonging to the province of Ontario, and he told me that it was within his knowledge that farmers who not many years ago were obliged to borrow money, were not only paying off their mortgages, but were bringing in money and asking for investments for it. There never was a time in the history of this country when the farmers were so prosperous, so well-to-do, and so comfortable as they are at this moment. Bet me add that Avhile great changes have been made by the Liberal party in the tariff, Avhile hundreds of items have been reduced, and large and important items, it so happens that in this particular class of items, except in three or four cases, the duties on agricultural products are the same to-day as they were under the national policy. The only difference is that under the national policy the farmers were not so prosperous as they are to-day under a Liberal government. That is the happy condition with respect to the farmers. With respect to capital, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition speaks of the uncertainty which

prevents an investment of capital. My hon. friend cannot be serious. Does be not know that during the seven years of the Liberal administration, the 'Canada Gazette' and the provincial gazettes, have absolutely groaned with notices of new companies and new promotion schemes for the investment of capital in Canada ? I venture to say that during the seven years of the Liberal administration, there has been more capital invested in manufacturing industries in Canada than in any fourteen years in the previous history of the country. I am not speaking of things which are not of common knowledge. Any gentleman who looks at the newspapers, knows that in every part of this country there has been an enormous development of industry. Whether you go to the labourer, the manufacturer, the farmer, or the business man, there is the universal story of widespread industry and prosperity. It cannot be universal as respects every individual, because in any time of prosperity, you will find certain sections or individuals who are not as prosperous as we would like them to be ; but speaking in the large, as respects the country generally, it is not too much to say that during the whole previous history of the Dominion of Canada the country never prospered as it lies prospered in the seven years under the administration of the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: Mr. Speaker, I admit that it is quite daring on my part to attempt to address the House at this late hour, and it is making a demand on the patience of my colleagues. But the few remarks I wish to make I am forced to make partly because of one part of the speech delivered this afternoon by the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and partly by one remark that has been made to-night by the hon. Minister of Finance.
Perhaps the speech which appealed to me the most, through this protracted debate, was that made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell). I am not referring to the one quoted by the hon. member for Victoria, N.S. (Hon. Mr. Ross) but the one he made to-night. In that speech he said that at present the situation of Canada was such that we might take as admitted the fact that the principle of protection was the basis of our fiscal policy. But admitting that fact, it renders entirely useless the amendment of the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) and the whole discussion we have had to-day. If protection be the basis of our fiscal policy, what is the sense of raising an academical discussion on the respective merits of free trade and protection and asking this government to adopt that latter policy ? In the first speech I made in this House, in 189S, I excited a good deal of hilarity on the other side because I said that, in view of the
tariff of 1897, there would probably be no more discussion in the future on free trade vs. protection, and that the respective merits of each would no longer be a bone of contention between the two parties. I cannot, for the life of me, see why there should. I regret that the hon. member for St. Mary's, who has done so much during the past five years to fix a settled policy for the country, should to-night have contributed to destroy the good work he has done.
I was one of those who admired the hon. gentleman for the fight he made in order to convince public opinion that a moderate protective policy was necessary, and for the stand he took in the last election that the one thing this country needed was stability of tariff. It was, therefore, with the greatest of regret that I saw him bring in this amendment without giving any serious reason for his change of policy. There is no doubt that it was necessary to destroy the idea, that with every change of government, there would be a radical change in our fiscal policy, and that consequently the investment of capital in industrial enterprises was no longer safe. But by our tariff of 1897 we dissipated that idea, and it seems to me that the motion of the hon. member is calculated to create disturbance in the minds of capitalists. We must take facts as they are and no body can imagine that we are going to adopt a policy of free trade.
In the first part of his speech, my hon. friend made a comparison between the policy of England and that of the United States. He gave so much time to that subject that I began to think that, instead of preparing a programme for the oppostion, he was in reality announcing a platfrom on which he was to run an election to the British House of Commons. I am afraid that he is running for too many positions just now. Not satisfied with framing a policy for the Conservative party of Canada, he seems to be framing a policy for the new Conservative party of England. In so doing lie is not only taking a task which is too strong for him or any other man, but he is loosing a good deal of the confidence that many of the independent members of this House and many of the people of this country had in him.
The hon.. gentleman made a comparison between the workingmen of England and of the United States, and drew the inference that because the free trade workingmen of England are receiving low salaries and the protective workingmen of America are being paid larger salaries, therefore, the poliey of the United States is entitled to all the credit. But why not go to Germany and France, which are highly protected countries, and there you will find that the workingmen are paid less than the same class in England. I am not giving this argument as a free trader, because I am not one, but to show that all these

statistics, when we come to the root, do not prove what hon. gentlemen think they do. The other day an hon. member of this House wanted to make an argument in favour of higher duties on iron and steel, and in support of his plea he gave us the argument that there was depression in the iron and steel industry in the United States under a high protective tariff. The hon. member for St. Mary's gave the House a statement of the prosperity of the farmer in the United States, but there again he was deceived by general statistics. He gave us the prices of wool and grain and cattle in the United States, but did not tell us how much profit each farmer made after he paid his taxes and expenses, or how much money was left to the farmer to put in the bank after he bought all that was necessary. If you want to prove a contention by statistics you must go seriously into them. The hon. member for Pictou was very much struck by the statistics gathered by the hon. member for St. Mary's, to prove how much money was accumulated per head of every man,-woman and child of the United States. But that is not sufficient. He should take into account the public debt and the private as well as the municipal debt, which has to be borne by every man, woman and child. Let me give an example taken from our own country. We have been told that in the province of Quebec we are much more indebted than the people in the province of Ontario. If one considers only the provincial debt, it is true. But if you go to the root of the thing, if you go to the municipal indebtedness of Ontario, if you take the indebtedness of the farmers, and divide the total by the sum of the population, you will find that the farmers of the province of Quebe owe less, though apparently the public debt is much higher. All those statistics are deceiving and especially so in the case of workingmen and wages. The question is not only how much a workingman earns, but how much he can buy with the money he earns, and how much he has to put in the bank at the end of the week, month or year.
I do not see any use in my going into a long discussion. I am a moderate protectionist. I believe that a policy of moderate protection is required for Canada. But I cannot see my way to support this amendment. The hon. member for St. Mai'y's vitiated his own motion at the root when, being still a member of the government, he declared that the tariff was sufficient. But while the tariff was sufficient at that time, he suggests that recent events prove that it is not sufficient now. Surely, if the hon. member for St. Mary's wants to keep his reputation as a serious person- and I hope he does, because he can render service to Canada as a public man-he won't try now to make us believe that because some people have gone, according to the Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
highest financial authorities of this country, to the extremest point of speculation in stock gambling, there is a necessity for a change in the tariff. This is the reason which brought me to my feet. We were challenged by three or four members of the opposition and by the hon. member for St. Mary's to exhibit our freedom. I have risen to tell them that as a free man, as a moderate protectionist, and one who believes that moderate protection is required for this country now, I am not prepared to ask the government to change the fiscal policy because there is a slump in stock gambling or because the opposition may gain some advantage by again raising this cry. The position is not what it was in 1878. The hon. member for St. Mary's in bis campaign last year said that history would repeat itself. But, in order that he may convince us that history will repeat itself in the particular way the hon. gentleman indicates, he must convince the people of Canada that the situation is what it was in 1878. The hon. member for St. Mary's himself has said for seven years that the fiscal policy of the country has been readjusted, that it has been readjusted on the principle of moderate protection, that it has reassured capital and industry. What we want now', according to the very words of the hon. gentleman the last time he went to the polls to be elected to this House- what we want now is stability. I am still satisfied that the present tariff gives sufficient protection for what we need. Of course, there will be deputations to the government asking for changes of duty. That is' the whole argument of the leader of the opposition. But the hon. gentleman has refuted his own argument when he spoke of the great evils of monopolies in the United States. What we moderate protectionists, who do not want to make protection the tool of a political party or to use protection as a means of giving strength to people who might turn their influence against the government-what we want is that, while we should have enough protection to safeguard the industries of Canada against the slaughtering of our markets, we should not have the high protection that will bring about in this country the very evil which the hon. leader of the opposition has denounced as existing in the United States.
Now, Sir, the one remark of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) to which I wish to take exception, is his statement that Mr. Chamberlain was carrying on a policy in accordance with that of the government of Canada. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman has reflected very carefully on that point, or whether he expresses the views of his government. But I wish to say that if this should be the policy of the government of Canada, the government would no longer enjoy my confidence, and it should no longer enjoy the confidence of

any man who is proud of the liberties of Canada. If I understood the position taken by our representatives in the colonial conference last year, it was that we had given the preference to Great Britain-a preference which the hon. member for St. Mary's seems to have approved of as minister of the Crown, but which his newspaper in Montreal was denouncing last week-and we were prepared to go further in that direction, with the understanding, of course, that some changes were to be made in our tariff if we did so. But what I understood to be also tbe position of the government, and what I hope is their position now, was that, although we were ready to enter into an agreement with the motherland for the mutual benefit of that country and of Canada, we should always keep our liberty to break the agreement when wo saw fit to do so. That is the position that the Minister of Finance took in his budget speech this year. But what is Mr. Chamberlain's scheme ? We have heard the hon. member for St. Mary's eulogizing the policy of Mr. Chamberlain. That policy is that free trade should exist between England and tbe colonies. What would be the first result of that ? The first result would be the ruin of half our manufacturing industries.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) allow me to correct him on that point ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Certainly..


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Several years ago Mr. Chamberlain took the position that a mutual preference such as was sought by us could only be obtained by the colonies adopting a policy of free trade within the empire. We told him frankly that so far as Canada was concerned we could not agree to that.


David Henderson: Why not.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Because the industries of Canada had been established under a tariff, and, even if they had not vested rights, they had rights that we are willing to respect.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman said that free trade might mean 15 to 17} per cent tariff.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have repeatedly stated the views of the government on this subject. Whereas, several years ago, Mr. Chamberlain took that view, he fully understands that Canada, and not Canada only, but the other colonies, are not prepared to make such an arrangement; and what he proposes is a mutual preference in which there shall be moderate duties on our side and moderate duties in England on those things upon which she cares to have them. But there is no engagement- he well understands that-on the part of Canada to accept the condition he talked
of some years ago of free trade between England and Canada.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not deny that the position taken by Mr. Chamberlain now is somewhat different from the position he took some years ago. But, at the same time, ns the Minister of Finance and all the organs of the government have frequently stated since the conference, what did he say ? He said that the present preference which we grant on English goods, and which is admitted by all independent men to be too great for some of our industries to bear, should be greatly increased before any such agreement can be entered into. If iie has receded from the position of absolute free trade between the mother country and the colonies, he still contends that the preference given is not sufficient. I say, as a moderate protectionist, I am satisfied with the general tariff of 1897. But when the preference of 1900 was adopted, I thought we had gone a little too far in that direction. Surely the government are not prepared to say to-day that they are ready, at Mr. Chmaberlain's request, to go still further in that direction and increase the preference we have given on British goods.
But that is not the most important point that I wish to make about Mr. Chamberlain's scheme. His policy-whatever our opinion as to its merits-is undoubtedly different from the avowed policy of this government, as it affects the relation between England and the colonies. His scheme is that Great Britain and her colonies shall enter into a mutual compact on trade matters. What would be the first result ? The first result would be that politically and practically speaking, if not legally we should to a large extent, lose control of our tariff. In the second place we should be obliged to stand the effect of all the foreign treaties that the Zollverein might make with other countries. The delegates from Australia, New Zealnad and South Africa might force the Zollverein to make treaty with some nation, which treaty would be favourable to the interests of these southern colonies, but detrimental to the interests of Canada. The majority of the delegates in the imperial council, or whatever body would have the supervision of this policy, would decide matters of this kind. What would be our position ? We would be forced with either to go out of the Zollverein or accept a treaty disadvantageous to us. On the other hand we should be deprived of the power to make our own treaties. What I have always contended and hoped for and, in spite of the declaration of the Minister of Finance, l do not despair of seeing it-is the establishment of Canada's right to make commercial treaties with any nation she sees fit. And the speech made at Lille, in France, by the Prime Minister was an indication of that policy, and I hope it is still the policy of the government.

The Prime Minister stated there, after the conference, that Canada had adopted, in 1897, the principle of preferential trade in favour of all countries that would grant us similar favours. It is time that afterwards we shut off the application of that law to other countries, and we only kept it in favour of British goods. But I had hoped after the declaration made in London hy our delegates, and after the speech made by the Finance Minister and by the Prime Minister in Paris and Lille, that we would revert to the policy of 1897, which would have a double effect; first, of reducing the preference we grant to British goods, and therefore removing some of the anxiety that permits the opposition to make political capital ; and secondly, it would bring us back to our freedom of making treaties with all nations in the world. I sum up my argument in these few words :	Our present general fiscal policy is a good one for Canada, it is high enough to grant what the opposition calls adequate protection, while at the same time it does not allow manufacturers to form combines such as those that are the curse of the United States, and which the leader of the opposition has denounced. In the next place, our country should have as much freedom as possible to develop our foreign trade and to make the best reciprocity treaties we could with all nations of the world. For that purpose we must stick to the principle of protection, without going to the excess that the hon. member for St. Mary's and the leader of the opposition have advocated to-night.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: At this early hour of the morning I can promise the House I will not detain it at any length. I did not intend to speak on this subject, but it is so rarely that I can agree with the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) on any points which he raises before this House, that it seems to me I should not allow the opportunity to pass without agreeing with something he has said to-night. The hon. gentleman speaks of being a moderate protectionist. I would go a little further than he goes, I might be accused of being an extreme protectionist, at all events we are both protectionists. But he went on to point out that he considered one of the essential points of a protective policy was stability. There again I am in accord with the hon. member for Labelle, and there I fancy is the greatest weakness in the case of the government that can be pointed out. I venture to say that no tariff can be called properly protective unless it has the two factors : One, the factor of giving the measure of protection, and the other, giving the stability of protection. It is all very well to offer manufacturers or capitalists any percentage you like, ten, fifteen, twenty, fifty or one hundred per cent, as a measure of protection, but unless you also give them such confidence in the government that they be-Mr. BOURASSA.
lieve the protection will be stable, then your protection is inadequate, and will never bring about the results that protectionists have in view. To-day one of the great reasons why capital is chary of investment in Canada is the fact that the stability which the member for Labelle points out as an essential to a protective tariff, is wholly wanting in any tariff that hon. gentlemen opposite have brought down. On this important question before the House now, one of the most important questions that can occupy our attention, the member for Labelle says he believes the present tariff does give adequate protection to all our industries. Does he consider the full practical meaning of that ? As a member of this House he has again and again voted against resolutions introduced by the leader of the opposition in favour of adequate protection. He says he believes the present tariff does give adequate protection. If he so believes, what is to prevent him voting for this resolution moved to-day, even if, in days gone by, he lost the opportunity of voting for the very thing he de-siredl adequate protection.
When I listened to the Finance Minister and heard him saying that the very fact that machinery was lying idle in Toronto because labour could not be got, was a triumphant vindication of his policy, I could not help wondering what kind of policy the hon. gentleman thought this country should have iu order to induce outsiders to come here. Surely if machinery is standing idle in Toronto because wrokmen cannot be found to operate it, there must be something wrong in this country. Why, Sir, we know that a great many idle men in other countries are seeking for employment, and none of them can be induced to come to Canada to accept situations waiting for them to enable the Canadian manufacturers to work even the machinery they have on hand. Surely hon. gentlemen opposite can hardly pride themselves on the success of their fiscal policy when it presents so slight an attraction to the nations of the world that it cannot draw even enough men to work the machinery standing idle for want of operators. The Finance Minister also pointed with triumph to the fact of his large surplus, and said this would be an opportune time 'to raise the tariff. Would he pause for a moment to consider whence his surplus comes ? He claims he has not raised the tariff then if he has not raised the tariff, he has obtained this enormous surplus because of the larger quantity of goods that are coming into this country than came in formerly. Therefore he stands before this House and takes credit to himself, and is greeted by the triumphant cheers of his followers, because we are not able to manufacture the goods we should, and therefore he is allowing millions and millions more of manufactured goods to come into this country than came in a few years ago. If this be a fact, aud it certainly is the fact, what better reason can be given, if we wish

to build up our native industries, than that we find under the tariff as it is, whether it be the old tariff, or whether it be a better or worse one, but taken as it is, if you find the effect of it is that so many million dollars more of manufactured goods have been imported into this country that our surplus has run up to $13,000,000, surely that is ample reason for the representatives of the people to consider whether a higher tariff which would exclude millions worth of manufactured goods, would not be a wiser policy than that which lion, gentlemen opposite have advocated.
The hon. gentleman too took great credit because it had been admitted that farmers were paying off their mortgages. I am sure nobody on this side of the House wishes to gainsay that fact, nobody on this side of the House but rejoices at that fact. But surely it is proper to ask the Finance Minister what kind of a tariff it is that will account for this new and unexpected ability of the farmers to pay off their mortgages. Is it not a fact that the farmers remain precisely as they were under the old tariff, except that in some instances their protection has been decreased ? No farmer is better able to pay off the mortgage because he has less protection. Therefore I think we can with peculiar gratitude admit that it is owing to the abundant harvests that this country has been blessed with during the last seven years, to the wave of prosperity of the last seven years, that our farmers are able to pay off their mortgages, and not on account of the tariff.
Now, Sir, the real question before the House, I venture to say, is whether the government is prepared to accept a resolution in favour of protection or not. The hon. the Finance Minister has spoken, as he always does, eloquently and well, but as usual he succeeded in speaking to the delight of his followers without conveying the slightest information so far as his own views on the subject of protection really went. He was good enough to say that he thought there were no free traders ou the other side of the House. Surely he has forgotten that a few years ago his leader was a free trader, and if I were allowed to refer to past debates of this session it would not take me long to prove from the lips of his leader that he is still a free trader. But perhaps the hon. gentleman really means that 15 per cent or 17 per cent might be free trade. I venture to say that cannot be free trade, and it is an abuse of language for any 'person to speak of a tariff of even 15 per cent or 17 per cent as being free trade. A tariff which averages 17 per cent may to a certain extent be a protectionist tariff, but a tariff of 15 per cent, or 17 per cent, or 70 per cent will not be protection.unless the government which has to maintain that tariff is pledged to the principle of protection, so that capitalists may invest their money on the
strength of the security afforded by the known policy of the government. Is it not a fact that at the present time capitalists are chary in coming to Canada ?


An hon. MEMBER.: No.


William Barton Northrup: Is it not a fact that if you had higher protection more capital would come to this country ?


An hon. MEMBER.: No.


William Barton Northrup: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that if a highly protective duty were put on iron, steel and lead no further capital would come to this country to develop the iron mines or lead mines ? Surely there is no hon. gentleman in this House who will not admit, that, as has been told to us by hon. gentlemen from Nova Scotia, the success, such as it is, which has been achieved by the iron industry of that province has been owing to the assistance given by this government, and that but for that assistance it would have been unable to achieve any success at all. In the face of that I think no hon. gentleman will deny that if adequate protection had been given to the iron and steel industry there would not have .been the depression which there is in that industry to-day and there would not have been the slump in the market that has recently occurred. I rose mainly to call attention to the fact that although at last the hon. Minister of Finance did speak after the debate had lasted for hours, after supporters of the government had allowed member after member on this side of the House to discuss the question without rising, that although the hon. Minister of Finance did rise and make an eloquent and telling speech he still failed to say a word to show the manufacturers and capitalists of this country and other countries that the government are prepared to give the industries of Canada an adequate measure of protection. As a protectionist I believe that the future of this country depends on our industries being properly protected as the industries of every other civilized country in the world, not even excepting the motherland, have been. I feel confident that the Canadian is the equal of any man in the world, but I am not so conceited as to leave the Canadian without any armour, without any munitions of war to stand up and fight against the troops of other countries provided with modern equipment and unlimited capital. I shall support this motion, because I believe that only by a system of adequate protection can this country be made to prosper. I would be glad if the hon. leader of the opposition would come down with a resolution, not only going as far as this resolution does, but going farther than that and declaring that, situated as we are alongside of a nation of seventy millions of people, as a matter of self defence, if they will not trade with us we will not trade with them, and that unless they will reduce their tariff

to a reasonable level we will raise our tariff as liigh as theirs. If we raise our tariff as high as theirs, if we secure the development of the industries of this country through a process of judicious protection, when we come to meet the motherland in the proposed scheme for moulding the colonies and the motherland together into a partnership, then we would be in a position to offer something to the motherland that would induce her to give us a preference, that in all probability she never will give unless we are prepared to offer her that which we can only offer when secured by a system of proper protection.
House divided on amendment (Hon. Mr. Tarte).
YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn,	Lancaster,
Avery,	LaRividre,
Barker,	Lefurgey,
Bell,	Lennox.
Bennett,	Leonard.
Birkett,	MacLaren (Perth),
Blain,	McCormick,
Borden (Halifax),	McGowan,
Boyd,	Monk,
Brock,	Morin.
Broder,	Northrup,
Bruce,	Osier.
Carscallen.	Reid (Grenville),
Olancy,	Roche (Marquette),
Clarke.	Rosamond.
Cochrane,	Sherritt.
Earle.	Smith (Wentworth),
Gilmour.	Sr. route.
Gourley.	Tarte.
Hackett.	Taylor.
Haggart,	Thomson (Grey),
Henderson.	Tolton.
Hughes (Victoria),	Vrooman,
Johnston (Cardwell),	Wilmot.
Kidd.	Wilson-50.
NAYS :	
Messieurs	
Angers,	Law.
Archambault,	LeBlanc.
Bazinet,	Lemieux,
Beith,	Logan.
Beland,	Loy.
Belcourt,	Macdonald.
Bernier,	Mackie.
Bickerdike,	MacKinnon.
Borden (Sir Frederick),	MacLaren (Huntingdon)
Bourassa,	Macpherson,
Bourbonnais,	McCarthy,
Brown,	McCool.
Bruneau,	McCreary,
Bureau,	McEwen.
Calvert,	McGugan,
Campbell,	Mclsaac.
Carbonneau,	McLennan.
Champagne,	Madore.
Christie.	Malouin.
Copp,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Cowan.	Martineau.
Delisle.	Matheson,
Berners (Ldvis),	Mayrand.
Demers (St. John).	Meigs,
Desjardins.	Mignault,
Douglas,	Monet.
Dugas.	Morrison.
Dyment,	Muloek (Sir William),


William Barton Northrup: Erb,	Oliver,
Ethier.	Paterson,
Fielding,	Prefontaine.
Fisher,	Proulx.
Fitzpatrick,	Puttee.
Fortier.	Reid (Restigouche),
Fraser,	Ross (Ontario),
Gauvreau,	Ross (Rimouski),
Geoffrion,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.
German.	Rousseau.
Gibson,	Russell,
Girard,	Schell.
Gould,	Scott,
Harwood	Stephens,
Herd,	Stewart,
Holmes.	Sutherland (Essex),
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.)	Sutherland (Oxford)
Hyman,	Talbot.
Johnston (Cape Breton), Tobin.	
Kendall,	Tucker.
Lang,	Turcot.
Laurier (L'Assomption), Turgeon,	
Lavergne,	Wade-102.
PAIRS :	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Thompson (Haldimand	Ingram,
and Monek),	
Johnston (Lambton),	Simmons,
IMcColl,	Ward.
Guthrie.	Porter.
Parmelee,	Pope.
Roche (Halifax),	Cargill,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Bali,
Sifton.	Maclean.
Ross (Yukon),	Kemp, .
Blair,	Roddick.
Power,	Robinson (Northum-
	berland).
Smith (Vancouver),	Ganong.
Wallace.	Halliday,
Grant.	Cultoert.
Cartwright (Sir Rich'd.), Tupper (Sir Charles	
	Hibbert),
Emmerson,	Fowler. .
Charlton,	Tisdale,
Wright,	La veil.
Riley,	Richardson.
Harty,	McIntosh.
Davis. '	Pringle,
Costigan,	Casgrain,
Farquharson,	Kaulbach,
Tolmie.	Kendrey,
Galliher,	Hale.
Marcil (Bagot),	Seagram.
Lewis,	Clare,
Lovell.	Calvin,
Amendment negatived; motion (Hon. Mr. Fielding) agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As it is too late to proceed now, I propose that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE delivered a message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the message as follows:-

The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons supplementary estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending 30th of June, 1903, and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act of 1867, the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
(Sgd.) MINTO.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the message of His Excellency together with the supplementary estimates be referred to the Committee of Supply.
Motion agreed to.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In moving the adjournment of the House I may say that at the earlier part of to-morrow's session, it is expected that the Minister of Railways will bring forward his resolutions with regard to the Canadian Northern Railway. Eater I would be glad to have the co-operation of my friends opposite in giving consideration to several items of special supply for the current year. They will be in the Departments of Mounted Police, Militia, Public Works and Agriculture. I refer to special items urgently needed for the service of the present .year. I hope to have the co-operation of lion, gentlemen in accepting these with as little discussion as possible so that we may get a special Supply Bill through.


Robert Laird Borden: We will not be unreasonable in meeting the wishes of my hon. friend. I presume the Minister of Railways will not forget the information which he promised to bring down when we were considering the Canadian Northern Railway resolutions some days ago.



TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS WITH FRANCE.

Robert Laird Borden: 1 wish to draw attention to the following telegram :
Contracts are about to be signed between the Canadian and French governments involving the establishment of a new steamship line of four vessels between Halifax and Rocliefort-Sur-Mer for the purpose of developing the Canadian lumber trade with France. France will obtain considerable advantage from the new arrangement, as there may be a reduction of the Canadian tariff in favour of certain lines of French manufactured goods much used in the Dominion.
Bach government promises to subsidize two vessels which will offer passenger service, transferring travellers to the Canadian Pacific at Halifax, whence there is direct and rapid communication with New York. It is stated that the freight interests of the Canadian Pacific, which taps an enormous lumber region, played a great part in the new enterprise. The scheme was first officially sketched during Premier Laurier's visit to Paris last summer. That the scheme should be based on the reduction of the Canadian tariff in certain directions in
favour of France occasions comment here, in view of Mr. Chamberlain's recent utterances regarding intercolonial and British commercial union.
I wish to ask my bori. friend who is leading the House whether or not he is able to announce as to the authenticity oY the information contained in that telegram ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: So far as the despatch refers to any agreement whatever between France and Canada touching a reduction of duties there is absolutely no foundation for it. There were negotiations, as has already been stated in a general way, between the representatives of this government and the French government in Paris last autumn, hut they did not come to any conclusion, and there is therefore no foundation whatever for the statement the hon. gentleman has read so far as it relates to any change of commercial policy on one side or the other, i As respects the steamship line, there is a standing offer for a subsidy for a line between France and Canada and negotiations have occasionally taken place with the view of getting that line into operation. It is possible that the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Trade and Commerce, has had some recent negotiation on the subject* with which I am not acquainted, but that would be done under the standing offer which exists in our statute of a subsidy for a line of steamers between France and Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 2.55 a.m., Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 18, 1903.