1903-04-28

Mr. L. N. CHAMPAGNE (Wright) moved:: That the fourth report of the Select Standing Committee appointed to supervise the official report of the debates in this House during the present session which recommends the appointment of L6on GSrin to fill the vacancy on the staff of translators of the debates ; also, the payment of Sylva Clapin, for services rendered in connection with the translation of the debates be adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 129) respecting the Crown Bank of Canada.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 130) to amend the Fruit Marks Act, 1901.-Mr. Henderson.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Experimental farms for tlie year 1902-Hon. Mr. Fielding.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Minister of Finance :
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty ; and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
['The evening is still quite early and if my hon. friend desires an adjournment I do not wish to press him to go on.']
Mr. W. S. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).: Mr. Speaker. On account of the agitation which has been going on throughout the Dominion, particularly during the past year, with reference to the tariff question, I think it is the duty of every member of this House to place himself on record as to what he considers is the best fiscal policy for this country. There are certain deterent influences, Sir, which might prevent a person not much accustomed to public speaking from addressing this House at this time. I mentioned last year, and the same thing applies this year, that one very deterent influence especially for young members, is the lack of attention which is paid to speeches i in this House, and the very few members who remain in the Chamber while the debate Is going on. There is another influence which may perhaps deter some members from speaking much in this House of Commons. It is this. If the mathematical calculation of our friend from West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) is correct, the expense of running this House is $28 a minute, and some of us may be afraid to score up a very large bill against the Dominion, for fear our electors may call us to account for it when we return home. For instance, the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) who closed the debate last evening ran up a bill of $3,380, if the calculation of the hon. member for Elgin is correct. Some of us may have some doubt as to whether the speech was worth it or not, but that is a matter for the hon. member to settle with his constituents.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: What about the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) ?	[DOT]


William Scott Maclaren: I have not had sufficient time at my disposal to figure up his account.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: He would have a big bill.


William Scott Maclaren: This debate lins gone on for several days and some twenty members have spoken. Some of them have done what I intend to do before I sit down, namely, to give my own views regarding the best fiscal policy for this country, but in the case of a great many of them it would be very hard to ascertain just what their views were. I am free to admit that
every member of this House must be to a certain extent influenced, it may be imperceptibly, by the environment in which be is placed. I do not mean by this that I think it is the duty of every member to try and square himself with his constituents, although probably there may be a temptation to do that. It is my idea, but of course I may be wrong, that one of the objects which a great many members of this House must have in speaking at such length as they do, is in order to get their speeches down on ' Hansard ' and circulated through the country and in their constituencies. Apart from that I cannot see very much use in a great many of these speeches which are delivered, probably late in the evening, when there is barely a quorum present, and when those who are present pay little attention to what is being said. What I have said with regard to the environment off members, is based upon the fact that I live in a purely agricultural community. We have not in the county of Huntingdon any manufactures of any importance; not more than would supply the local demands. Our farmers are principally engaged in dairying and pork raising which is a by-product of dairying. Our farmers are to a large extent free traders, or low tariff men at all events. The principle products of the county of Huntingdon are butter and cheese the price of which is fixed by the market in England, and I suppose the same rule would to a large extent apply to our product of pork and hams. The trouble with our people, as with a great many agricultural people is, to know where the compensation comes to them for the increased price they have to pay for manufactured goods by reason of a high tariff. I came to this parliament with my own idea as to what was the best tariff for this country, and that idea was that a low tariff fills the bill. You may call it a revenue tariff or whatever you please, but at all events I am decidedly against any increase in the tariff, and so arc a great many people throughout Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Scott Maclaren: My feeling is that we should try to legislate for the masses rather than for the classes. As I have said I came here with my own idea as to the best fiscal policy for the country, and I suppose every member of the House has come here with his mind made up on that question to a greater or lesser extent. But while that is true, I came here also with an open mind ready to be convinced and ready to change my views if the arguments brought forth should lead me to believe that my own ideas were wrong. I must say that so far that I have not changed my mind, but that I have continued to believe that the best policy for this country is a low tariff, or what may be called a revenue tariff. Another thing is that I came

liere a new member; one who probably had not taken that interest In these public matters which he ought to have taken. My principle business in connection with political matters heretofore was simply an anxiety to see that the man of our choice was elected and we generally succeeded in doing that.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


William Scott Maclaren: The word 1 statesman ' is bandied about here, but I must confess that I yet do not know exactly what it means. Some people have a different idea of as to what a statesman is or ought to be, from others, but be that as it may, my opinion is that for a person to make a success in public life it is necessary for him to come here in early life. As the saying is, he ought be caught young. I am afraid that quite a number of members of this House came here when it can hardly be expected that they would be in a position to qualify as statesmen.
I consider, Sir, that the agriculturists of this country have their rights; so does everybody. But, one difficulty in connection with the agriculturists asserting their right is that the manufacturers are organized and they are not. That is no reflection on this government because it would equally apply to all governments, and the fact remains that those people who can bring their views most directly before any government are most likely to get their grievances redressed, or, to get what they want. It is natural to expect that. If you see a particularly well dressed, well groomed, well fed body of men about the Russell House or around the corridors here, and you ask who thev are, in nine cases out of ten you will be told that they are the representatives of the Manufacturers' Association or some kindred organization of that kind, who have come here to place their views before the government, and to try to worry the government into granting their requests. I might say .iust here, that before I came to parliament I never had as much sympathy with the ministers of the Crown as I have had since. I think that they are a much abused lot of men. I think that they have to stand a great deal, and it does make my blood boil when I hear some of the members of the opposition taunting them for the salaries they receive, and for drawing salaries for doing nothing. Why, Sir, I believe that if the ministers were paid according to the annoyance they have to put up with, they would get double their present salaries. Now, Mr. Speaker, the farmers are in an altogether different position from the manufacturers with regard to placing their views before the government. I have not had much to do with manufacturing interests myself, but judging from appearances the manufacturers are pretty well off. The farmers are different. The farmer cannot come to Ottawa to state his case. He has Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).
got to stay at home looking pretty closely after his farm and his stock in order to make ends meet, and there is not much junketing around for him in special cars to come here to interview the government. In that way the manufacturers have a great advantage over the farmers, and seem to get favours which the farmers and the great consuming classes consider are inimical to their best interests. The Manufacturers' Association we have heard so much about appears to be a wonderful combination. Wonderful resolutions they passed at their meeting at Halifax. They were so wonderful that even the Tory ' Gazette ' of Montreal spoke about them adding hypocrisy to folly. These men are organized, and they are in a better position to bring their views before the government than the farmers and the great purchasing classes.
Since I have come to this House, I have heard a great 'many figures and statements quoted to show the condition of the country. I do not take much stock in these things, because it appears to me that the same figures are quoted on both sides to support different arguments. I would rather be guided by my own experience and observation in a matter of this kind. I know that so far as my own county and the adjoining counties are concerned, there is no question about the prosperity of the country. Everybody admits it. Eight or ten years ago the farmers had mortgages on their farms, and were paying 6 or 8 per cent interest on them. These are all wiped out now, the farmers are able to get money at 4 or 4J per cent to pay them off, and the men who a few years ago had to borrow money, have now money to lend. I would rather judge of the prosperity of the country from my knowledge of such facts than from all these statistics.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) who spoke last night, was figuring up what it cost per family and per head to pay the annual revenue received by the government, and he, very pessimistically, I think, came to the conclusion that if the present state of things continued very much longer, the hard times would return, and the people would be in want just as they were when our hon. friends opposite were in power. I know that at present the people have enough to pay their way, and something left over. The deposits in our savings banks and other banks are increasing greatly, which is a sure evidence that the country is prosperous.
What I am going to speak of may be considered ancient history ; but hon. gentlemen in the opposition have been going so far back that I think I have a right to follow suit. Our hon. friends opposite are in a kind of dilemma. When the present tariff was brought in by the hon. Minister of Finance, we all remember the howl that went up from the Conservatives, that it was going to ruin the country. They claimed, as they have always done, to be a highly

protective party. In 1878, when the national policy was introduced, they prophesied that it was going to do many wonderful things which it did not do, and they Intimated that if they got into power again they would reintroduce the national policy, and give the country that prosperity which they failed to give when they were in power. You remember how they promised that industries would spring up all over the country, and that population would flow in and occupy the vacant lands of the North-west, and the farmers would have a fine time raising food to supply the millions who were to work these industrial establishments. We were in fact going to have something approaching the millenium. Such did not turn out to be the case, however. In the census of 1891 there was a great deal of padding in regard to the number of industrial establishments in the country. Some of the padding was done in my own county. Eighteen or twenty squaws who were engaged in making baskets in their cabins were put down as so many industrial establishments. A woman working at a hand-loom in her home, was put down as another industrial establishment. The cobblers working at their benches were enumerated in the same way. But notwithstanding all that padding, the Conservative party failed to show the results which they had promised to bring about under the influence of the beneficent national policy. Now they are obliged to admit that under the tariff policy of this government, the country has not gone to ruin, as they prophesied it would. I will not say they are sorry for that ; I think they are glad that the country is prosperous, though they do not like to admit it. But it is remarkable what a different tone they take now from what they did in 1897, when this tariff was introduced. You remember what a doleful story was told about the ruinous state of things that would ensue under this tariff, and how it was to do away to a certain extent with the beneficent results of the national policy. What is the fact ? Listen to this from a speech by one high in the ranks opposite, our lion, friend opposite :
Now what is the result. The result is that this tariff goes into operation and the hon. gentlemen know that the industries of this country are already paralyzed in consequence, while hon. gentlemen gloat, vindictively gloat over the destruction of Canadian industries. I was reading the wail, the sorrowful wail in the Montreal ' Gazette,' where one manufacturer after another declared that their industries were ruined, that their mills must close, and that they saw staring them in the face, a return to the deplorable state of things that existed when the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House was in charge of the fiscal policy of the country. I say that a deeper wrong was never inflicted on Canada.
I fancy it is not necessary for me to give the name of the speaker. The older members of the House will recognize, from the
strong language, who be was. The same speaker made another statement as to what was to happen ; but he was not wholly disheartened. He saw that some good was likely to come out of all this wreck and ruin; but he felt that the new policy would so dishearten and disgust the people of Canada that they would soon turn out the Liberal party, and return the Conservatives to power. Here Is what he said :
I feel that far from rejoicing at it, from a party standpoint, I deplore from the bottom of my heart the ruin that is going to be inflicted upon the best interests of Canada and upon its great industries. Still I hesitatingly say that from a party point of view they are doing our work, they are showing the people of this country that having obtained power, which was all they worked for, they are now prepared to use that power at the cost of the sacrifice of the industries of Canada.
This was very pathetic and very magnanimous on the part of the speaker. How his heart must have bled for poor Canada. Even the thought that the tariff as framed by the party in power was going to drive the Liberals from power and was going to be the means of placing himself and his friends once more on the treasury benches, was not sufficient to assuage the grief he felt as he thought of the battered and bruised condition in which his beloved Canada was to be left if the fiscal policy as set forth by the party in power became law. The sweets of office were nothing to him compared to the grief he felt that all these magnificent industries which had arisen all over the land under the fostering care of the national policy, were, by the iniquitous tariff now introduced, to be blighted and scattered. We had the same kind of attack on the tariff from the ex-Minister of Finance, Mr. Foster. He went more into particulars. He foresaw, with the keen sight of a seer, the complete destruction of the woollen industry, that the Canadians were to he driven out of the confectionery business, and that there was to be complete and wholesale desolation in the homes of the makers of shirts, collars and cuffs. This is what he said :
I can take Mm (Mr. Davies) down to the French constituencies in and around Montreal, and I can show him one of the most widely spread industries you will find in Canada, which is to-day distributed among hundreds and thousands of habitants, homes where the women add to the daily fare, and keep their homes by working on these articles at a moderate rate. I say that with simply an ad valorem duty that business will go to Troy or to Germany and Belgium, or to England. No person in this country feels the impost added to the cost of his shirt and collars compared at all with the derangement and destruction of an industry which goes into the homes of hundreds and thousands of people in the rural districts around the cities and villages of this country.
It seems to be a favourite pastime of some speakers to set up a man of straw in order that they may have the plensure of

knocking him down again. Tlie same speaker made a further prophecy with regard to the woollen industry.
Why should they Imperil the great and widely distributed woollen industries of this country which are spread from British Columbia to Cape Breton. My firm belief is that with five cents a pound off and only 35 per cent left on we may bid adieu to the greater part of the widely distributed woollen industry of this country.
I could keep you almost any length of time with quotations of that kind, showing you the opinions of the Conservatives of that day regarding the effects which this amended tariff would have on the destinies of the country. These are not the opinions of the rank and file of the Conservative party-that is if there be any rank and file- but of previous leaders of the Conservative party ? These are the words of Sir Charles Tapper and the hon. Mr. Foster, ex-Finance Minister, the acknowledged leader of the Conservative party. Both of these hon. gentlemen predicted that ruin and desolation were certain to come upon Canada if the Liberal party persisted in enforcing that tariff. But what positon do our hon. friends opposite take now ? The tariff in existence to-day is practically that which came into force in 1897. The same tariff which was introduced in 1897 has practically been continued down to the present day, and is the tariff which was so fiercely denounced by the Conservative party and its leaders. Has all this desolation, has all this ruin, so freely predicted, come upon the country. Why, Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that the country is prosperous. Our hon. friends opposite have to admit our prosperity, but they strive to account for it as being due to causes completely beyond the control of the government. Well, Sir, X am not one of those who say that our prosperity is due wholly to the policy of any one government. I do not think that any body on this side takes that position. I have certainly not heard any statement of the kind made in the House. But while we acknowledge that the prosperity of the country is due, in a large measure, to other causes, we also claim that there is something due to the policy and administration of the government. The fact remains at any rate, that the Liberal party are in power and that the country is prosperous, and surely the government is entitled to some credit for that condition of affairs, just as the government would be held responsible for an opposite condition. There is no lack of precedents for coming to this conclusion. Some of the older members in this House will remember the position taken by the Conservative party during the regime of the Mackenzie administration. They charged against the government all the hard times then prevailing. I cannot personally vouch for the fact, but, according to the tradition which has come down to us, they even held the Liberal government Mr. MACLAREN (Huntingdon).
of that day responsible for the plague of grass hoppers and the entrance into Canada of the potato bug. Surely then the Liberal government now in power is entitled to some credit for the prosperity we are now enjoying. In what way have they contributed to that prosperity ? They have contributed to it, Sir, by the lowering of the tariff, by the active work they have done in connection with transportation, and the good work they have done in connection with agriculture. Our agriculturists have certainly benefited to a considerable extent by the cold storage system. Of course, hon. gentlemen opposite say that that system was introduced by our predecessors, but even if it were no one can deny that it has certainly been enlarged and perfected under the administration of the present Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher). It would be difficult indeed to over estimate these advantages our agricultural community at large derive from that system which enables them to put their products on the British market in perfect condition. At any rate we cannot fail to admit that the Liberals now in power, are entitled to at least as much credit for the prosperity we are enjoying as the Conservatives claim was due to themselves for the much lesser share of prosperity which prevailed during their administration. That our country is prosperous is evident by the better condition of the people, by the large increases in bank deposits, by the paying off of debts and by the general satisfaction and contentment displayed on every side. There is an old saying of that wise man, the late President Abe Lincoln, concerning the folly of swapping horses when crossing a stream, and I think that saying is particularly applicable at the present moment. It would certainly be a bad time for the country to change its fiscal policy when the country is so prosperous under conditions that now exist. These hon. gentlemen opposite are playing the pessimistic role of croakers. They are continually predicting hard times and telling us that we ought to prepare for them by reducing our expenditure. Well, some of my constituents think that the present government are too lavish in their expenditure. I myself would like to see the expenditure curtailed in some respects. However, the main thing to consider is are the expenditures made on necessary works, and do the government get good value for amount expended. In one word, Mr. Speaker, I consider the policy of this government should be to as far as possible make Canada a cheap place to live in. There is a large immigration flocking into the country ; we need more. What we want is population to occupy the vacant lands of the North-west and other parts of Canada. These immigrants are mostly persons in very straitened circumstances, and should .be able to get their implements, clothing and other manufactured articles at the lowest possible price.

It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to take up very muck more of your time because I have always present to my mind that mathematical calculation of my kon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Robinson), and if I speak muck longer there will surely be a very serious charge of wasting the public money rolled up against me. But there is one other word I wish to say. A great deal has been said by hon. members opposite during the session, more particularly by the hon. member from East Grey against hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches. He said that they were nothing but procasti-nators, and that they had not performed one statesmanlike act during their whole administration.


Mr. SPROULE.: Hear, hear.


William Scott Maclaren: Well, Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend be correct in his estimate, we on this side of the House must be a poor deluded lot, far inferior to that hon. geittleman and to those who share his views. Have we really been deluded all these years in believing that we have a business administration at the head of affairs ? According to that hon. gentleman we have, but we enjoy this one consolation that we are superior in numbers, and I think, to put it mildly, equal in intelligence to himself and his friends. We have believed during all these years that we have had our country's affairs administered by the best men the country could afford. I am not saying this for the purpose of flattering hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches, but simply in vindication of myself and hon. members on this side. Is it possible that when, after the election of 1S96, the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier chose the members of his administration he blundered and was utterly mistaken in his choice when, in forming his cabinet, he associated with himself men who made their mark in local and Dominion politics ? And when these men, in after jmars, appealed to the country on their record and when they were approved by a large majority, I do not believe that the people were misled or deluded. I believe, on the contrary, that the estimate put by the people on these men is the correct one and not the estimate of these hon. gentlemen who sit on the other side and who speak disparagingly of those who are their superiors. I believe in praising the present government for what they have done. I believe in expressing my high opinion of the abilities of those men who have held their own with the best British and colonial statesmen and the best statesmen of the United States. Such men can well afford to be sneered at by crude and unsuccessful politicians, and we delight to honour them notwithstanding the disparaging remarks of that illustrious statesman from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and the sneers of other hon. gentlemen opposite.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclaren, Huntingdon), was not good enough to tell us any one thing that they did, all the same.


Mr. M. IC. RICHARDSON (South Grey).: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the House,
I am conscious that the subject of debate has been already so fully discussed as to leave very little room for the introduction of new facts or new arguments to be adduced from the facts. But I avail myself of the opportunity given, of the privilege afforded, to each member of the House to place on record his views of the financial situation and of the government's policy.
I also join in the general congratulations that the country is enjoying a measure of prosperity. And, indeed, Sir, looking out on the civilized world and considering the plenty that has blessed the world during these seven years, it would be somewhat surprising if Canada did not share some of that general prosperity. I congratulate the government on the happy circumstances under which they are placed in holding the reins of power at such a time. It will be conceded on all hands by any who have given the matter attention that the reverse conditions to these-adversity, depression from whatever cause arising-have been the cause on many occasions of leaving even good governments a very precarious hold upon the confidence of the country. I say I congratulate the government as well as the country. From whatever cause our present prosperity arises, whether from the general wave of confidence throughout the civilized world with the expansion of trade resulting from it, or whether from a series of bountiful harvests, or whether, still better, it can be traced in any degree to any policy initiated and put in operation by the government-the government are to be congratulated. And, if any connection or relation can be traced between the prosperity of the country and their policy, they are welcome to all the credit they can claim and all the adulation they can crave from their supporters on that account.
But, here we may fairly ask to what extent they have changed the policy of the government which they supplanted, that policy which they had so persistently condemned before their advent to power, and which they had pledged themselves if given the power, to destroy root and branch ? What have they done towards carrying out these pledges and promises which they gave to the country ? It is true that when they came into power they gave a new name to that policy, but without importing into it any new principle. And they would now hold up that new name as sufficient to satisfy the public that they were honest in their professions and to prove that they have been consistent in their acts. But, when the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cart-

Wright) tells the House and the country that the protective policy of the former government put two dollars into tlic pocket of the manufacturer or merchant for every dollar of taxation that was put into the treasury, and that the revenue tariff of this government puts every dollar of taxes into the treasury, he draws too heavily upon the credulity of the people and banks too much on his own reputation as a statesman of long and wide experience. I think it demonstrates that it is possible for a man to outlive and out-talk a fairly good reputation for honesty, consistency and good sense. If when he counsels merchants and manufacturers to avail themselves of these fat years to lay up reserves for the lean years sure to follow, to retrench, to pay off their debts if they have any while they have the revenue coming in-if he would give such advice to the government, that, while they have a buoyant revenue they should be prepared for the adverse conditions which are sure to follow, which always do follow a period of expansion and of great prosperity, if the bon gentleman would apply this advice to the government and to his own department of the government, it would perhaps redound more to his credit than making such manifestly absured statements about distinctions in tariffs which differ not at all in principle and the differences in the application of which are so infinitesimal that they are really differences in name only.
The country was led to expect a revision of the tariff this session. But, whatever, need may exist for revision the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) says there will be no revision at present. The government are looking at present to Great Britain for a preference in that market, and to the United States for some arrangement for a reciprocal tariff. But since the budget speech has been delivered, all hopes for British preference have been dispelled by the abolition of the corn tax. I quote from a London paper of last week as follows :
No Preference Now Possible.
The budget is remarkable also because it retraces the step which Sir Michael Hicks-Beaeh was induced to take last year alone what radical critics then called the ' slippery slope of protection.' It is far fetched to suggest that Mr. Ritchie deliberately set himself to answer the Canadian Finance Minister's threat to withdraw the British preference in the Canadian tariff, unless Canadian products shall have a preference in the British markets ; but it is quite certain that if the colonies had accepted, instead of rejecting Mr. Chamberlain's suggestions for free trade within the empire, with duties against foreigners, Mr. Ritchie would not have abolished the cereals tax from which the Canadians desired exemption. England now is on the way back to Mr. Gladstone's free breakfast table and, even if Canada refrains from withdrawing her 33 per cent preference for British goods anything like tariff unity for the empire, except on a free trade basis, is less probable than ever. In these two respects Mr. RICHARDSON.
the budget is a budget of Radicalism, not of Toryism.
Sir William Vemon-Harcourt, M. P., Liberal, said :
I am glad the grain tax has been repealed. It was an infamous impost.
air. George Toulmin, Liberal, M.P., for Bury, Lancashire, said :
The repeal of the grain duties makes it impossible for any future Chancellor of the Exchequer to initiate a preferential tariff on colonial wheat.
So, that even since this debate commenced, and since the hope expressed on the part of the Finance Minister all hopes of such an arrangement with the British government are, for the present, at an end. Any satisfactory arrangements witli the United States are equally hopeless. We have given to both Great Britain and the United States fill we have to offer in exchange for any concessions from them. To-day we stan'd with empty bands, having nothing to offer them. Our government has been one of great claims and great purposes, great promises also, but both promises and purposes have come to nought. Chasing bubbles they have grasped at nothing. A government failing so often is always changing, facing now this way and now that. This is still their condition, and they have no fixed, determined, proclaimed policy for the country, hut stand Micawber-like, waiting for something to turn up. Yet, because we are buying more goods from other countries than formerly, we are asked to jubilate that our products, and frequently our money go freely to pay for our heavy purchases in the markets of the United States and other countries.
At the opening of this debate, the House was given an instructive lesson on the wisdom and astuteness of the government in giving a preference in tariff to Great Britain without any advantage being asked in return; for while it would have been a very difficult thing to induce the British government to impose a tax on breadstuffs, exempting the colonies only, now, having given the prefernce so graciously, and Britain having since that put on a corn tax, it would be much easier for Britain to reduce that taxation by exempting the colonies from its operation. But while we are still in this debate, that hope has been dispelled, Britain has abolished her corn tax, and Canada has nothing to expect in that direction. Oh, but, say they, we can do away with our preference to Britain, and an implied threat to that effect closed the Finance Minister's speech. And so our pretended gratitude for the splendid freedom that Britain gave us will stand in history as a mean and sex-vile hypocrisy, seeking to obtain by subterfuge what a self-respecting nation should have sought for honestly, on a sound business basis. So our attitude to Britain to-day is hostile on trade l'elations.

But how do we stand with Germany ? Our relations were friendly, our trade growing, but how is it now ? We have considerable settlements of Germans, both in the older provinces and in the new territories. They form no inconsiderable portion of our best citizenship. In arts and manufactures they bring to bear that intelligence and that application that challenge competition with the world. In agricultural pursuits they are not excelled and rarely equalled by any other nationality in Canada. We want emigration from Germany, but our bungling over preferential trade with Britain has aroused such a feeling of resentment against Canada in Germany, that we are singled out of all the world as the country to which a higher prohibitive tariff must be applied. We are no longer to have the German market for our products on the same conditions as other nations. Our Finance Minister announces that we are accepting the German challenge to a tariff war; it is on now, and may embroil Great Britain as well. Our attitude to Germany is hostile.
France is another country with which we are endeavouring to cultivate better trade relations. So far our relations have been of a friendly character with that country, but now it appears from correspondence which our government has had with that country that the overtures for improved trade offered by Canada, have met with but slight response from France. Our treatment of Great Britain and our treatment by Britain, do not seem to have inspired respect for and confidence in our methods by other countries. Our relations with France, if not hostile, are not particularly amicable.
But there is our great natural market in the United States, that country that lias snubbed us at every turn; that country that deserves from us no friendship in* tariff relations, that country that has treated all our approaches to reciprocal trade with contumely and insult, the country that we were told in this House last session would never again have the opportunity of turning us down, the country towards which in future we were going to stand on our dignity-no more High Commission junketings to Washington for bettered relations; they must be the seekers not we. Wliat is our attitude to them to-day ? Why, we are informed that our government are again making their bow to Washington, and interchanging letters regarding resuming negotiations; and any needed change in our tariff must wait, wait till we see what our American friends will do for us; and possibly we may see more summer trips, pic-nics, banquets, and in the end, a big bill-that, and nothing more.
This negotiation is like chasing a bubble which, when caught, is less than nothing. Sir. Speaker, we have learned, or should have learned by this time, or long ago, that we have nothing to expect from the United States. It is not for us to be surprised that the United States statesmen should regard it a patriotic duty to trick and trip
Canada at every turn. Why should they lend their support to any policy that might by any possibility help to a more rapid development of a neighbouring state, that is destined not only to be their only rival on this continent, but will rival their supremacy in trade, commerce and manufactures in the whole world. Such, I believe to be the undoubted destiny of Canada if we be true to ourselves, and to the best interests of this country.
The first unfriendly blow given to our young commonwealth by the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty was intended in no friendly spirit for Canada. It was intended to be a knock-out blow'to the aspirations of our young nationality. I well recollect, and it must be within the memory of many members of this House, the feeling of dismay that spread through the country when it was announced that the United States had abrogated and would not renew that treaty. There were hundreds, possibly thousands of business men throughout Canada, who felt that our chances of success in competition with them were so small that we might as well, to use the common expression, throw up the sponge, that we would have no chance with them. But that which was intended to be a blow to our national aspirations proved indeed a blessing, because out of it sprung the first feeling of self-dependence, that first feeling of national sentiment which was so much needed by Canada at that time, and which is sometimes needed by Canada even at the present time. Not only then but on every subsequent occasion when we have received similar repulses from the United States, the consequence has been to strengthen and intensify that spirit of self-reliance which is a more valuable asset than the most favoured treaties could possibly be to this country. There is no fear that Americans will waste any sympathy or sentiment on Canada. We will never get any trade treaty with them, advantageous to ourselves, even though we sought for it, until they find that they need our markets. I advocate no spirit of enmity or animosity to the United States, but we have had a surfeit of such nostrums as commercial union and unrestricted reciprocity. Let us have no more coquetting with a nation ostensibly unfriendly in every trade relation with us. I would recommend the adoption of that aphorism from a popular American book, David Harum. He says : [DOT] When you go to trade hosses do to the other feller as he intends to do to you, only be sure you do it fust.' We should, as a self-respecting people, have a declared policy framed for Canada, a policy of protection for the toilers on our farms, our forests, our fisheries, for our miners and artisans in mill or shop, that there shall be for every man, as far as government can secure it, a fair return for industry and enterprise, and a certain and safe investment for capital. A weak, vacillating, uncertain, waiting policy, such as may be described in the old distich.

We can and we can't, we will and we won't,
We'll be blamed If we do, and condemned If we don't.
Is not a policy for a great, progressive country like Canada to pursue. Mr. Speaker, let us once more glance at our foreign relations-to England hostile, to Germany hostile, to France not friendly, to the United States temporizing with the only nation that merits our contempt, we are waiting for a dicker or a deal. To such humiliating conditions the present Liberal government have brought us. The United States will never give us reciprocal trade while they have our market without it, at the same time shutting us out of theirs.
But, we are told we have a big surplus. If we ask where it is we shall probably be told that it appears in the Public Accounts. But if it had any real, tangible existence, we might use the hon. Finance Minister's own argument and blame the government for taking so much more taxes from the people than they require unless it was to be used to pay off our indebtedness. It is folly to expect an uninterrupted continuity of increasing revenue any more than the increase of our population will create a corresponding increase in expenditure. I said if there be a surplus such as stated, but if it has no real existence as a convertible asset, if it is a visionary, attenuated, intangible ghost of figures created by a system of arithmetic not yet introduced or taught in the common schools, where they still believe that two and two only make four, and still believe that four from four leaves nothing, then the government have no right to take credit for it.
We are doing a large trade, but buying more than we sell. We buy from the United States ini dairy products and meats $2,550,712, and in grain $14,451,461. Our total imports of agricultural products amount to some $28,000,000 from them, and we export to the United States only $8,000,000, leaving in agricultural products alone an enormous balance of trade against Canada, our total imports from the United States in 1902 being over $129,000,000, our exports $71,000,000, leaving the total balance of trade against us nearly $50,000,000. They set up a tariff wall against our products, and it is no wonder, with such a balance of trade in their favour, that they do not wish for much change to be made in our trade relations. Just let me give a few figures illustrating the character of our relations with the United States. I have not introduced much in the way of statistics. I have avoided statistics, because so many have been quoted during the debate so far, but the few figures which I will give will not be out of place as contrasting their tariff with ours in relation to agricultural products. Against wheat they put up a tariff of 25 cents a bushel. Our tariff against their wheat is only 12 cents, the United States tariff against our oats is Mr. RICHARDSON.
15 cents, ours against theirs 10 cents, against our barley 30 cents, ours against theirs 15 cents, against our pease 40 cents, ours against theirs 10 cents, against our hay $4 per ton, ours against theirs only half that amount, $2 per ton, against our potatoes 25 cents per bushel, ours against theirs 15 cents per bushel, against our beans 45 cents per bushel, ours against theirs 15 cents, against our butter 6 cents per pound, ours against theirs 4 cents per pound. Our apples have to pay a duty of 75 cents per barrel, while theirs only pay 40 cents per barrel coming into Canada. Their tariff against our flour is 75 cents per ban-el, ours against theirs is 60 cents per barrel. Their corn comes in free, but for every bushel of corn we send to the United States there is a duty under the tariff of 15 cents. These figures illustrate the unfair trade relations existing between these two countries, and I think we can scarcely expect anything in the way of reciprocal trade while we are placed in this position. Our lonly hope for 'reciprocal trade will be in placing our tariff in such relation to theirs as to make it their necessity to seek to obtain our market by a mutual lowering of tariffs. They need our trade and our market and cannot well afford to lose them.
The expenditures of the government have been running up to an alarming extent. I do not wish to enter much into statistics, as this question has been gone over repeatedly during this debate, but I shall refer to just one item of expenditure. For immigration in 1896 the expenditure was $120,190, while in 1902 the expenditure was $494,842, an increase of $374,643. I do not complain of that increase in expenditure if the results warrant it, but I think our immigration agents have gone far afield to find settlers for the great territories now opening up for settlement and taking no note of the fact that thousands of our young men have been leaving our older provinces for the United States, and they have neither made intelligent effort to stop the drain nor replace the loss by directing the stream of immigration to the older provinces. I believe it is well that a portion of the immigration coining from the old country, and especially from Great Britain, should be absorbed by the older provinces. Farm labour is very much needed, and I believe that immigrants will more quickly become accustomed to the different life from that which they left in the old country if they settled in the older provinces, as the difference between conditions in the old country and the older provinces would not be so great as the difference between life in the old country and the western part of Canada. Had the immigration department afforded the same aids to settlement to our own people that were given to Doukhobors and others, thousands of our people who have drifted to the United States might have remained citizens of our own country. When the farm is too small
I

and will not bear further division, the necessity for change becomes pressing. It may be desirable to hold the family together, and as many people may not have the amount of money that is required to transport themselves and their families across the great distance separating the older provinces from the west, some of our annual expenditure on immigration purposes might be profitably employed in assisting the settlement of such people in the west. We need something more to bind the west to the east than railway lines and telegraph wires. We need more even than the bonds of commerce. We need the stronger bonds of sentiment and kinship, and for our farmers, compelled by growing families to move, it were infinitely better to assist them to settlement in our west than permit them through our indifference to drift across the line. I do not wish the government to enter upon a scheme of granting assistance to drain the older provinces of population, but there are individual cases where assistance might very wisely and profitably be given to settlement, assistance equal to that given to people from the older countries in Europe, who are not nearly as desirable citizens as our own Canadians are. One farmer's son from the older provinces of Canada settling in the Northwest would be worth a dozen such men as the Doukhobors, the Galicians and others.
Now, Mr. Speaker, after making these few desultory remarks I shall conclude. But let me ask : What is our attitude to-day with regard to the nations of the world. Is it that self-respecting, self-dependent position that a young country like Canada with all her wealth of natural resources with i>il the intelligence and enterprise of her citizens ; is it, I ask, that self-respecting position which Canada should occupy. Should the government of such a nation as ours have such a policy as is characteristic of the government of to-day. Should we have a waiting policy ; waiting on the wishes and whims of other countries. Should our policy not be rather a recorded policy, a pronounced policy for Canada, one that will preserve for all the citizens of Canada that fair return for labour, for enterprise, for toil, for investment that is to be found in other countries that have not the resources of Canada. It is due to ourselves, Sir, that while we shall be friendly to all, we shall be determined that we will be servile to none. I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition.


Mr. ROBERT HOLMES (West Huron).: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Richardson) should have in the course of his remarks, endorsed that statement credited to David Harum, that : If you are doing business with another fellow you should try and do him up. It seems to me, Sir, that this quotation applied to individuals would 62
also apply to nations if it is possible to put it into practice, and I do not think that it would be either wise or commendable to adopt the spirit of the quotation there alluded to, and endeavour to do the other fellow up. All the more is that the case when in doing so we would obtain no advantage' to ourselves. It has not surprised me, Mr. Speaker, that not alone the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Richardson) but the majority of members on the other side, are endeavouring to depreciate as far as they can the magnificent showing that has been made in the budget speech delivered from the treasury benches. If I am not mistaken, the hon. leader of the opposition, in a speech made during the recess, when regretting the absence of a certain gentleman from this House of Commons and pleading with the people for his re-election, admitted that the opposition needed that gentleman's presence in order that they might avail of his services as a critic of the government. That admission was not very complimentary to the gentlemen who sit behind the leader of the opposition. It is equivalent to saying, that these gentlemen, able as they are, are not competent to criticise the actions of the government, or else it means that the actions of the government were so far removed from fair and honourable criticism that the opposition required some man in the House who would resort to extreme measures in order to base a criticism on the conduct of the government. That is the logic to be drawn from this statement of the leader of the opposition.
Now, Sir, while I agree with the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) when he stated that to a certain extent this debate had lost its interest, yet, I think there are a good many features in connection with the budget that might be emphasized. Although to a certain extent it is true that when the leaders on either side have spoken, they have said practically all that can be said on the question. I do not suppose, Sir, that I shall say anything new, and I certainly shall not say anything that will be remarkable, but I shall endeavour to try to impress upon the House one or two facts that stand out very prominently in connection with this discussion. I am satisfied that if our friends on the opposition benches had been able during any of the eighteen years they were in office, to present so magnificent a showing as has been presented by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), they would have cried it from the house tops and reiterated it in black face type in all the Conservative newspapers of Canada. It seems to me. Sir. that the object of this government and of any government, should be to propound such a policy as will be for the general well-being of the country at large, and not for the wellbeing of a few manufacturers alone. And, while I do not claim that this government in its administration is entitled to all credit for the remarkably satisfactory record dur-



ing the time they have been in power, I do claim that they are entitled to some credit for it. In making that claim I am simply doing what our opposition friends did for eighteen years, because during the time they were in office, they claimed credit for any progress which was made, they - claimed credit for, and attributed it to the beneficent influences of the national policy. Now, in order to show the general prosperity of Canada, I desire to quote for the benefit of the House, and more especially for the benefit of the country, some figures in reference to our trade returns. It will be remembered that the national policy was introduced with the object of especially developing our industries and increasing our trade. In 1893, after a long experience of the national policy, our total trade reached $247,000,000, which was the highest it ever reached during the Conservative regime. In 1896 our total trade was only $239,000,000. During the twenty-three years preceding this, our total trade had only increased by a little over $60,000,000, or an average of less than $3,000,000 a year. Be it remembered that during all that time we had what our friends on the other side of the House called a policy of adequate protection. We had what they believed to be a policy of sufficient protection; what they believed to be the highest perfection so far as legislation is concerned, that could contribute to the well-being and advancement and prosperity of the country. How well the national policy accomplished that, or how well it failed, may be shown by comparing our trade returns during the Conservative administration with our trade returns during the Liberal regime. In 1896, as I have said, the total trade of Canada amounted to $239,000,000. The Liberals had no sooner taken hold of the reins of office ; they were no sooner installed apparently, than our trade began to advance at a marvellous rate. Here is the record :



[Stage Direction]
Increase of one year
Year.	Amount.	over the
preceding year. .
1896		$239,000,000
1897	
257,000,000	$18,000,0001898	
304,000,000	47,000,0001899	
321,000,000	'	17,000,0001900	
381,000,000	59,000,0001901	
386,000,000	5,000,0001902	
422,000,000	35,000,000
I have given these figures in round numbers, and they show that during the six years of Liberal government, our total trade increased by $163,000,000. Now, our total trade for the current year shows an increase along the same lines, which increase will probably amount to $40,000,000, so that the total increase for the seven years of the Liberal government will amount to $200,000,000, or an average yearly increase of nearly $30,000,000. I am not surprised that in the face of these figures our friends on
Robert Holmes: the opposite side should endeavour to underestimate the prosperity which this country is enjoying. I am not surprised that they should endeavour to explain away as far as they can, the prosperity which exists and attribute it alone to the general prosperity prevailing all over the world. I am not prepared to admit, Sir, that our prosperity is due solely to the fact that other nations are prosperous. If we accept that as a suitable argument we are thrown back upon the proposition :	That during the eighteen
years the Conservatives were in power the other nations of the world were'not making that progress which they relatively should, and it also follows, that this policy of protection in which the Conservatives place so much confidence now, did not produce the good results which they claimed it would during the years they were in power. Nor am I surprised that the gentlemen on the other side of the House endeavour to underestimate and depreciate the remarkable financial record which was proclaimed in the speech of the Minister of Finance. Had our Conservative friends been able to show the very large surpluses which the Liberal government have been able to show, they would have extolled it as a renewed evidence of the statesmanlike policy of their party. When the Conservatives were in power they claimed credit for all the good things that were going. Not only did they claim credit for the prosperity of the country, but they claimed credit whenever they had a surplus. They did not claim credit for having deficits, but while they were responsible for the surpluses, nevertheless they left the deficits out of the reckoning when they were glorifying themselves. I have here some figures which have already been submitted to the House, but they will bear repetition. They say that a good story cannot be told too often, and acting upon that principle, I desire to submit some figures bearing on our present financial standing.
In 1896-97, the Liberals, on entering office, having assumed certain responsibilities and obligations which had been incurred by their predecessors, found themselves face to face with a deficit of $519,000. In the following year they had a surplus of nearly $2,000,000, in 1898-9 they had a surplus of nearly $5,000,000, in 1899-1900, a surplus of $8,000,000, in 1901-2 a surplus of $7,000,000, and this year they will have an estimated surplus of $13,350,000, or a total surplus in the seven years of nearly $41,000,000. The average annual surplus during the seven years of the Liberal administration has been $5,569,275, while the average annual surplus during the eighteen years of Liberal-Conservative rule-and our Liberal-Conservative friends used to boast upon the housetops and everywhere else of the great success of their administration-amounted to $544,000. Now, I am not specially concerned about the increase of the debt. I think the people of this country will not

quarrel with the administration about any increase of debt provided it is a legitimate increase, by virtue of the construction of various public works of a productive character, and provided that the money is properly and honestly expended, as it is under the Liberal administration. Our friends on the opposition benches may naturally take exception to an increased expenditure ; but they have been unable so far to point to any expenditure that has not been in the general interest of the country at large ; and I am satisfied that the people will endorse an increased expenditure so long as it is consistent with the development of the country, and in its best interests. But there is this fact to be borne in mind, which would have afforded unbounded glory to hon. gentlemen opposite if they had been able to report it in their time, that there has been an actual reduction of $5,000,000 in the debt of the country. The government has carefully looked after all t}ie public works required and the various matters calling for expenditure, not only without any increase in the public debt, but with an actual reduction of the debt.
Now, our friends on the opposite side of the House have taken the members on this side and the government to task for having no declared policy on the question of protection. I have listened to almost all the speeches which have been delivered by members on the other side of the House, and so far I have failed to hear any specific declaration as to what they think should be the amount of protection afforded to the various industries of the country. They do not define it in their resolution. They state that there should be some declared policy of adequate protection. Members on this side have asked the hon. leader of the opposition himself as well as those who follow him, to define or specify what they mean by a declared policy of adequate protection, and so far no member on the other side of the House has given any definition thereof. As a matter of fact, the amendment before the House is a negative amendment, because it proposes actually nothing at all. It simply states that there should be adequate protection ; but none of the hon. gentlemen opposite apparently are able or willing to state what in their opinion may be regarded as adequate protection. What might be adequate protection for one industry might not be for another, and what might be Adequate protection in the mind of one member might not be adequate protection in the mind of another. Therefore you may realize the difficulty of _ arriving at a definite conclusion upon an indefinite term of that kind, in the absence of anything specific In the resolution. Looking over our tariff, I find that it runs all the way from 20 to 40 per cent; and it seems to me that a tariff offering 40 per cent or even 35 per cent protection should be sufficient under normal conditions for our manufacturers. It simply means that if a manufacturer under ordinary conditions produces and places on the market $100 worth of goods, the present tariff, which our lion, friends say is not adequate, enables him to charge for those goods $135. It gives him an advantage of $35, which it seems to me should be sufficient for all practical purposes, and I am not one of those who think that this protection should be increased very materially. I notice that I am quoted by the hon. leader of the opposition as being a protectionist. In his speech he did me the honour of including me with some others as being in favour of protection. Well, Mr. Speaker, I assume that we are all more or less protectionists, according to local circumstances or conditions ; but as to being a protectionist in the ordinary sense of the term I have to deny the soft impeachment. I am not a protectionist, but, I believe in freedom of trade, so far as wp can have it consistently with the needs of our revenue.
As to the marvellous development which has taken place in the trade of the country under the Liberal regime, our friends of the opposition claim that that is due to worldwide prosperity-that it is. because there is prosperity in all other nations. We might ask, what is the reason that other nations of the world are enjoying prosperity ? I think they will find, if they inquire, t*at the reason is not because of an artificial system of protection, which would go to the upbuilding of manufactures, but that it may be-I will not say must be-due to natural causes. If it be true that the prosperity of other lands is largely due to natural causes-and I believe that is the case in the United States-while our friends opposite cite the United States as an example of the benefits of a highly protective policy, they forget that within themselves the United States, are a free trade people. Having various kinds of climate, and soil, they are not in a position to be compared to the Dominion of Canada. But if it be true that the prosperity of the world is due to natural causes, and that the general progress and prosperity of Canada is due to the same causes, then I contend that it is the duty of this government, as far as lies in its power, to look to the development of our natural resources, whereby we may increase the wealth of the country. Hon. gentlemen opposite want that to be done by a higher tariff. I believe it can be done by a lower tariff. I believe that it has been done by a lower tariff, and if we seek to develop our natural resources, as far as we can, without putting oppressive burdens on the people, it will be better for the prosperity of our own country. The hon. member for North Grey referred to the action of the government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is South Grey and not North Grey.


Robert Holmes: said regarding the question of reciprocity with the United) States, I am in favour of reciprocity provided we can get it on fair and honourable terms. I cordially agree in the opinion expressed by the right hon. the leader of this House when he said :	I
think it was in the city of Quebec-that the Dominion would never again go to Washington and get down on its knees and ask for reciprocity. But while that statement meets with my fullest approval, I am iu favour of securing reciprocity on fair and equitable terms. I believe that if wo had reciprocity in natural products, our Canadian manufacturers would be able, with their well known energy, enterprise, force of character and determination, to compete with our American neighbours on equal terms and under equal conditions. I have the assurance of manufacturers to-day that, if the American market were thrown open to them they would not fear the competition of the manufacturers of that country, but that they are perfectly willing to enter the American market if they are given access thereto-


Mr. TAYLOR.: Hear, hear.
Mr. HOLMES-And that statement, I take it, is endorsed by my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor)-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But will the American market ever be thrown open to our manufacturers ? Until it is, we have a right to look after our own.


Robert Holmes: My hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) may be correct, or he may not. But he must bear in mind that, for all time to come, we remain the neighbour of the country to the south of us; and so, for all time to come, we should try to secure the most workable and favourable trade relations with them that it is possible for us to secure. Our destinies may not be bound up with theirs, and yet, to a certain extent we are one nation, speaking the same tongue. And I do not wish anybody to assume from what I say that I am in favour of annexation, for I am not in favour of that at all. During visits I have made to our American friends, when opportunities have presented themselves on public occasions, I have publicly repudiated the idea that any feeling in favour of annexation exists in this country. I do not believe that any such feeling exists, but I believe a strong feeling exists in favour of good trade relations with our neighbours to the south. And I say that, situated as we are, it would be almost-suicide, I was going to say that that would be rather a strong term, perhaps, but it would certainly not be in our best interests to erect a high tariff wall between ourselves and our neighbours to the south. Our friends on the other side of the House advocate the erection of a Chinese wall. They would have us trade absolutely within ourselves. Anybody who knows anything about trade knows that that would be impossible.
If we were able to secure concessions from our friends to the south-and the indications point that way notwithstanding what my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) says-it would be in the interest of Canada for the government to entertain any proposition looking to that end. I listened to the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) the other night, and was more than surprised that a man living in the neck of land that my hon. friend lives in, the south-western part of Ontario, should take the stand that he took in opposition to closer trade relations with the United States. He has a right to his opinion, as X have a right to mine, but I have conversed with many men who live in that section and have come in contact with a large number of them, and I say without fear of successful contradiction-a man may contradict and yet not contradict successfully-that that neck of land lying west of the city of I.ondon, if we had closer trade relations with the United States, would increase in prosperity, and its land would rise in value to a marvellous extent. Hon. gentlemen opposite seek to make it appear that we have no trade with the United States, or rather that we are buying from the United States and not selling to them. The hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Richardson) quoted the American tariff to show that their tariff was higher on certain lines than ours, and therefore it was wiser for us not to seek better trade relations with them or to do business with them. There is no force in saying that their duty on grain is 25 cents a bushel while ours is lower. It would make no difference if their duty were 50 cents a bushel-it would not affect the price of the Canadian farmers' grain, and, those hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who are farmers, know that this is true. But, to show the House and the country that we do trade with the United States notwithstanding their hostile tariff-which trade would be larger, then, if they had not a hostile tariff-I wish to quote a few figures. These relate to agricultural products, and they are not all the figures that might be quoted. Hon. gentlemen opposite never tire of seeking to convince the House that our farmers suffer by the competition of the people to the south of us. The fact is that there are no articles that have been mentioned that come into competition with the articles produced by the Canadian farmer. The figures I shall quote show the exports from Canada to the United States of certain articles notwithstanding the high rate of duty they have to pay :
Horned cattle, year old, $124,497, duty of $2 per head ; horned cattle, over year old, $699,178, duty of $3.75 per head ; horses, $652,303,duty of $30 per head ; sheep, year old or less, $803,701, duty of $1.50 per head ; sheep, over year old, $118,436, duty of $1.75 per head ; swine, $81,516, duty of $1.50 per head ; poultry, $55,862, duty of 3 cents per pound live, 5 cents dressed; animals, all told, living, $2,535,493.

Barley, $9,499, duty 30 cents per bushel- (Dingley) ; beans, $185,921, duty 45 cents per bushel ; buckwheat, $2,141, 15 cents per bushel; oats, $62,322, 15 cents per bushel ; pease, $145,102 ; grain, all told, $446,712.
So, we sell living animals to the value of over two millions of dollars notwithstanding that onr American friends are producers of the very class of stock that we produce. It will be seen from the figures that we find very little market now in the United States for our barley. That market was nearly cut off by the Dingley tariff-nobody disputes that. The beans, of which we sent $183,000 worth, notwithstanding the duty of 45 cents per bushel, were the product, very largely, of the province of Ontario, and of that section of it represented by my hon. friend from Bothwell, a section which, he intimated, would receive no advantage from reciprocity with the United States.


George Taylor: I would ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Holmes) if all these goods he has enumerated were entered for home consumption in the United States, or are they goods exported in bond and re-exported ?


Robert Holmes: These goods are not all re-exported.


George Taylor: But in part, and greatly.


Robert Holmes: The figures I quote relate to agricultural products that are entered for home consumption in the United States. It may be that there are exceptions.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Robert Holmes: I am quite free to qualify the statement. I have compiled the figures carefully and I do not think there is an exception, but there may be.


George Taylor: Will the hon. gentleman furnish me with the statistics ?


Robert Holmes: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) can have them and welcome. Some I got from the American returns and some from our own. I declare myself in favour of reciprocal trade relations with our neighbours to the south. I say I am in favour of it because I believe that it would aid to the well-being and advancement of this country. I am glad that our government has taken the wise step of either lowering the duties or taking off the duties upon certain articles of the produce of the United States. I think the present government have conferred no greater benefit upon the farmers of the Dominion of Canada than by taking off entirely the duty on corn. Notwithstanding what has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite, I am satisfied that the government conferred an inestimable boon upon the farmers when they removed that duty, and I am satisfied that that opinion is held by the farmers of the Dominion irrespective of their political predilections.


Mr. CLANCY.: Does the hon. gentleman think that the Western Ontario peninsula, of which he has spoken, will endorse that ?


Robert Holmes: 


Robert Holmes: I feel sure that the section of which my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) is one of the representatives will endorse it, for the reason that the corn that comes in does not enter into competition, to any appreciable extent, with the corn grown in the district represented by my hon. friend. I have had Conservatives come to me, men of pronounced political convictions, men who have no sympathy with this government but have done everything they possibly could to prevent the return of its supporters-I have had these men come to me and endorse in unqualified terms the action of the government in removing the duty on corn. I have heard them commend the government because of its attitude on this matter, declaring that if in no other respect the government was worthy of commendation, it was worthy of commendation in this. What does it do, Mr. Speaker ? It enables the Canadian farmer, to a greater extent than he ever could under former conditions, to finish his Canadian cattle and to put them on the English market in competition with his American friends, almost upon equal footing. The hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) knows perfectly well-he poses as a farmer while I do not-that the Canadian farmer was handicapped in the fact that he was compelled to fall back upon his own coarse grains for feeding his stock, and therefore it cost him more to feed his stock than it would, under ordinary conditions, if he could have secured American corn. There are years when he cannot secure American corn, when it is too high, and it may be more profitable for him to use his own coarse grain. But the Canadian farmer knows to-day that it has paid him better to sell his coarse grains in the open market, and buy corn for the purpose of finishing his cattle, which he can then send to the English market in competition with the American farmer. My hon. friend may laugh; but I am prepared at any time to go on any platform in the country, and face him in advocacy of that position. Then I say that I am in hearty sympathy with the idea of obtaining reciprocal trade with our neighbours to the south of us, assuming, of course, that it is possible to get it. If it is not possible to get it, then I would do the best I could in the development of our own interests in some other direction. But I think it would be to the advantage of the Dominion at large to have reciprocal trade relations with the United States, to some extent at any rate.
Fault has been found and is found with our immigration policy. But it does not lie in the mouths of our hon. friends on the opposite side of the House to point to what they claim to be the shortcomings or defects of our immigration policy. We know that the policy pursued by hon. gentlemen opposite did not enable them to get immigrants to come to this country, at least we know in how few numbers they came

when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. On the other hand, whether it is due to the marvellous prosperity and progress of this country or not, immigrants are now coming in by the thousands and tens of thousands. Moreover, our Conservative frieds say, why does not the government take more interest in Canadians and do something for Canadians instead of spending their time and money on foreigners ? Why did not our hon. friends do it when they were in power themselves ?


Mr. BROCK.: That is no argument.


Robert Holmes: It may not be a very good argument. The hon. member for Toronto does not regard it as a good argument because it happens to hit his own party in a tender spot. If the argument is good in the one instance, if it is right now that the government should pay special attention to Canadians, it was right during the eighteen years when our friends opposite were in power; and they should be honest and candid enough to acknowledge that they did not do during those eighteen years what they claim now we ought to do. I say this, Mr. Speaker, that while I am perfectly willing that the government should do its utmost for Canadians who are within our land, and while I believe firmly that Canadians would make better settlers in the North-west than quite a few who are now coming from foreign lands, still I am not hostile to foreign immigrants, a term that I suppose will embrace the Doukhobors and Galicians, and men of that kind. I have conversed with people in the North-west, as I presume some of my hon. friends opposite have done, in reference to the Doukhobors, and notwithstanding their mistake of last year-and for that I think they are perhaps entitled to a certain amount of consideration in view of their circumstances-the people of the Northwest will tell you that there are no better settlers, taking them all around, there is no community in the North-west that gives better promise for the future than the Doukhobors.


An hon. MEMBER.: All bosh.


Robert Holmes: Perhaps it is all bosh. The hon. member for Halton knows how easy it is to say, it is all bosh. But that is no argument. As the hon. member for Toronto said himself a moment ago, that is no argument. My hon. friend who makes that remark cannot go into any town in the North-west adjacent to a Doukhobor settlement, and repeat the ejaculation that he throws across the floor of this House.


William Rees Brock: I made no remark at all about the Doukhobors.


Robert Holmes: I did not allude to the hon. gentleman.


William Rees Brock: He said the member for Toronto.


Robert Holmes: I alluded to the hon. member for Halton, who was using an argument similar to that which had just been used by the member for Toronto.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman by a single word.


Robert Holmes: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, I thought it was he who made the remark.


David Henderson: There was a good deal of bosh in what he said, but I did not interrupt him.


Robert Holmes: I am sorry to attribute to the hon. gentleman any views he does not hold, I accept his disclaimer, and I hope he will have the forbearance to accept my apology. When two or three members opposite are making ejaculations it is not always easy to tell where they come from. But I do not wish intentionally to wound the feelings of the hon. member for Halton, and if he did not make the remark some other hon. member opposite did make it. I think the present government is entitled to commendation for its immigration policy. In order to develop our country we want population, and if we can get population of a more or less desirable kind, I think the government is entitled to credit therefor. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, to be a picayune policy indeed to take exception to this, that, or the other nationality who are coming here, although in due course of time they will no doubt take the oath of allegiance and become good Canadian citizens, just as good as any other people we have. If we go back to the history of this country we will find that it has been settled by men of different nationalities, Germans, Irish, Scotch, and perhaps some heathen. But in course of time they have developed into good, industrious and reputable Canadian citizens. I do not tbink it becoming in hon. gentlemen opposite to throw stones in the way they do at the different nationalities. I have no special love for any particular nationality, but when they come to our shores and assume the responsibilities of citizens, and take their due part in building up this country, they are entitled to every credit and consideration.
Now what should the government do for Canadians ? How many Canadians are there who go to the North-west who would be willing to accept government aid and government assistance, even to the limited extent that we give it to those who come to us from foreign shores ? Very few Canadians indeed. The spirit of independence in the heart of Canadians is so strong that they are unwilling to accept what may be for the time being reasonable assistance in order to help them move their homes to other portions of the Dominion. But I say that the Dominion government to-day offers the very same facilities to any residents of the older provinces that they offer to residents

of foreign lands. There is no hindrance whatever to native Canadians obtaining for themselves a home in the North-west; they have the very same privilege which is given to incoming immigrants.
Now, Mr. Speaker, reference is made In that resolution to the protection of the farmer as well as to protection of the labourer. Some hon. gentlemen opposite have tried to convince the House, though it seemed to me they were arguing against their own convictions, that they believed in a policy that could protect the farmer. Well, the protection that the farmer can get from any policy of adequate protection or from the indefinite protection advocated by the hon. gentlemen opposite, is so infinitesimally small that, to use a common phrase, it does not amount to a hill of beans. The farmers were hoodwinked in Canada once by the promise of increased protection. A man came into my office immediately after the adoption of the national policy and he said to me : ' We are going to have a higher price for our wheat now.' I said : ' I am glad to know that you are going to have a higher price for your wheat. How are you going to get a higher price.' He said :	'We have the national
policy and it is going to give us a higher price.' I asked : ' How are we going to get it ?' ' Why,' he said with confidence in his face, ' Didn't Sir John go over to' the old country and arrange, himself, that they should give us a higher price for our grain ?' He went away with the conviction that Sir John, the old hero and chieftain of our hon. friends opposite, had actually arranged with the authorities of the mother country that they should pay a higher price for our grain. Our hon. friends opposite know that it is absolutely impossible to protect the farmer. They know perfectly well, notwithstanding their own statements, that no matter how high we put the tariff it cannot protect the farmer, because, when the farmer is compelled to find a market for his products in the market of the world, his products are subjected to the competition of the world, and no amount of protection can remedy that condition. What the government can do, what the government has done, and what the government desires to do, is to relieve as far as possible the burdens that were oppressive so far as the farmers are concerned, and in this way it is doing everything possible to promote the development and prosperity of the country. Then, I would like to ask our hon. friends to define, or declare in some specific way, how they are going to protect the labourer of this country. The labourer was once misled. He thought that if the national policy was adopted, as it was adopted, he would enjoy a larger measure of prosperity than ever before. Yet, the experience of the labouring classes was not in harmony with that belief. Under the policy which we have at the present time, under the policy condemned by our hon. friends opposite, under the policy


Robert Holmes: which they say does not give the manufacturer his home market and does not contribute to the prosperity of the mechanics and labouring classes generally, there is such a demand for skilled labour that not long ago a lot of men in the city of Toronto went to the Ontario government, a thing that never occurred during the eighteen years' regime of our Conservative friends, and asked the government if they could not make some arrangement whereby additional skilled labour could be brought to this country. They said they could not get enough skilled labour, that the demand is so great, that under this policy, as was stated by the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Mae-Laren), at the present time the industries are so thriving, so prosperous, that they cannot secure the amount of labour that they require at the present time. There is undoubtedly a great demand for skilled labour. But, my hon. friends opposite say that the government has done nothing, that we are not enjoying any marked prosperity, but at the same time they want to introduce a policy which would take the labourer from one class of labour and put him possibly at another, while there is a greater demand for skilled labour as compared with unskilled labour than there has been at any previous time in the history of Canada. One speaker on the other side of the House, I think the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) In his eulogy, made the statement that a lot of the credit was due to the splendid national policy that was introduced eighteen years ago and established by the present, opposition when they were in power. He said that a great deal of our prosperity was due to that fact. Well, if the prosperity that we enjoyed, such as it was, was due to the national policy, the prosperity we are enjoying now, such as it is, is also due to the administration of affairs at the present time. One is as logical an argument as the other. Then we are told that we ought to manufacture every dollar's worth of goods that we import at the present time. This is an important statement, but it is no argument, because, if we manufactured evei'y dollar's worth of goods we import now we would have to resort to direct taxation for revenue or raise the revenue in some other way and, therefore, the policy we are pursuing at the present time is the best policy that we can pursue in harmony with the existing state of affairs. I was glad to notice that the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), in his admirable speech the other night, brought out the fact that the development of the foreign trade of this country amounted to 96 per cent, while the development of the foreign trade of the United States only amounted to 46 per cent, which in itself is a contradiction of the position taken by hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not want to take up the time of the House, because I am simply going over matters that have been gone over

before, but if necessary X could go through the various departments and show the excellence of the administration in connection with these departments which has contributed to the general prosperity and general well-being of the country. I am not surprised that our lion, friends opposite sometimes almost turn green with envy at the magnificent showing that lias been made in the different departments. Take the Post Office Department, the Railways and Canals Department, the Department of Agriculture and any other department that you might name and you will find that the administration has been far superior in its results at any rate to that in vogue under the regime of our hon. friends opposite, and the results have been so striking that I am not at all surprised that they endeavour to minimize them as much as possible. But, the people of the country who are intelligent, notwithstanding the misrepresentations which may be thrown abroad at different times, know perfectly well that we are not alone enjoying prosperity, but that we are enjoying a greater degree of prosperity in the various departments than under the old regime. It was said by the hon. member foist. Mary's, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and it has been stated by speakers on the other side of the House, that no country can be prosperous with a large balance of trade against it. When the hon. gentleman made that statement and supported it by figures without end, our friends on the other side of the House applauded the statement as if it were a fact. What is the fact ? If no country can be prosperous with a large balance of trade against it, will our hon. friends opposite tell me how it is that Great Britain has always had a balance of trade against it ? The balance of trade has been against Great Britain for almost all time and if the argument used by the hon. member for St. Mary's, Montreal, and endorsed warmly and applauded by hon. members opposite, be true, then Great Britain must be almost in a state of national bankruptcy. We know that to be entirely contrary to the fact. If hon. gentlemen opposite want to look at a country where there is disclosed, perhaps, the logical results of a high tariff, they have simply to look at Germany, where they will find a state of affairs existing which is one we would not like to copy in this country. I do not think the labouring classes or the farming classes in Germany are enjoying that measure of prosperity that we have been enjoying. Germany has a high protective tariff, but it has not the prosperity which hon. gentlemen opposite claim we would have if we adopted that tariff. My hon. friend from South Brant (Mr. Heyd) informs me that it has a large balance of trade against it; therefore, it cannot be prosperous. There are one or two other matters I want to allude to and then I shall take my seat. I agree with the hon. member for Aiberta (Mr. Oliver) in one respect, that the government might have gone farther
than it did so far as the reduction of the tariff is concerned. I do not know why the tariff on coal oil is kept on. It is a small amount. It does not look to be very large. It is true that the government has reduced it and I think they were wise in reducing it. I do not know perhaps that it would make very much difference if the duty was taken off altogether so far as the price is concerned to the consumer, under the existing circumstances. But insignificant ns the item may appear, there are a good many people in rural sections especially who wish to see the duty taken off coal oil. I would have been glad had the government seen its way clear to do what apparently would have been in the interests of the consumer, and I do not know that any existing industry in Canada at the present time -would have suffered in connection therewith.
I stated at the outset of my remarks that all men were more or less protectionists according to local considerations and conditions. I stated that on general principles I believe in freer trade, though not absolute free trade, because we can not have free trade. And yet at the same time, I am to a certain extent a protectionist. There may be exceptional cases in which protection would be advisable-I use the term in a qualified sense. Sometimes I have thought that hon. members on the other side of the House produced strong cases for exceptional treatment, and the government apparently took that view in connection with some of its own legislation. Notwithstanding the fact that the government stands for tariff reform or a tariff for revenue, (and a tariff for revenue is protective to that extent at any rate), the government took the view that on certain lines they would be justified in increasing or readjusting the tariff. They may be right; I will not say they are wrong. To that extent I am a protectionist, and I am a protectionist by virtue of local surroundings and circumstances-


James Clancy: What were these articles?


Robert Holmes: I do not call them to mind at the moment, but it did suggest itself to me when I heard some of these gentlemen opposite speaking.


James Clancy: Salt for example ?


Robert Holmes: I am going to allude to salt. Even at the risk of my bon. friend calling me inconsistent, I think I can show that the tariff on salt is not just what it ought to be, and I will point out to my hon. friend and to the House why I think so.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Holmes: The government thinks that special treatment should be accorded to beet root sugar. That may be right and it may be wrong. I am not a very strong supporter of the beet root sugar argument, because I am a little inclined to think that I we will never be able to successfully es-

tablish a beet root sugar industry in this country, unless it is done by subsidies or bonuses or something of that kind. X think that is the experience of our friends on the other side of the line, and I am not satisfied in my own mind that the beet root sugar industry can lie permanently established here. If it can, well and good. If we can make it a permanent success without it costing our people too much, then I am not prepared to find much fault with it. But, if we believe in a tariff for revenue as we advocate, then I say that the tariff should be so adjusted as to produce the revenue that is necessary. Then the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) called attention to the circular placed in the hands of members of this House by a Arm representing the salt industry in my own town-it not only represents the salt industry in my own town but it largely represents the salt industry in the province of Ontario. Because all the salt industries in the province of Ontario are under the direction of two or three individuals, and one of these firmg has its office in my own town. Now, the government believes it was wise and prudent to extend special consideration to the beet root sugar industry.


James Clancy: In what way ?


Robert Holmes: In providing especially that machinery might lie introduced free of duty in connection with the beet root sugar industry.


James Clancy: A great concession, that.


Robert Holmes: Nevertheless it is a concession, whether it is great or otherwise. The government took the same view with regard to steel rails. I presume that my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) with equal force and logic will say that that is a great concession also. At any rate the government took the ground that with reference to steel rails certain consideration should be shown to the manufacturers of steel rails.


James Clancy: AVhat do you think of putting a duty on steel rails ?


Robert Holmes: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) would like to lead me astray by drawing a herring across the track.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Holmes: I am a little afraid that the duty on steel rails will not turn out in the end as some of the gentlemen on the other side think it will. That is my opinion with reference to steel rails. At the present time the manufacturers of salt have a duty of seven and a half cents per hundred on salt in packages, and five cents per hundred pounds on salt imported in bulk. The manufacturers of salt would not find fault with that if they were not handicapped in a way in which perhaps other industries are not handicapped. It is not for me to advise the government as to its trade policy, but while others have expressed their opinion on this side of the House, I presume that I may ex-Mr. HOLMES.
press my opinion also. I think it would have been a wise thing on the part of the government to have met our American friends in the matter of the remission of the duty on coal. AVhere the Americans have taken the duty off coal I think it would have been a wise thing on the part of this government to remove our duty on coal. I believe it would have been a concession to the manufacturers all over the Dominion. It would have been equivalent to a certain amount of protection, and to that extent the salt manufacturers think that it would have been especially to their advantage had the duty on coal been removed. The salt manufacturers are handicapped in this way : they do not complain alone about the competition from the United States, but they also object to the competition from the old country, and they claim, I think with a great degree of force, that believing as we do in a tariff that shall be a revenue producing tariff, there should be a tariff upon salt the same ns there is upon any other article. Binder twine was singled out by the government for special consideration, and the government takes to itself power to deal with binder twine in case they find it advisable and necessary to do so.


James Clancy: No, they do not.


Robert Holmes: Our salt manufacturers complain of two things. They complain of the free importation of English salt, and they complain generally of the importation of American salt. The English salt comes in here free of duty by virtue of being used in the fisheries, and if you take the returns of trade and commerce you will find that it is not alone imported from Great Britain but it is also imported to a certain extent from the United States under this head. The manufacturers of salt think that when they are handicapped by taxes of various kinds, that English salt manufacturers should be placed in the same category as they are, and should contribute a certain amount to the revenue of this country. They do not see why even the maritime fisheries should enjoy the benefits of free salt, while people in the upper provinces are called upon to pay an increase cost by virtue of the tariff if they import salt. If the English salt was used for the fisheries alone, there would not be so much force in my argument in asking for a duty upon it, but unfortunately for the manufacturers of Canadian salt, English salt also enters into commercial competition, because it comes westward and is sold in competition with Canadian salt. To that extent the Canadian manufacturers are handicapped in that direction and are unfairly and unjustly dealt with.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) For whose benefit ?


Robert Holmes: Presumably for the benefit of the fishermen of the lower provinces.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Yes, and for the farmers also.


Robert Holmes: Of course, if my bon. friend assumes that position he should throw the duties off entirely, and make all things equal. But the salt manufacturers are called on first of all to pay a duty on coal which amounts to the equivalent of 4 cents on every barrel of salt. That may seem to be a small amount, but when they manufacture a great quantity of salt any one can see that in the aggregate it would amount to a great deal. The salt manufacturers are exceptional with respect to their use of coal, for there is no industry which I am aware of in the prosecution of which it requires such a large quantity of coal to produce a given amount of manufactured goods as it does in the manufacture of salt. The coal tax presses particularly heavy on the salt manufacturers, because it takes a ton of coal at least to make two tons of salt. I do not think a similar condition prevails in any other line of manufacture. Our salt manufacturers ask, and with a certain degree of reason and force, that our tariff should at least be made equal to the American tariff, or if not, that it should be logically called a revenue producing tariff, because the English salt, which comes in and enters into competition with Canadian salt, should bear a share of the burden which the latter has to bear. The salt manufacturers are also taxed for their bags, taxed on iron, and on a variety of articles used in connection with their business. It seems to me, free trader as I may be, that there is a great amount of force in the contention that our salt manufacturers are unjustly dealt with by being taxed on their raw material while they are not in a position to compete on equal terms with foreign producers. Our American friends have this advantage, that they are endeavouring to force the small manufacturers of the United States into a large combine, and, in order to do that, are selling salt at low prices. The Americans have the further advantage of cheaper transportation than we have in Canada. In all these respects our salt manufacturers are placed at a disadvantage, and for the reasons stated I think are deserving of consideration at the hands of the government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have said practically all I want to say. I say unhesitatingly that the general policy pursued by the present administration is a policy that very largely meets with my approval and endorsation, not simply because I sit on this side of the House, but because it seems to me to be the policy best adapted to promote the development of the country at large, and the interests of all classes of our people! Somebody has said-I think it was my hon. friend from South Brant (Mr. Heyd), with whom in private conversation I have sometimes a controversy on these questions-that this country should not be an agricultural or pastoral country. On this point there is one fact that must be borne in mind. We may develop our manufacturing industries to the fullest extent
possible, whether by virtue of the development of our lands or by virtue of increased protection ; but, first and foremost, this country must be for all time an agricultural country. We cannot help it. Let any man travel over the Dominion of Canada, from the Atlantic on the east to the Pacific on the west, and he will come to but one conclusion, that with the large agricultural area which we possess, and the vast extent of territory yet undeveloped which must inevitably come under the farmer's hand, we must first of all give attention to the development of our agricultural interests ; and with the development of these will come the development of our manufacturing interests. One is a sequence of the other. Therefore, I contend that it is our duty first and foremost to see to the well-being and prosperity of the largest class in the community. The farmers are by all odds the largest class ; and if by legislation, or in any other way, we can contribute to the prosperity of that class, if we can make two blades of grass grow where only one grew before, it is our duty to do so. Then and then only will come the true and solid development of our manufacturing industries-a development that will stand for all time to come. We have a noble heritage ; we have a grand country, and I am glad to see that hon. members on both sides of the House wish it to develop and prosper. Unfortunately, we are not all of the same opinion as to how that development and prosperity can be best brought about. There is no reason why we should not agree to differ on questions of policy ; but in our legislation and in whatever action we take, we should have in view the interest and the welfare of the masses and not the classes, of those who bear the burden and heat of the day, of those who sweat and toil, of those who are not in the fortunate circumstances of the men who have the advantage of protection, of those who have not as luxurious homes or as many of the luxuries and comforts of life as most of our manufacturers. I do not say that this is true of them all ; but relatively speaking, the manufacturers enjoy a greater degree of wealth and prosperity than the farmers, and I do not say this in any way as reflecting upon this important class in the community, but it is the duty of this House to legislate in such a way as to contribute to the development and wellbeing of the greatest body in the community.


George Taylor: Mr. Speaker, representing, as I do, one of the largest agricultural constituencies in the province of Ontario, I think I am simply doing my duty in voicing what I believe to be the opinions of the large majority of my constituents. Before I address myself particularly to the budget speech made by the hon. Minister of Finance, and to the amendment thereto moved by the hon. leader of the opposition, I want to say a few words in regard to the speech which has just been

delivered by the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes). That hon. gentleman has travelled north by south, east by west. He Is a protectionist, a free trader, a revenue tariff man ; anything that the government may adopt he will follow and cheerfully support. He quotes a number of statistics of agricultural products which he claims are exported to the United States for home consumption ; but in the short time that I have had to look into the matter, I am satisfied that the great majority of these exports have been bought by speculators and exported in bond through the United States to other foreign countries. Then, in discussing the position of the manufacturers in this country, he told us that one of them had said to him that he would be quite willing, if the United States would throw down their tariff wall, to meet the American manufacturers on fair ground. I am satisfied that that statement is tine. The hon. gentleman cannot find in this country a manufacturer who would not be willing to meet the United States manufacturers in a fair field, but he is not willing to meet them with one hand tied behind his back, as he is by the Canadian tariff being so much lower than the American. But give us a fair field, and the manufacturers of Canada are prepared to meet those of the United States in the open market. So are our farmers ; but we do not want the United States to be pouring their free corn into this country when we have to pay duty in the United States on the grains which the free corn displaces. My hon. friend asked : How are we going to protect the farmers of this country ? The farmers, in my opinion, are fairly well protected now, thanks to the Conservative government and the National Policy. Let me point my hon. friend to one industry which has grown up in this country within a few years. I was the first one in this House, I think it was in 1885, to advocate the placing of a duty upon pork. I proved to the government that in the year previous we had imported into this country $12,000,000 worth of pork, beef, and the products of beef and pork. I asked the government to come down with a protective tariff on pork, and I predicted that in a very few years this country, in place of sending $12,000,000 to the United States for beef and pork, would be raising plenty to "feed our own people and have a large export beside. We used to send $12,000,000 to the United States for pork and beef with which to feed the people of this country, and when the pork and beef was gone the Americans had our money and the Canadians had nothing but the bone and muscle which that beef and pork produced. The late government came down with a protective tariff on those articles. and what has been the result ? Every farmer in Canada is a manufacturer and is manufacturing sufficient pork in this country to feed our people, and is exporting annually millions of dol-Mr. TAYLOR.
lars' worth besides. That is an object lesson of how our farmers can be protected. In the same way we could secure for our farmers the absolute control of our home market for vegetables, which to-day are imported to a large extent from the United States. But my hon. friend is evidently a trimmer. His sole object seems to be to make a speech which will enable him to proclaim himself a free trader in some portions of the country, and then go to the salt manufacturers and others and declare himself in favour of protection.
Let me now address a few words to the government. It is well known that this government came into power in 189(5 over the corpse of the Manitoba school question. The right hon. the Prime Minister promised the people that, if returned to power, the first thing he would do would be to send out a commission, headed by the hon. Sir Oliver Mowat, to Manitoba to investigate the facts of the school question and that he would then settle that question at once and for ever. Did he carry out that solemn promise which he then made to the people ? No, Sir, he did not send Sir Oliver Mowat, but sent another emissary, and managed by some manipulations and manoeuvres, to have the school question smoothed over temporarily and then said :	' Now
the question is settled.' Let me ask whether the people of the, province of Quebec will take the word of the Prime Minister as against that of the high dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church ? What does the Archbishop of Manitoba say on the question ? He declares positively that it is not settled, and the Archbishop'of Montreal, who has just returned from Rome where he had an interview with) His Holiness the Pope on this very question, also declares that it is not yet settled. Well, for my part, I am prepared to believe the dignitaries of that church rather than the right hon. Prime Minister on this point.
The right hon. gentleman made a promise to the temperance people. He said to them:
' If you elect me to office, I will submit a plebiscite to the people on the question of prohibition.' And I will give effect to the will of the people. He did submit a plebiscite, and then sent down to the province of Quebec three or four of his ministers to tell the people there that if prohibition were carried, it meant an extra two dollars a head of taxation on every man, woman and child in the country, and as every French Canadian family is very large-pretty near 15 being the average French family.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


George Taylor: present Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia (Sir Henri Joly de Lotbiniere), then Minister of Inland Revenue, and the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) asked the people of Quebec to vote against prohibition on this ground, but notwithstanding all their efforts, the result of the plebiscite was a large majority in favour of putting an end to the liquor traffic. Did my right lion, friend give effect to the will of the people ? Why, that question stands today exactly as it stood before the plebiscite was taken.
Then he promised that if returned to power, he would take the duty off agricultural implements. Did he carry out that promise V He found a tariff of 20 per cent on agricultural implements. That rate still exists on these articles to-day. Did he not also, during the elections of 1890, promise the people free coal oil ? Why, we saw posted on every barn and fence throughout the country the placard :	' Vote for
Laurier and free coal oil.' Has he redeemed that promise ? My hon. friend, who has just spoken, would like to see the government redeem that pledge, but how many years is he going to wait for them to redeem it ? All they did was to reduce the duy one cent a gallon on coal oil, which, I must say, is removing it in a very infinitesimal degree.
The right hon. the Prime Minister likewise promised reduced expenditure. Put me in, lie said, and I will surround myself with a cabinet of business men, and we will fun this country on economical lines. If elected, we will reduce the expenditure $2,000,000 or $3,000,000. The Hon. David Mills said that they would reduce it $5,000,000, but the right hon. gentleman would not go that length. He said he was not prepared to promise a reduction to that extent, but that certainly he would reduce our annual expenditure some $3,000,000 or $2,000,000. Have the government redeemed that pledge? Instead of reducing the expenditure they have increased from $40,000,000 to $03,000.000. They have increased our annual expenditure by about $23,000,000.
The .right hon. gentleman promised to reduce the national debt. Has he done it V Sir, he lias put a mortgage on every farm in this country, which in the aggregate amounted to $13,000,000 taking the whole Dominion, since he came into power. My hon. friend, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (lit. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), when in opposition, used to work out how much every extra million dollars of increased national debt amounted to on every farm in the country, and he would exclaim : That is the mortgage put on your farm by this corrupt Tory government. Put us in and we will redeem that mortgage. Have they redeemed it ? On the contrary, although we have the largest revenue this country has ever Jiad, they have run the country into debt, by their extravagant expenditure, on another $13,000,000.
The right hon. gentleman further appealed to the country :	' Put me in and I will
abolish the national policy.' Both the right hon. gentleman and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce made the same pledge. Put us in, they exclaimed, and there will be no more protection. Have they carried out that promise ? We had the statement of the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) a few nights ago, that the tariff to-day is practically the same as that which Mr. Foster left. These hon. gentlemen made a few changes, but their tariff is the same old national policy, and the ex-Minister of Public Works stated this much more forcibly than I can do it. Let the members of tiie government settle with their former colleague as to which is right. The people will have no difficulty in deciding between them because there is the tariff. In the one column is set forth the old rate and in another the new rate, and out of a hundred items, not more than probably one or two are changed. Some are changed up and some are changed down.
The next promise made by the right hon. gentleman was that he would reduce the number of cabinet ministers. Has he done that ? Instead of doing that, he took two who were only door keepers in the Conservative government and made them full pledged Cabinet ministers with increased salaries.


Mr. BENNETT.: And back pay.


George Taylor: Yes, antedated-away back. Then he promised the people :	We
have one chamber of the Dominion legislature filled with old women. We will abolish that or reform it. Has he redeemed that promise ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is reformed.


George Taylor: It is there just as the Conservative party left it, except that a few of the Conservatives have died.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, no.


George Taylor: The hon. member for Gaspg (Mr. Lemieux) shakes his head and says it is not quite the same. The only difference is that a few of the Conservative members have died and their places are filled with partisans of the present government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Old women too.


George Taylor: Yes, for instance the gentleman who used to represent North Wellington is there. When the Conservative party were in office and that gentleman was in this House, he used to speak of the Senate in no complimentary terms. But he is now a venerable and distinguished member of that body. Then, the Prime Minister promised the people :	Put us in and we
will reduce the taxes on the necessaries of life and put them on the luxuries. I would ask the right hon. gentleman now on what necessary of life have the taxes been re-

cl need, with the single exception of corn, which may be regarded as a necessary of life ? And on what luxuries has he increased the taxes ? On the poor man's luxuries and his alone-tobacco and sugar. Before I sit down I shall give some figures to show the enormous sums that lion, gentlemen opposite have taken out of the pockets of the poor farmers and labouring men of this country by increased taxes on sugar and tobacco last year as compared with the year 1895. Then, while promising the people of the country generally in his speeches that he would abolish the national policy, the premier went to the manufacturers, closeted himself with them, and assured them that they need not he afraid, that his party would not interfere with the national policy. Ask the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) whether that statement is true or not. He made the statement on the floor of the House, declaring that it was not a cabinet secret, that there was a private, secret bargain made with the manufacturers, that if the Liberals got into power they would not interfere with protection. And so we still have the protection, notwithstanding the promise given to the farmers that it should be abolished and the duties removed. I could go on for a long time setting forth the promises made and broken by the party now in power. But X can quote words more forcible than any I could use, from the utterances of one of their most prominent supporters, a gentleman who has done more, given more time and spent more money in the interests of the Reform party than any of those I see before me. This gentleman wrote a letter, after negotiating with his friends. He thought he had just claim, considering all the time and money he had spent in their interest, to a seat in the Senate. But he found he could not deal with them, as the price was too high. He wrote an open letter, and this is what he said :
It would be utterly wearisome to review in detail all the ugly record of promises made and broken by the present government. I can only glance at some of those not already noted. We declared that the number of paid ministers in the cabinet was too great under the late administration ; we have the same number still and their aggregate salaries are $4,000 per year greater, one-half this sum going into the pocket of the minister who recently declared that every pledge has been kept. We denounced the expenditure on account of superannuation and pledged oursellves to wipe it out ; it was greater by $14,331 in 1899 than it was in 1896. We denounced as useless the creation of the Department of Trade and Commerce. The ' useless ' department has been continued. We promised to abolish the Senate or radically change its constitution ; by affording that body an opportunity to save the country from the consequences of extravagant and corrupt deals, the government has enabled the Senate to demonstrate its usefulness, almost Its indispensability. We denounced the development of monopolies, trusts, and combines as a consequence of the policy of our opponents ; not a single one of those which


George Taylor: were in existence in 189S has been destroyed or put out of business

He refers to the coal oil monopoly.
-while others have been created and given a foothold In the country by the direct action of the government. We declared that the expenditure for the administration of justice was too great. Sir Wilfrid Laurier even going so far as to say that thousands of dollars paid to counsel had been improperly If not corruptly paid ; the expenditure of this department has been increased by $353,000. We denounced the expenditure of $120,000 for immigration purposes ; we have more than doubled this expenditure, increasing it to $255,000.


Mr. MONK.: It is $500,000 now.


George Taylor: Yes, it has doubled up again.
We condemned the granting of public lands as bonuses to railways ; only by the opposition of the Senate was the government prevented from consummating a deal by which twenty-five thousand acres of gold-bearing lands, to be selected by the beneficiaries, was to he given per mile for the building of a narrow-guage tramway, a transaction so flagrantly improper that several government supporters refused to vote for it, and it is doubtful if any one would now he willing to defend it on its merits. We denounced the granting of cash bonuses to railways, declaring it to he 'a fruitful source of jobbery, peculation, and corruption we have well nigh out-Heroded Herod by the reckless way in which we have granted cash bonuses to railways, giving in one Instance for the same railway two millions more than we had condemned our opponents for offering, and in another actually granting a bonus to a road for which no charter had been granted and which was not even projected. We condemned all corruption ; yet our leaders have made us responsible for the Crow's Nest job, by means of which the directors of the leading government organ were permitted to practically grab a quarter of a million of acres of coal lands, and the country is saddled with a totally unnecessary payment of two millions of dollars. Wre promised purity of administration; the history of the notorious Drummond railway job shows what regard our leaders had for such a promise.
But why go farther ?
He stops, as I felt compelled to stop, for it is impossible to cover the whole list.
The record of our party while it has been in power under its present leaders is one long, shameful story of promises unfulfilled and pledges broken ; of reckless extravagance ; of jobbery and corruption ; and of utterly disgraceful betrayal of every principle for which as a party we have stood.
I could not use such strong language if I tried, nor could I draw a more faithful picture of the present government than this that one of their own prominent supporters has drawn up-and he knew the inside work-* mgs of this government.
For the purpose of securing themselves in office the men who have been entrusted with positions of leadership have brought disgrace upon our party and dishonour upon the name of Liberalism. What then is our duty to our party and to our country ? Again I repeat that

only by repudiating these leaders, by disassociating ourselves from them

They are going fast. One honest man has gone out, the ex-Minister of Public Works. He could not swallow it all:
-and by doing all that may be in our power to punish them for their falseness and treachery, by driving them from power and from the offices which they retain as the price of their treason to principle, can we as individuals and as a party avoid sharing their guilt and participating in their shame. In no other way and by no means short of this can we hope to regain or retain as a party the respect and confidence of a patriotic and decency-loving public. It may be said that this can only be accomplished at the expense of a return to power of our political opponents ; a party opposed to the political principles in which we believe. I do not dispute this, nor do I shrink from this alternative. Neither do I believe that any true man or any man who has an abiding faith in the truth of Liberal principles or in the ultimate triumph of truth will shrink from it. We are bound to assume that the Conservative party is permeated and guided by a genuine belief in the truth of its political ideals and in the correctness of its principles. At any rate we cannot truthfully charge that party or its leaders with having betrayed or abandoned its principles to get or retain office.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I could not use stronger language than that used by Mr. H. H. Cook, the writer of that letter.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: When did he write it ?


George Taylor: My hon. friend (Mr. Campbell) knows well when the letter was written, as he knows the contents of it. It was published in all the papers in Canada. But I can find it by looking up the files of the ' Globe ' and ' Mail,' and I will give the date to the hon. gentleman when the House assembles after recess.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


George Taylor: Mr. Speaker, just before the House rose, at six o'clock, I was reading to the hon. gentlemen opposite the opinion held of them by one of their supporters, a gentleman who supported them strongly in the election of 1896, a gentleman who perhaps gave more time and spent more money in the interests of the Reform party than any other man in Canada. I was reading this gentleman's opinion of hon. gentlemen opposite, and of their conduct since they came into power. The hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) asked me when this letter that I read was written. I could not answer him just then, but said that I would do so after six o'clock. I tell him now that that letter was written by Mr. II. H. Cook about the 1st of October, 1900. After the hon. member for West York had asked me that question, the Minister of Customs, whom I am glad to see just now
entering the House, said that we had had an election since then. It is true, we have had an election since then. The hon. gentleman sat in his seat while I was making accusations against the government, and while I read this letter of condemnation, written by Mr. II. H. Cook ; the Minister of Customs, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce all sat in their seats, and not one of them dared to dispute a word, either of the statements that I made or of the statements made by Mr. Cook. In fact the Minister of Customs practically admitted that the statements were true, because he said: 'We have had an election since then.' As if to say, that wipes out the whole thing. It is true, all that Mr. Cook has said but we have had an election since then, and we are here and you are over there. How will the Minister of Customs make good the statement so far as it applies to the province of Ontario ? Whose word was accepted in the province of Ontario, the word of my hon. friend or the word of Mr. H. H. Cook 1 Why, the Reform party came near being swept out of existence in the province of Ontario, and the Conservative party came hack with a jnajority of over twenty. Where were the Reform party in that province of Ontario where Mr. Cook's letter was circulated, and where the conduct of hon. gentlemen opposite had been ventilated on the platform ? Manitoba, that great province, also sent a majority to support the Conservative party in this House. But we know how the majority supporting the government in this House came to be elected. They did not come from the province of Ontario.
Now, we have here a government conducted by some fifteen ministers, including the Solicitor General. We have a cabinet composed of fourteen members and a Solicitor General, each of them drawing a sessional indemnity of $1,500 a year, and the most of them a salary besides of $7,000 a year. How are these hon. gentlemen earning the salary that this country is paying them ? Have they been sitting here since the Finance Minister made his budget speech ? How many of these ministers that are being paid $7,000 a year by this country and $1,500 a year as sessional indemnity-how many of them are sitting in their seats to answer the charges that may be brought against them ? Why, Sir, the other night the constitution was fairly wrecked when the Finance Minister moved the adjournment of the House, and looking round to find one of his colleagues to second the motion, there was not one of them in his place, and he had to ask a private member to second the motion to adjourn. That is how little these gentlemen think of attending to their duties. Why do we find so many of these ministers scattered to the four corners of the earth, enjoying themselves and having a good time ? Why are

they not sitting here like honest men, earning the salaries paid them by the people of this country as civil servants to administer the affairs of this country ? They go off on jaunts and pleasure excursions at the expense of the country. Look at the Auditor General's Report, and see the vast sums charged for the travel of ministers on their jaunting tours. Where are they to-night ? The Prime Minister, it is true, is not in his place, but he is to be excused, because his health being poor, the members of the House, particularly on this side, would not expect that hon. gentleman to be in his place any evening during the entire session. But where are the other hon. members whom the people are paying $8,500 a year ? They ought to be sitting in their places to answer the charges that are made against them by members on this side of the House in respect of their conduct in administering the affairs of the country. Why are they not here earning their money, the same as members on this side of the House, and those who sit behind the ministers themselves on the other side ?
Let me imagine a large incorporated company, a manufacturing concern that employs a president, a secretary, a treasurer and superintendents of different departments. Similarly we have in this country running the government, in the Prime Minister, a president, we have the Secretary of State, and we have the Finance Minister as treasurer ; then we have superintendents of the different departments. We have the Minister of Trade and Commerce occupying that position which he said there was no use for when he was on this side of the House, and which hon. gentlemen opposite said they would abolish if they ever got into power. But he is sitting there now as a looker-on, drawing his $7,000 a year and his $1,500 indemnity. Why is he not here to-night to answer the questions that I intend bringing up shortly in reference to the trade and navigation returns ? He is not to be found. He is the superintendent of that branch of the business. Then we have the Minister of Inland Revenue, to whose department I intend to refer before sitting down. Where is he 1 Earning his $1,500 indemnity and his $7,000 salary. Is he here to answer to the people of this country for the way he is conducting their affairs ? The Finance Minister is the treasurer ; as is his duty, he has generally been in his place since the debate commenced. But he is practically the only minister out of the fourteen whom we have seen here. My hon. friend sits smiling opposite me, the Minister of Customs, who is the pack-horse of this government, he has been pretty generally in his place also. My hon. friend the Postmaster General is here tonight, but we have not seen much of him since this debate commenced.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I guess they are attending receptions.


George Taylor: 


George Taylor: The Minister of the Interior, I .have no doubt, is attending a reception across the sea. Well, he should be here attending to the duties of his office, managing the affairs of his department. Why did he find it convenient to clear out just when the session was coming on, going over there to look after the Alaskan boundary ? Could not some other man out of his department have gone over there to do the work that he is doing Is it because he is afraid to face the ex-Minister of Public Works that he is absent There must be some cause for it. Is he afraid to come into the House and face the jobs going on in his department, some of which we have heard of lately from the Yukon. The Minister of Public Works is the other pack horse of the government. He and the Minister of Customs have practically been the representatives of this government during the entire season from the time the House adjourned last spring until within a few days of meeting here, late in March. These two gentlemen are the pack horses of the whole cabinet. They remain here holding the fort, each of them acting for his own department and half a dozen other departments, whose heads were away spending the peoples money and drawing the salaries that I have mentioned. The Minister of Railways and Canals-why is he not in his seat He is paid $1,500 sessional indemnity and $7,000 besides. Why is he not in his seat ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I guess he is at a reception.


George Taylor: Oh, yeS, the hon. gentleman and his colleagues are great for receptions. If there is a reception given, either in Japan, or in England, or in any place in Canada, these gentlemen neglect their parliamentary duties and their other duties which they are sacredly charged to perform as the civil servants of the people of Canada. They desert their duties and go away to enjoy themselves and attend receptions. Then there is the Minister of Militia and Defence, we have only seen him in the House a part of two days since this discussion commenced. He should be here to defend his department for conducting which he is paid a heavy salary besides his sessional allowance. Then there is the Minister of Agriculture-where is that hon. gentleman ? Is he another one of those whom the ex-Minister of Public Works referred to as those of his colleagues with whom he was on terms of intimacy ? Is he one of those who are afraid to meet the ex-Minister of Public Works on the floor of parliament ? He is away over in Japan. We saw an account in the papers a day or two ago about his attending a reception over there with the Geisha girls. Is that what the Minister of Agriculture is paid for doing in place of being here attending to his department ? That hon. gentleman is at the head of the most important department of

this whole government, yet we have not seen him in the House during the entire session. How long are the people going to put up with this kind of thing ? Would any business concern allow its president, its secretary, its treasurer and the superintendents of each of the departments to absent themselves from their positions of trust without leave and not bring them to book ? Not an institution in this country would do it. Will the people of this country, once their eyes are opened to the conduct of these hon. gentlemen say to them: You have done well; you have performed your duties faithfully and we will return you to power ? I think nay. They will say that they have been unfaithful stewards and they will make them walk at the next election, come when it may. The hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) has been fairly faithful in his attendance in the House but he is not here to-night. We have two hon. ministers out of the fifteen sitting in the House to-night during this debate when every minister ought to be in his place. We have the hon. Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Carroll). Hon. gentlemen opposite, when they were on this side of the House and when the late Conservative government appointed a Solicitor General, found a great deal of fault with that appointment, but the excuse is made now, that, that having a Solicitor General, a large amount of fees that formerly went to lawyers for transacting the affairs of the country will be saved because the work will be done by the Solicitor General's Department. Look at the Auditor General's Report and you will see that there is not a town or village in this country in regard to which there is not the record of some heeler of a lawyer having been paid large sums of money for attending to the affairs of this country when we have the hon. Minister of Justice and the hon. Solicitor General paid large salaries to look after these matters. We find that the amount paid out in fees for legal services is double and treble that which was paid out under the late government. The hon. Minister of Finance, in introducing his budget, suggested some changes, but very few. I am satisfied that the changes that the hon. minister proposes in the resolutions now before the House are very disappointing to a large class of pfeople in this country, to the manufacturers, the agriculturists and the labouring men. The hon. Minister of Finance, in his budget speech last year, led the people to believe that at this session of parliament there would be a revision of the tariff and that relief would be granted to many important industries in the country. But, the hon. Minister of Finance made no changes on the lines that he had intimated he would adopt at the last session of parliament. Ask the hon. exMinister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) He said and said plainly and above board that there would be changes, that the hon.
Minister of Finance had promised them, he stated so publicly and for having made these statements the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works was walked out of the cabinet. But, the hon. gentleman who succeeded him in the cabinet and who occupies the portfolio of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prtsfon-taine) when appealing to the electors in the election following his admission to the government, made statements stronger than those of the ex-Minister of Public Works; yet, lie supports a government that has repudiated the statements he made when he was seeking the suffrages of the electorate. Tlie hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) moved the following resolution. He said :
I beg to move the following amendment to the motion of the hon. Minister of Finance :
That all the words after ' that ' in the proposed motion be left out, and the following substituted therefor :-' This House regarding the operation of the present tariff as unsatisfactory is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries as will at all times secure the Canadian market for Canadians ;
' And that the financial policy of the government should include a measure for the thorough and judicious readjustment of the tariff at the present session.'
This is the amendment that is now before the House. The hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) and others who have spoken have found a good deal of fault with the word ' adequate.' What is the meaning of the word 'adequate.' If I understand tlie English language it means sufficient.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: For what ?


George Taylor: Sufficient protection to secure to the manufacturers, to the agriculturists, and to the labourers of this country the work of manufacturing or producing all the articles that we can produce and manufacture in this country by our own labour and keep the money in our own country. Make your tariff sufficiently high to do that.


Robert Holmes: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) allow me to ask him a question. He has defined the meaning of tlie word ' adequate.' Would he tell us what he means ? Does he mean twenty-five per cent, thirty-five per cent, of forty-five per cent ? Specify it.


George Taylor: No I will not.


Robert Holmes: He cannot do it.


George Taylor: My hon. friend was willing to go as high as thirty-five per cent. Now, I am willing to go to the amount sufficient to protect the industries of the country even if it is one hundred per cent.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: One hundred per cent.


George Taylor: Yes, one hundred per cent, and there are articles under the tariff to-day that are practically placed at one hundred per cent. The lion. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) is away above thirty-five per cent on the lines he manufactures. Adequate, in my opinion, means sufficient, and sufficient, in my opinion, and in the opinion of hon. members on this side of the House means that the tariff should be so adjusted as that it will protect our industries without respect to figures. The hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) will call thirty-five per cent a revenue tariff, or he will call it a free trade tariff, or anything to suit himself, but he will not admit that it is a protective tariff. I want to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Customs to a few figures which I have taken from the Trade and Navigation returns and I think they will be found correct in every particular. I will just name eight different articles that were imported into this country in 1895 and the same articles imported in 1902. In 1895 we imported the following articles


AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS IMPORTED IN 1895.
[Stage Direction]
No.
Cultivators....1,79S
Drills	1,235
Harrows	1,819
Harvesters and
binders	1,045
Horse rakes	..	..	295Mowing machines	.	1,451Ploughs	1,661Reapers	
19
Total....9,321
Value.	Duty	
$ 12,283	$ 2,456	4515,825	3,164	8415,418	3,003	5782,094	16,418	804,450	891	9048,113	9,612	8029,814	5,964	99952	190	40$208,949	$41,783	75
These were the numbers and values of these articles imported in 1895 together with the duty paid. Now, Sir, what has been done by these hon. gentlemen ? Have they given the manufacturers of these articles sufficient protection or not ? Have they given the workingmen sufficient or adequate protection to keep these goods out of Canada and have them made in this country ? They have not done so. Notwithstanding that the increased population of the country required these implements no sane man after the statements made by the right hon. leader of the government and by the hon. Minister of Finance threatening free trade and threatening to abolish the duties would put his money into a manufacturing industry of this kind to make more of these implements to supply the needs of the country. What is the effect this year ? The following table will show the number of articles imported this year; their value and the duty collected on them.
1902.
Number.	Value.	Duty.Cultivators	
2,755	$ 22,863	$ 4,566	80Drills	
2.014	50,243	10,018	40Harrows	
2,472	36,755	7,343 60
Harvesters and
binders	 9,230	894,474	189,035	80
Sir. WILLIAM MUI OCR.: 1902-Con.
Number. Value. Duty. Horse rakes .... 9,798	181,581	36,131	60
Mowing
machines	..17,658	600,743	119,810	00Ploughs	..10,092	214,193	42,838	tOReapers	
786	37,879	7,265	80Total number..54,S05	$2,038,731	$417,010 60Total for 1896.. 9,321	208,949	41,783 75Increase	45,484	$1,829,782	$375,216 85
Thus, we sent to the United States last year nearly two million dollars to purchase these implements. In a very few years there will be nothing left of them but a heap of scrap iron, and the Americans will have our two millions dollars,whereas if we had a gov-. ernment that would have given adequate protection, every one of these articles would have been made in this country, employment would have been given to our workingmen, Canadian farmers would be supplying the home market, and we would have these two million dollars in Canada as a national capital to help on our progress and development. But the only benefit we have out of all this business is that $375,216 in the shape of duty have gone into the treasury for this government to squander extravagantly, as they have been squandering the millions of money which they are getting from other sources.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) allow me to ask him, if these were not the very articles that the leader of the opposition is reported to have said were adequately protected now ?


George Taylor: I am not responsible for anything the leader of the opposition said, and further, I don't believe that my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Paterson) heard him say it, and furthermore, I do not believe that the leader of the opposition did say it, because he has explained last year and this year, that adequate protection means sufficient protection to have these goods manufactured in this country.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is reported that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) said it, and it has not been denied.


George Taylor: Oh, there are lots of reports, and I couM give some reports about my hon. friend's (Hon. Mr. Paterson) industry up there, too. The contention of this side of the House, and it is the argument of every man who has the interests of the agricultural and labouring and manufacturing classes at heart; the argument on our side is that every article I have enumerated there should be manufactured in this country so as to give employment to the labour that would consume the produce grown in Canada, and would keep our money at home as national capital instead of sending it to a foreign country.
But let me call the attention of the House to another matter. These gentlemen on the treasury benches promised that when they

got into power they would give free trade and in order to hoodwink the people on the free trade question, they put corn on the free list. What has been the result of that ? In 1896 we imported into Canada 1,485,980 bushels of corn, which paid a duty for all purposes, whether for manufacturing into liquors or otherwise, and we imported free corn to the amount of 262,680 bushels, or a total of 1,748,660 bushels. What was the result last year under the policy of this government ? The duty collected in 1896 was $207,301.29. In 1902 we imported 474,950 bushels of dutiable corn that went into the manufacture of whiskey, I suppose, and paid a duty of $35,609.62, but we imported free corn to the amount of 4,485,372 bushels, a total for the year of 4,959,987 bushels against a total importation in 1896 of 1,748,660 bushels, or a total increase this year in dutiable and free corn over 1896 of 3,211,217 bushels. What does that mean ? It means that these 3,211,217 bushels of foreign corn have displaced the Canadian farmer's products of peas, oats and barley, that would otherwise have gone to feed the pork and the beef that was raised by the Canadian farmer. And in consequence the product of the Canadian farmer had to find a market elsewhere on account of being displaced by American corn. My hon. friend from West Huron (Mr. Holmes) says that the people of his county want free corn. I can tell him that I represent a constituency in which there are as many well-to-do farmers as there are in West Huron, and I do not think that you will find a farmer in my county who will not vote against the importation of free corn. If the farmers of this country would sink their political feeling and speak their minds they would say, that they can grow all the corn and coarse grain needed in this country to supply the market. There is another matter I want to call attention to. The Prime Minister, and the Minister of Customs, and every member of the cabinet, promised that if they got into power they would take the tax off the poor man' and put it on the rich man. They announced that the necessaries of life should be free and that luxuries should be taxed. Let us see what this government did in relation to some of the necessaries of life. Let us see what happened in connection with sugars and syrups. In 1902 we imported of refined sugars above No. 16 Dutch standard, 51,379,428 pounds, on which a duty was collected amounting to $642,278.53; we imported of sugars not above 16 Dutch standard, of all kinds, 318,696,019 pounds, on which a duty was collected amounting to $2,107,149.64. These are the raw sugars brought in to supply the manufacturers of this country, and that is the amount of duty the government collected from that article. Of syrups we imported last year 1,355,552 pounds, on which a duty was collected of $10,104.09. On molasses a duty was collected amounting to $423.84; on sugar candy 634
a duty was collected amounting to $54,248.23; on glucose a duty was collected amounting to $38,177.16, and on sacharine a duty was collected amounting to $64,573.80. On all these articles I have mentioned the duties collected in 1902 amounted to $2,916,955.29, whereas on the same articles in 1895 the duty collected amounted only to $365,796.23, or an increase of duty on the poor man's sugar amounting to $2,551,158.06. Here was over two and a half million dollars wrung out of the pockets of the poor men of Canada, in order to swell the treasury for the government to squander it corruptly. What becomes of their promise that they would take the taxes off the necessaries of life. Sugar is a necessity of life, and yet this government have collected two and a half million dollars on it, more than was collected under the Conservatives in 1895. And the government do this in order to swell their surplus to $13,000,000. Why was it that the Conservative government had not a surplus in 1895 ? It was because the then Conservative government took the taxes off sugar and let the poor people of this country have free sugar. But these hon. gentlemen on the raw materials of the sugar manufacturers of this country collected taxes amounting to over $2,000,000, and the refiners can only take it out of the pockets of the people who consume sugar.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Then the hon. gentleman is not in favour of a duty on sugar ?


George Taylor: I am in favour of a duty on manufactured sugar, but not on the raw sugar. I am in favour of admitting the raw sugar free and giving our manufacturers a chance to employ labour in refining it. This is what I am in favour of, and evidently the hon. gentleman is not.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: You forget that you put a duty on raw sugar again after you had taken it off.


George Taylor: I have given the figures showing what we did in 1895, and what hon. gentlemen opposite have done in 1902. Let the hon. gentleman contradict the statement if he can ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: You left a duty upon a certain grade of sugar in 1895.	[DOT]


George Taylor: And if the Conservative party, when they went out of power, left a duty on any article, our hon. friends opposite pledged themselves that when they came into power they would remove it. They pledged themselves that they would remove the taxes from the necessaries of life. Have they carried out their promise ? Is it an excuse to say, we will not do as we agreed to do because the bad Tories, when they were in power, left a duty on a certain article. They think as much of their promise as a bird does of its song.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Would my hon. friend have any objection to read, or is he going to hand to * Hansard ' the different items to make up these imports ?


George Taylor: They are all here in my sta tement.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Will the hon. gentleman read them now ?


David Henderson: Does the hon. minister want any one to make a wThole tariff for him ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, I was merely asking the hon. gentleman to read the items which make up those imports.


George Taylor: I will give my hon. friend the page in the Trade and Navigation Returns, where he can find them and work them out for himself. I have read the tables, and my hon. friend will see them in 1 Hansard.'


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Unless they are read, they cannot go into ' Hansard ' except by consent.


George Taylor: I have read them ; I have given the quantities and the amounts ; and I think there will be a good deal more of the hon. gentleman's speech not read that will go into ' Hansard ' than of mine. I wish to ask why this government have collected these large amounts of taxes from the poor people of this country on sugar and tobacco and on fruits and vegetables, to put into this overflowing treasury ? It is only for one purpose, that they might, squander this money among their supporters. They have spent the largest amount ever expended in Canada in any one year. Where can they point to any large or important work that they have built during the past year ? It is true, they can point to some wharfs and piers down in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec and to a few in Ontario, and to a few public buildings scattered here and there. Some days ago I asked the question :	what was the
cost of taking the census in 1871, in 1881, in 1891, and the amount paid on account of taking the census of 1901 up to the 1st of March, 1903. The return brought down gave the cost as follows :	In 1871, $511.-
330.40 ; in 1881, $456,904.19 ; in 1891, $570,115.54 ; and in 1901. up to the first of March, 1903, $1,112,900.20. More than double, on the average, what it cost the corrupt Tory government, as my hon. friends opposite used to call them, for taking the census in 1871, 1881 and 1891. And all this increased expenditure was simply to give a place to a lot of party friends

who wanted a job. I do not know that I can do better than read an article published in the ' Weekly Review ' of April 17tli, 1903, which came to my observation a few days ago. The article is as follows :


THE CENSUS FRAUD.
[Stage Direction]
The Auditor General's Report under the head ot Dominion census throws some light on the subject ot the expense being doubled, while the publication has been delayed and the returns are less accurate. The process seems to have been to appoint double the number of officials from their party office seekers, and to give each of them the same pay as their predecessors, who did twice as much work.
One expenditure to which the Auditor General objects is that of $1,486, incurred by the census branch investigating the census of 1891. Several men were employed at high salaries to endeavour to ferret out ex parte information that might seem to discredit the former census. For instance, diocesan records were procured, giving lists of the faithful in the various dioceses, and these were shamelessly used in the House as being enumerations of the total population. This expenditure of $1,500 would have an indirect value if Mr. Ross was not a traitor to his province, for he could urge it as a precedent of 1901, which, being fraudulent on the face of it, requires investigating far more than that of 1891.
But the most objectionable expenditure is that for the salary, $2,500, and travelling expenses, $1,032, for Mr. Thomas Cote, assistant special commissioner. This is only from June, 1901 to June, 1902, so it does not include the amount before then, or since, if he is still drawing pay. And we in Ontario have to contribute to this expenditure incurred for the purpose of manipulating the Quebec enumeration so as to defraud us out of our rightful representation in the House of Commons. No excuse can be offered for this appointment. There was no more reason why there should be an assistant special commissioner for Quebec than for Ontario or indeed for any of the other provinces. If the language difficulty were alleged it would be a flagrant false pretense. Mr. Blue, the special census commissioner, already had an assistant commissioner, Mr. E. H. St. Denis, an experienced census official, whose tongue is French though he is equally at home In English. Thus there was already ample provision for the instruction of the Frenchspeaking chief census officers, for correspondence with them, and the county commissioners, and for any other duties requiring a proficiency in French. The only possible reason for the appointment of this unnecessary official is the obvious one of securing an over-enumeration of the population, while no such efforts were made on behalf of Ontario and the other provinces. The object was gained by such an unfair exaggeration of the figures for Quebec as compared -with Ontario that we have been defrauded of six members. To arrive at this conclusion it is not necessary to suppose that Mr. Cotd was dishonest in the execution of his official duties. It would answer the purposes to instruct him and to impress upon his mind the importance of making the best showing possible for Quebec and the propriety of giving the most generous construction to the confessedly doubtful application of the de jure system to non-residents. He would pass this on to the county commissioners and they to their enumerators, who would one and all be ready and willing to carry out such agreeable
instructions. With another instructor for the Ontario chief officers and their subordinates, laying stress upon the necessity of being very careful not to count any persons as to whom there was the least doubt, the relative proportion of the provincial populations could easily be affected. We have no hesitation in charging the ministers who made this improper appointment with having done so with the deliberate intention of robbing us of our rightful representation in the House of Commons.
As we have seen there has been an expenditure of $1,500 to investigate the census of 1891. If Mr. Ross was not so busy with his efforts to cling to his unusurped power instead of looking after the interests of his province, he would demand that a similar amount should be expended in investigating the census of 1901 in this direction. A beginning might he made by examining special schedule A in which the names of non-residents were to be inserted by the enumerators. This might throw some light upon the subject.
Tlmt article, coupled with the return I have just read, shows how this $03,000,000 was expended by this government last year. Everything they touched, every job they did, cost double what it should. Money has been squandered in every direction just as it has been in the taking of the census, on which $1,200,000 lias already been expended, and the work not yet nearly completed. We find that the cost of taking the census in Ontario was double what it was in 1891. That is a fair example of the manner in which everything is conducted. Take up the Auditor General's Report, and you will find that the same vile system was carried on last year, which was in force the previous three or four years-the system of buying goods from party friends and paying two or three times their value. The government buy coal oil at retail price. They pay 32 cents a gallon and $1.25 for the barrel, and last year bought some twenty or thirty barrels. I find that every dollar of public money paid out lias been paid out without competition to political supporters, and two or three times the value of the goods paid. Why does not the government do, as any business man would, have all the buying done, after calling for tenders, and see that the money of the country is fairly and honestly expended ?
Mr. Speaker, I have occupied more time abusing this government than I intended to do and yet I have not said one-half what I could say and which I would be justified in saying.
Mr. A. T. THOMPSON (Haldimand and Monk).: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that owing to a business engagement which I was forced to keep, I was unable to hear the first part of the speech of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Taylor). For this I am very sorry indeed, for what come to my ears has given me a keen appetite for more. With several of the hon. gentleman's statements, I am able to agree, but with others I must disagree. Let me first pay some attention to the remark with which he started after dinner when, referring to the result of the last general election in Ontario,

he said that that great province had returned a majority of twenty Conservatives to this House, and concluded with the very pertinent inquiry :	Where were the Grits
of Ontario ? I can tell the hon. gentleman ; the Grits of Ontario are to-day doing business in those dives where he and his friends bad put them by legislative enactment. But I can tell the hon. gentleman also that there is a great singing and buzzing of wings in those hives, that many of these bees are taking new wings, and that at the next general elections the Conservative party will be very lucky in that province if they break even.


George Taylor: Their majority will be increased to forty.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: But if I cannot agree with my hon. friend on this point, I can agree with him in his heart-felt sorrow that more members of the cabinet are not in their seats when such hon. members as the member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) and Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) undertake to address the House. On both occasions, we should have the fourteen cabinet ministers, and the Solicitor General as well, in their places.
Reducing the matter to a cash nexus which the hon. member for South Leeds seems very fond of doing, I have to commiserate him upon the fact that while he made the major part of his speech only Si14,000 worth of ministry, qua ministers, were in their seats-though I am glad to say that to listen to me I have about ?21,000 worth of ministers.
Ah hon. MEMBER. The leader of the opposition is not present.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: farmers' representative, coming from a county largely agricultural, coming from a county that has no large towns, am free to confess that the farmers of this country have reason to thank the Liberal government for that expenditure upon cold storage. I note the fact that in 1895 the Australians were getting in the markets of England for their butter from two to three cents a pound more than the Canadians were getting. And why ? Because they had good cold storage when we had poor cold storage, or none at all. They brought their butter across the Pacific, then across this great continent, and when they got it into the English market they got that much more from it than we did for our butter, though having to ship it a far less distance. I know that some money was being spent at that time by the Conservative government along these lines. But my charge against them is that when Australia had a system so perfect as that, by which butter could be transported that long distance in perfect condition, it was nothing to the credit of the Conservative government that we could not transport our butter a shorter distance, and that we got the price we did. although we ore now getting a better price for the butter than the Australians. Therefore. I am not going to apologize for that part of the increase of $12,000,000 which lion, gentlemen opposite have dubbed extravagance.
The next item is immigration. Well, I am sure you will admit that not much need be said on the head of immigration. True, we are spending $299,000 more than our opponents spent, but with what result ? We are all rejoiced to see the influx of settlers from the United States and England. Do you suppose they would have come here entirely of their own accord ? No, our immigration agents have been doing excellent work among them, have been sowing the seed, and the harvest time is now upon us, and we are gathering in as a result of their labours.
I think that our friends opposite might better have described the movement under their regime as an emigration movement from Canada, judging from the cancelled homestead entries and other evidences. So I am n it going to apologize for that item.
For quarantine there is an increase of $103,000 over the expenditure by our opponents in 1895. Now, it is necessary to keep disease out of the herds in this country, and when I tell you that a large part of this expenditure has been to indemnify Canadian herdsmen for the slaughter of their diseased cattle and hogs, and in order to preserve Canadian hogs from the hog cholera, you will admit that in the interests of our farming population this was an increase at which nobody can cavil, and I believe lion, gentlemen opposite have made no objection to it. I will not go extensively into the subject of what this government has done in the way of reopening a splendid market in the United States for our live cattle trade. But we do Mr. THOMPSON (HaMimand).
know that in the days of the late government there was such an embargo upon our cattle going into the United States that trade with that country practically failed, and for four years and a half we shipped into that country less than 4,000 head of cattle, and we got back scarcely $50,000. But after the energetic action taken by our new farmer-Minister of Agriculture, through whose agency the restrictions were removed ; this trade went up by leaps and bounds, and one firm, the Ironsides Brothers, among the largest dealers in Canada, is my authority for the statement that the action of the government in getting that embargo removed added $10 a head to the value of the live stock in Canada. When I tell you that we are a beef-eating people in Canada, that we devour something like 100,000 head of cattle per month, the consequence of that statement is readily apparent. If we eat 100,000 head of cattle per month, we devour 1,200,000 head in the course of a year; and at $10 per head that would mean $12,000,000 extra added to the wealth of the farmers of this country by this farmers' government. You cannot get away from the fact, you may say the figures are extravagant, but you wiil admit that there is but one market price for cattle, that if the American buyer comes in and gives a certain price for a two-year-old to take over the line, the local butcher has got to give as much for another two-year-old in the same market. So when you raise the price of our export cattle you raise the price of our cattle for the home market; and we have a right to claim that millions upon millions per annum have been added to the wealth of the farmers of this country by the energetic action of the Minister of Agriculture. Having recaptured this market, is it strange that we should be willing to spend more money to retain it ? We know why the Americans put that embargo on in the first place. They did it because they said that disease existed in our herds. Well, suppose that disease broke out again and became widespread, back goes your embargo, and you would have as hard a time to remove it in the case of the United States, as you are having now in making an unsuccessful attempt to remove it in the case of England. Therefore we cannot consider any expense too great to ward off such a disaster as that coming upon the farmers of Canada. No one will object to the government spending on quarantine fully as much as that service requires.
Now, Sir, I come to militia, and this is a subject in which, as you know, I take considerable interest. But it does not follow that for that reason I should burden you long with a discussion of that part of our increased expenditure. Suppose we say the increase is $486,694. Analysing it, there is an increase in pay and in wages, and the increased pay to the permanent officers and men and to the militia civil servants

amounts to $76,000. Well, Sir, we know that wages have increased all along the line, in every walk of life; and instead of accusing this government of extravagance in the matter of the militia, I would rather charge them with jjarsimony of the most , extreme kind, in that year after year they take our young fellows to the front and pay them fifty cents a day, when at home they might make $1.50. I ask hon. gentlemen to note how independent I am, how I criticise the government when there is occasion for it; therefore when I support the government hon. gentlemen should give more weight to my remarks when they see how fair-minded I am. Next we come to military property. There is an increase of $141,000. We found the military properties which we took over from hon. gentlemen opposite were all tumbling down. I know whereof I speak, I am not taking the blue-books for my authority. I have been an enthusiastic militiaman for nearly twenty years, I have kept in touch with this subject, and I pledge my personal knowledge that these buildings were in a wretched condition. Indeed they are in none too good a condition now, but they are infinitely better than they were when hon. gentlemen opposite had them in charge. So once more I will not apologize for that increase, but I rather blame the government for not having made it a little larger. In military stores the same remark applies. There is an extra expenditure of $48,000. I think it well to have good rifles in this country, we have very few of them, but they are quite useless without cartridges to place in the chambers of those rifles. Especially would you find yourself in an awkward position if you were standing at 2,000 yards opposite another fellow who had ammunition and you had none.
Then we come to the matter of clothing, where there is an increase of $110,000. And that leads me to say that in the old days of the Conservative regime only half the militia was drilled every year. That was a most disastrous thing. The fellows went down for twelve days at a time, and as two years had to elapse before they were turned out again, they forgot practically in the meantime all that they had learned in those twelve days. Wiser counsels have prevailed with this government in this matter, with the result that we now drill them yearly. Now, would you expect us to go to drill every year and wear out as little clothing as we would if we drilled only once in two years ? We have spent $110,000 more in clothing; in addition to that our stores are in better shape so far as supplies and clothing go than they have been in many a long year past.
Then we come to the Dominion cartridge factory. Gentlemen, I would not have you think for a moment that I am one of those loud mouthed jingoes who wish to see a large standing army in Canada, who would
like to see this country' borne down by military expenditure. I believe my views are pretty much the views of hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House as I have heard them expressed many and many a time. I agree that we should as far as possible encourage the practice of rifle shooting in this country, but you cannot have rifle shooting without cartridges. The cartridge factory at Quebec has been enlarged and increased in order to deal with the new situation created by the civilian rifle clubs which are in existence and which hon. gentlemen opposite never inaugurated and as a consequence of that the factory has been improved to such an extent that now it will be able to turn out three times as many cartridges as in times gone by. If you take these items you will find that they more than account for the total increase of $468,000. Then, we come to the mounted police. The increase is $302,090, but as more than that amount of money was actually spent on the force in the Yukon, and the Yukon as we all know, taking it from the first until the present, has practically paid for the Yukon, there is no increased burden on the people. With an expenditure of a little more than $8,000,000 and with receipts of a little more than $8,000,000, the receipts are less than the expenditure by about $200,000, covering a term of years. So, I make the broad statement that the Yukon lias paid foi the Yukon and having paid for the Yukon it has paid for the mounted police in the Yukon. This apparent increase of $302,000 is not really an increase because the money has come back. Next we come to public works and here is the largest individual Increase we have except in the case of the collection of revenue of railways and canals. We find that the increase in this department came to $2,478,970 but wliat more do we find ? The only way to proceed in analysing matters of this knd is to compare them with the doings and the expenditures of hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in the government. I have heard the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) time and again say :	We
refuse to be bound by those old comparisons. Let the dead past bury its dead. But if we do not make this comparison what are we to do ? We cannot compare anything with the Conservative party's present because it is not charged with the expenditure of money, we cannot compare it with its future because we are not sure it will have any future. So, we are bound to compare it with its past. If we proceed on this principle we find simply this : that the hon. ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Foster) in 1896, in liis main and supplementary estimates, and I will admit that he did not bring down the supplementary estimates but they were drafted by the government, they, were found and read-in his supplementary estimates he was willing to spend the sum of $3,998,-

610 for public works. We have spent on public works $4,221,293, or we have spent more than he was willing to spend only about $225,000. But, mark you, in that year he had a revenue under $34,000,000 with a deficit of $4,000,000 and in this year we had a revenue of $58,000,000 with a surplus of $7,000,000-a very different case indeed. But, I need not have gone so explicitly into this argument because I think this is one of the increases that no one can object to. Liberals cannot attack it because this expenditure has been made by a government in which they have every confidence and hon. gentlemen opposite should not attack it because this is the expenditure of a man to whose virtues for many years they were blind, hut their eyes have been opened and they have discovered that that hon. gentleman was the brains of the Liberal cabinet. Will these hon. gentlemen cavil at the expenditure of the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) ?	1 take it that they will not.
Therefore, I pass to the next item. It is mail subsidies and steamship subventions $111,688 of which I need say little. We have been opening up new trade channels, and establishing new lines between Canada and South Africa, and the requirements of the country are such that the increase is justified. The next we come to is ocean and river service in which there was $291,997 of an increase. This is almost wholly accounted for by the purchase of two new steamers and the balance by the increased cost of wages and supplies which we meet all along the line and which we all know in every walk of life has advanced considerably since 1895. Coming to fisheries, we have an increase of $105,000. I do not find that any of our friends from the maritime provinces objected to that. I imagine that cold storage for the preservation of bait has something to do with this increase but when we take into consideration the benefit it has been to the fishermen of the maritime provinces I am sure hon. gentlemen will admit that there is ample justification for it. Then, coming to subsidies to provinces, we find an increase of $151,423. This is a matter that is statutory. We know very well that as population increases, these provinces getting so much per head, their subsidies must increase and that accounts for the whole amount save except a small item we saw fit to pay the province of Prince Edward Island and which one of the hon. members on the other side, at present in his seat, will, I think, not dispute, was a just and honourable payment to that province. And so, we come down to Indians. The increase in the vote for Indians is $101,726. There was a time when we sang with the poet ' lo, the poor Indian.' But we do not look very much to the poor Indian just now for the good reason that he has lost his franchise. I ask hon. members of this House as practical politicians and as great statesmen if they will not agree with me when I say that in Mr. THOMPSON (Haldimand).
the disbursements for Indians, politicians are not under the temptation to give the Indian more than his due. The increase in the expenditure from the government of the North-west Territories is very easily dealt' with. There is an increase of $188,297. It is an increase certainly, but they are our wards and as the country fills up we have more services to perform until the time comes when they set up housekeeping for themselves and then this expense will be replaced by a subsidy. It is just as broad as it is long. I wish the increase had been $1,000,000 instead of $188,297, if it had been warranted by an increase in the population and prosperity of that part of the country, because, I agree with the hon. leader of the opposition when he says that far from cavilling at this increase he thinks the amount should be further increased. Then, we come to the interesting increase under the head of miscellaneous $928,910. In the miscellaneous column are stowed away all those expenditures which cabinet ministers, by any kind of process of reasoning, can manage to eliminate from their own expenses. No cabinet minister likes to swell his expenditure, and so, if there is any excuse for him to say :	Well now, that is not properly in
my department, they put it under the miscellaneous head with the result that there is great comfort for the souls of some of the cabinet ministers. The first item is $462,881. for the royal tour, I had hoped that this would be passed over in silence and no attention paid to it, but very recently I read in the columns of an Ontario newspaper an article criticising this expenditure. I think hon. gentlemen will agree with me when I say that not only was that criticism in had taste but it showed a lack of the knowledge of business principles as well. After the Prince and Princess had been sumptuously entertained in New Zealand, Australia and even in South Africa, I think it would have been unfitting if Canada had brought up in the procession at the tail end without a few brass bands and a little bit in the way of fireworks. If you were to come down to the cash basis to the mere question of advertising, and recollect that the heir apparent to the Crown was accompanied on that tour by some of the brightest newspaper correspondents in England, that they were cabling reports every day to the old land, that these reports were being copied throughout the British Isles in the provincial press- if we are to come down to the patent medicine argument, to the question of advertising, considering, the advertisement which Canada got, the money was well spent. And next we come to the Ottawa Improvement Commission which gets $60,000. Well, we got something in return for that; we get fire protection and free water, and I am told that is worth $15,000 or $20,000 a year. But suppose we got nothing in return; has the time come when we have not sufficient pride in Canada as a nation to be willing to expend a comparatively small amount like that each year to beautify our capital in the north. Shall we follow the example of other great nations; although we may not in strict accuracy be a great nation yet; we are on the way to it and as sure as the sun rises and sets so sure we will he a great nation.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. .


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I consider myself as good a Britain as any . of you, but I am that and more too-I am a good Canadian. And when the British government, or some of the British statesmen had made up their minds that Canada would collect money to hand over to them for expenditure, then I say that it is a good thing for Canada, aye and for Britain, too, that they should not be kept in the dark, that that matter should be at once set at rest, and that they should know over there that we in Canada enjoy a self-government, one tittle or particle of which we do not propose should be taken from us; and, that any money we collect for imperial objects or otherwise will be spent through our own channels.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Then we come to the purchase of the Plains of Abraham. I think that lion, gentlemen opposite will agree with me that that is perhaps the most interesting landmark in the country. We knew that the Plains of Abraham were about to be broken up into building lots, and this government came to the rescue and paid $80,000 for that historical landmark. And we know, Sir, that that was done by our generous French Canadian premier, supported by the French Canadian members of this House, who are broad enough and good enough Canadians to feel that in that battle on the Plains of Abraham, there was no disgrace for either race, and that the column erected to the joint memory of Wolfe and Montcalm in the city of Quebec, typifies the feeling of union that now exists in the descendants of those men who locked arms on these very Plains of Abraham.
Some hon. MEMJmRS. Hear, hear.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Then we pass on to the grant given to Marconi, amounting to $70,000.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Eighty thousand dollars.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: $80,000 in all, but $70,000 expended in 1902. Why, it only shows the enterprise of the government ; that is all. Marconi's scheme was poo-poohed; capitalists interested in cable companies and all that gave him the cold shoulder; he was thwarted in every way. But whether or not his discovery be perfected for the transmission of trans-Atlantic messages, it will be immensely useful to commerce, and it is a feather in the cap of this enterprising government that it should have taken up this friendless man and sup-

plied money in aid of genius. More than that, this government did not do it for nothing. The idea of thrift came into the transaction; there is a streak of canniness in it; the Scotch members of the cabinet look after that. They said : Yes, Mr. Marconi, we are willing to help you, and if this thing comes to be successful we would like a little help in return. And so the cabinet arranged that if the matter does come out all right they are to get the services of Marconi's various offices at a greatly reduced rate; at a rate so much reduced that in a few short years the amount of the expenditure will be recouped to the government and we will be money ahead. Then we come to the banking service in the Yukon which cost $53,169. That is merely money spent in connection with the collection of the dues on gold mining in the Yukon. It all came back from other sources and it cost the people of Canada nothing. Then we spent $50,000 to aid the unfortunate sufferers in the West Indies. I believe that the hon. gentlemen opposite raised not one dissenting voice as to that item. I do not think there is a man in the House who would raise a dissenting voice against it. I believe we are all united in doing something for these unfortunates so heavily visited by the hand of Cod. and although they were our brother colonists I believe Canadian generosity would go even further than that, and that in the case of any great national calamity, whether the sufferers were brethren within the empire of some time enemies without the empire, we would be willing and glad to give them our assistance in some small degree to alleviate their sufferings. Next I come to an item so small that you will almost wonder why I am quoting it. It is the expenses of the half-breed claims commission, amounting to $10,161. The half-breeds in the North-west had some grievances, had presented these grievances to the government, and what did the government do ? It sent out a commission and the cost of that commission is a little over $10,000. It is the association of ideas and not the amount that leads me to mention the sum. In the early eighties the half-breeds of the North-west had some grievances also, and they petitioned the government again and again but the pigeon-holes yawned for these petitions. Petition after petition was forwarded to the government only to meet with the same fate, and as a result we had a c'rl 1"wRebellion, which cost the people of Canada $5,000,000 and scores of valuable
1\'a	a WoodIess expenditure of
$10,000 by the present government. It is tilings like these that cause me and other men of the rank and file in this House to be proud to sit behind the men who fill the treasury benches.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: And now in that large increase of $928 000 for miscellaneous expenditure I have given Mr. THOMPSON (Haldimand).
you items which total $S27,000, and the remaining $100,000 is composed of items so minute that it would take at least an hour to go into them, and I cannot weary the House that long, but if you refer to the books you will find that there is as good justification for every cent of the increase as there is justification for the items I liav.e given to you. The expenditure on the Yukon provisional district was paid for by the Yukon, and it did not cost the people of Canada one cent. And yet the ' Mail and Empire ' published an editorial in connection with a late interesting election contest in a constituency called North Ontario, in which it stated that the Yukon is running us behind, that there was a large deficit and that the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) was trying to qualify for cabinet rank because he was trying to out-well, I won't use the word, because it would be unparliamentary-but at all events, to outstate the other cabinet ministers who had been in the riding, when he said that the Yukon had paid for the Yukon. That editorial in the ' Mail ' contains a half truth, and nothing more or less. It is true that during this last year there will be a deficit if we include public works in the Yukon, but if you take the expenditure and receipts 'from the beginning of the world unto the day of the date of these presents' the Yukon has paid for the Yukon. That is what has occurred in the Yukon. Now, there is an increase in the customs of $258,391. Well, is that probably rather a questionable increase ? As a matter of fact, having known the Minister of Customs since I was a very small boy, I have had a good deal of confidence in him throughout all that time, and frankly I must say that I never knew him as an extravagant man in any sense of the word whatever. He has carried his methods of economy into his department, and I have heard many business men who are not Liberals in politics, say that a better Minister of Customs Canada never had. When you consider the immense increase in revenue which the hon. minister is called on to collect, you will readily see that he cannot hope to bear the expense of his department with the same amount with which it was borne in 1895. But this he can say and prove, that so far as percentages go, he has collected every $100 of duty at far and away less cost that our Conservative friends did in 1895, even if he shows a total increase in the cost of that department of $258,000.
Nextwe come to the Post Office Department, in which the increased expenditure is $429,989, and I touch on this subject with some diffidence, because it is a subject on which I feel that I am sitting at the feet of Gamaliel. Yet in talking about the Post Office Department I feel that I am on safe ground, and I propose to take up the cudgels for a few moments. And here I wish to pay a compliment to the hon member for Botli-well (Mr. Clancy), who, I am sorry to see

is not in his place to-night-a fact to which I call the attention of the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr: Taylor) because in the event of a change of government, the hon. gentleman would be slated for a cabinet position, and if he does not stay in the House lie is not training very well for the place in which he expects to earn a salary of $7,000. besides getting $1,500 indemnity. I have always entertained a feeling of respect for the hon. member for Botliwell, and to this feeling I must now add a degree of admiration for his courage in attacking tlie administration of the Tost Ofliee Department ; because in the splendid galaxy of ably administered departments which we have in this government, there is no bright particular star more bright than that department. It is a subject on which we all like to talk when we are discussing administrative economy, and I will take up the statement of the hon. member for Bothwell and examine it. One grievance of the hon. gentleman is that the jubilee stamps which were issued by the hon. Postmaster General and were bought largely by the people of Canada, cannot now be redeemed in the currency of the realm. I wonder if the hon. gentleman is largely loaded up with this non-negotiable security. The hon. gentleman said that the Postmaster General took advantage of a loyal wave that was sweeping over the country to sell those stamps at the time ; and, I suppose to complete the argument, now that the loyal wave has subsided, he will not buy his stamps back again. I think the hon. member for Bothwell must have invested a large sum of money in those stamps when liis loyalty was at the boiling xioint, and now that it is simmering down, he has a grievance against the lion. Postmaster General because he will not relieve him of his investment. But what is astonishing to me is that the hon. gentleman, belonging as he does to the party of loyalty, cannot find some one in the party whose loyalty has not cooled, and who will relieve him of his purchase made at an unwary moment. The consequence is, the hon. gentleman says, the minister got half a million dollars by the trick, and that is the way he reduced the deficit. True, he did, and I think he was fire tty clever in doing so. But he did it in one year only ; he did not repeat the offence. What lias that to do with the receipts and expenditures for this year ? Nothing whatever, and yet he has an absolute surplus this year, when you make a fair comparison, of over $5,000. The hon. gentleman says that the hon. Postmaster General eliminates the Yukon and the Atlin districts, and were they not parts of Canada ? What a splendid headline it would make for some of the Dawson papers, that the Postmaster General is insinuating that these districts are not parts of Canada ! But this is poor argument for the hon. member for Bothwell. Of course, they are a part of Canada, but they were not until this government discovered that they were ; that is the point. The Conservatives were not spending money on the Yukon and Atiln districts in 1895, and when the hon. Postmaster General wishes to make a comparison between his administration and that of his predecessors, why should he not eliminate what cost them nothing ? When he does that, he has a surplus for this year of $5,000. But there is a discrepancy between the report of the hon. Postmaster General and the Public Accounts, and the ' Mail and Empire,' with briny tears in its eyes, asks who cooked the accounts ; and it makes me a very flattering offer which I cannot refuse to accept. Referring to a speech I made in North Grey, it says :
Sir William Mulock publicly announced that he had scored a profit ot $5,000 ; but the post office report reports a. loss of $82,375, while public accounts show a loss of $105,221.'
And here. Mr. Speaker, is where I have hopes of future greatness :
If Colonel Thompson can explain away these unfortunate discrepancies he is an excellent calculator.
Think, Mr. Speaker, what it would mean for me if I could go back to my constituency with the ipse dixit of the ' Mail and Empire' that I was an excellent calculator. It is worth making the attempt, and that attempt I wish to make now. There is that discrepancy between the report of the hon. Postmaster General and the Public Accounts, but that discrepancy will be found to exist where a similar discrepancy was the year before ; and if you take the receipts and expenditures of the two years and work them out together, you will find that they work out dollar for dollar. The hon. Postmaster General did actually expend $105,000 in excess of his receipts, including the Yukon and Atlin districts in this particular year ; but part of that was for expenditures incurred during the previous year ; and therefore, adding the two years together, you will find that while his statement makes him about $28,000 better this year than do the Public Accounts, his statement of last year makes him that much worse off than they make him. It is simply a matter of bookkeeping. The hon. Postmaster General's administration of his department is such as would be a credit to any man, and hon. gentlemen opposite in cavilling at it, only expose themselves to ridicule.
Coming to the Public Works Department, the increased cost in the collection of revenue was $340,815. But the Atlin and Yukon telegraph lines and the telegraph lines in connection with the gulf service account for almost the whole of this amount, especially if you add $48,000 which was expended for the cable vessel the ' Tyrian.'
Then we come to the largest individual increase, the Railways and Canals, in which

tlie increase cost of collection of revenue was $2,801,350 ; but tlie increase of revenue amounts to $2,751,531 ; so that if bon. gentlemen will note the two amounts they will find that the money comes rolling back into our coffers within $50,000 of the whole amount. Therefore the people of Canada must not be led to believe that we are spending money to that extent. We are operating more railways and canals, that are not supposed to pay directly, and next year the discrepancy may be still greater, because the government have announced their intention of making the canals as free as the ocean itself. This will, of course, involve an increased cost to the country, but the results in the form of a reduction of freight rates will redound to the advantage of the shippers and farmers of the country. Hon. gentlemen opposite may say that you are taxing the people more, because in this particular you are taking more out of their pockets than you are giving back. But the reverse is more likely to be the case, and the argument is as fair one way as the other.
The cost of the administration of justice in the Yukon last year increased $115,526, but it has come back to us in the form of Yukon royalties. It is not fitting that I should pass this matter over without saying a word on the administration of justice in the Yukon. I believe that our administration of justice in that distant country is one of the proudest incidents in the national life of Canada. We all know the enormous difficulties which must be met in maintaining law and order in such a distant and sparsely settled country, and we all know that law and order is maintained there as well as it is this night in the city of Ottawa. We know that no murderer can go unpunished there, that though it may cost $100,000 to hunt him down-and I believe in one case it did cost more than that-Canadian justice has an arm long enough and strong enough in the Yukon Territory to seize him and make him pay the penalty. So far from our increased expenditure on this head being a disgrace to us, we can take credit for it.
Now, I have accounted-and I believe fairly and reasonably accounted-for more than $12,125,000 of increase. What remains over is little indeed. I could even account for that but to do so would compel me to go into items of very small expenditure with which I must not weary the House. But the general argument applies, even if I refrain from the particular, with regard to these few items, and the general argument is that with an increase of trade in the country such as we are now enjoying, you cannot expect to carry on public business with the same amount of money as before. This reminds me of an epigramatie saying of the great Napoleon, which is particularly applicable to the point I am making. When, after a famous battle his soldiers reported Mr. THOMPSON (Haldimand).
very heavy losses in killed and wounded, his invariable reply was, with a shrug of his shoulders ' on ne fait pas d'omelette sans easser des oeufs.'
Five minutes more, Mr. Speaker, and I think I can finish. The increase in our public debt, if we can take the estimate of the Minister of Finance for the expenditures of the current year-and we are now so used to find his estimates correct that we can have no hesitation in accepting them- the increase in our national debt will be $7,681,657 at the close of the current year, or a little more than $1,000,000 per year since this government has taken office. Can we not account for some of this increase ? If we take the South African war and the Halifax garrison, which was of course part of the expenditure on the South African war-that garrison having been made a Canadian garrison to relieve the British soldiers-we find that the expenditure on that head amounted to $2,830,965. That is an expenditure which certainly nobody can complain of, but it forms a considerable portion of the increase in the public debt. Then there is the discount on the Fielding loan of 1897, amounting to $826,317. But we can offset against that discount the benefit which my hon. friend the Finance Minister obtained for Canada by succeeding, for the first time in its history, in floating a loan at an interest of two and a half per cent, and thus establishing a rate for investors in tlie case of future loans. This loan is generally conceded by financiers to have been an extremely good piece of finance. But inasmuch as we have to charge that loan against our capital debt at par and did not obtain par for it, we have to take that discount of $826,317 as one of the items which account for the increase in the public debt. But it is an item against which no possible objection can be raised, because we get the benefit of a lower rate of interest, which in a number of years, will more than offset the discount. It is an expenditure in one sense, but it is an expenditure which comes back to our pocket in much the same way as does the sinking fund. Then there is the cost of the expenditure caused by the eastern extension railway award, namely, $671,836 in Nova Scotia and $280,692 in New Brunswick. This expenditure was the result of an arbitration arising out of the complications incurred by the late government and wiped out by this government. It represents therefore an increase in our debt for which the present administration cannot be held responsible. Then take the purchase of the Drummond County railway, which cost $1,464,000. But we have the railway and we have by this means brought the Intercolonial railroad into Montreal. That certainly is an expenditure for which we have abundant justification and in return for wliich we. have good value to show. The next item to which I will call the attention of the

House is the arrears of the Post Office Department amounting to $685,000. When my hon. friend the Postmaster General took charge of that department, he found that not only were there yearly deficits but a large amount of old debts actually remaining unpaid, and which were carried over from year to year. Being desirous to make expenditure and revenue balance each year, so that we could tell exactly where we stood, my hon. friend asked parliament for a special vote of $685,000 to pay the debts incurred by hon. gentlemen opposite. Had hon. gentlemen opposite paid off these debts, the expenditure in their time would have been increased to that extent and also the public debt, and therefore we are not fairly chargeable with that amount of increase. I find next an item of $745,964 paid for arms contracted for by the late government, and for which they left us to pay the piper. This too should not be charged against the present administration. Then there is the sum of $500,000 paid in the settlement of claims in Manitoba, which were left unsettled by the old government. This certainly can not be charged against the present administration. Adding all these items together, they aggre-. gate over $8,000,000 and hundreds of thousands more might be added in the same way of moneys expended because of circumstances extraordinary and unique in their nature or because of the necessity to pay debts incurred by Conservative governments. So that if we eliminate expenditure caused by the South African war and the debts which hon. gentlemen opposite should have paid but did not, you will find that we have not added one dollar to the public debt of the country, and more than that we have poured out millions like water in developing our canals and railways and making proper provision for the public works and general service of the country.
I must apologize, Mr. Speaker, for having detained this House so long listening to figures at this stage of the debate, when everybody is tired. I have no more comments to make on the budget beyond congratulating my hon. friend the Minister of Finance on the excellent showing he was able to make to the people of Canada and on the increasing prosperity which the country is enjoying under the able administration of this government.


Mr. HACKETT.: X desire, Mr. Speaker, to make a few remarks on the very important subject we are now discussing, but at this late hour, I do not wish to detain the House, and I would therefore beg to move that the debate be adjourned.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: The evening is still quite early and if my hon. friend desires an adjournment I do not wish to press him to go on.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Postmaster General, House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 29, 1903.