1903-04-23

Mr.  L. N.@: CHAMPAGNE (Wright) presented the fourth report of the select committee appointed to supervise the official reports of the Debates of the House, as follows

Your Committee recommends that Mr. Leon Gerin be appointed to the position on the staff of translators in the official reports of Debates rendered vacant by the death of the late N. H. Beaulieu, and that his appointment and remuneration of $1,500 per annum date from the 23rd instant. Also that Mr. Sylva Ciapin who has been employed in a temporary capacity on the staff of the translators from the 16th to the 23rd instant, be paid at the rate of $4 per day.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 119) respecting the Alberta Railway and Coal Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 120) respecting the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway	Company.-Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 121) to incorporate the Consolidated Trust Corporation.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 122) respecting the Ratlibun Company.-Mr. Heyd.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Who had the contract for furnishing saddles and bridles to the last Canadian contingent for South Africa ?
2.	What was the price stipulated in the said contract ?
3.	What is the total amount paid to the contractors ?
4.	Were any complaints made as to the quality of said saddles and bridles ?
5.	Were said saddles and bridles used by the contingent ?
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) :: 1.	There was no contract. The saddles were furnished from store, and drawn from the units of cavalry throughout the country.
2 and S. Answered by answer to question
1.
4.	I. am not aware of any complaints as to the quality of the saddles.
5.	So far as I know, the saddles and bridles were used by the contingents.


MEDALS FOR THIRD CANADIAN MOUNTED RIFLES.
Mr. TAYLOR asked :: Is it the intention of the government to award medals to the members of the Third Canadian Mounted Rifles, in recognition of their services of loyalty to the empire, in going 'to Cape Town, S.A., and there received orders to proceed to Durban, rvhere they arrived too late to disembark by the 31st of May, the time set as the medal limit ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden).: The government has no power to award medals ; medals are awarded by the King. With reference to this particular case, I may say that all the Canadian soldiers who served in South Africa will be treated pre-Mr. CHAMPAGNE.
cisely as the soldiers from the British Islands and from the other colonies are treated.


LOWER AND UPPER GAGETOWN MAIL CONTRACT.
Mr. WILMOT asked :: Who is the contractor for carrying the mail between Lower and Upper Gagetown, N.B. ? What is the amount paid the contractor ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: In the absence of the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) I beg to answer the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Wilmot's) question as follows : There is no special contract for mail service between lower and upper Gagetown. Upper Gagetown and Gagetown along with other offices are served during the season of navigation by the Star Line Steamship Company plying between Fredericton and St. John. During the winter season upper Gagetown is served tri-weekly from Gagetown, J. W. Dickie, contractor; also triweekly from Oromocto by an extension of the Oromocto and Sheffield route, J. W. Malone, contractor. Lower Gagetown is served daily on the route between Gagetown and Westfield, W. H. Bulyea, contractor.	.


APPOINTMENT OF DR. C. E. SAUNDERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. TALBOT-by Mr. Calvert-asked :
1.	Has Mr. C. E. Saunders been appointed to the position of experimentalist at the Central Experimental Farm ?
2.	Is he a son of Mr. Saunders, director of the Central Experimental Farm ?
3.	When was the appointment made ; and what salary does Mr. C. E. Saunders receive ?
4.	Who recommended him, and who appointed him ?
5.	What "was Mr. C. E. Saunders' occupation up to the time of his appointment as experimentalist ?
6.	Has Mr. Saunders given any evidence of his qualifications as a scientific and experienced agriculturist ?
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher)
I beg to answer the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Talbot's) question as follows :
1.	The Minister of Agriculture authorized the employment of Dr. C. E. Saunders to take charge of the work of cereal breeding and other branches of experimental work in agriculture at the Central Experimental Farm.
2.	He is a son of Dr. William Saunders, Director of Dominion Experimental Farms.
3.	His regular employment in his present capacity dates from January 1st, 1903, and his salary is S100 per month.
4.	His employment was authorized by the Minister of Agriculture, who was personally familiar with the work he had already done in the cross-breeding of cereals and fruits.

5.	He was transferred to this work from the exhibition branch of the Department of Agriculture, where he had been engaged in preparing a series of agricultural photographs for the Japanese and St. Louis exhibitions.
G. Dr. O. E. Saunders is an honour graduate and silver medalist of Toronto University in the department of natural science, and a doctor of philosophy of the science department of Johns Hopkins University. For some years past he has been employed at intervals at the Central Experimental Farm to carry on the work of cross-breeding in cereals and in hardy fruits for the Northwest, and during this period most of the new varieties originated at the farm have been the result of his efforts.


RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SCOTT-by Mr. McCreary-asked :
1.	What is the particular mileage of railways
(a)	in the North-west Territories ; (b) in Manitoba, which has been aided (c) by land grants; (d) by money grants, and the particular mileage which has been constructed without public aid ?
2.	What is the total mileage of railways in Canada, excepting Manitoba and the Territories, which has been aided (a) by land grants ;
(b)	by money grants, and the total mileage which has been constructed without public aid?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Mileage of railways in North-west Territories :
Constructed by aid of land grants....1,921.21
Constructed by aid of money grants... 1,336.70 Constructed without public aid	 57.97
Mileage of railways in Manitoba :
Constructed by aid of land grants.... 1,576.30
Constructed by aid of money grants

 1,624.81
Constructed without public aid	 35.07
2. Mileage of railways in Canada, excepting Manitoba and North-west Territories :
Constructed by aid of land grants.. .. 2,421.00 Constructed by aid of money grants.. 13,685.00 Constructed without public aid	 777.00


LANDS GRANTS TO RAILWAYS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SCOTT-by Mr. McCreary-asked :
1.	W'hat are the names of all railway companies to which grants of land have been voted by parliament ?
2.	What is the area voted to each ?
3.	What is the railway mileage so aided by land grants, constructed by each company (a) in Manitoba ; (b) in the North-west Territories;
(c)	in other portions of Canada ?
4.	What is the area earned by each company?
5.	What is the area reserved for each (a) in Manitoba ; (b) in the North-west Territories ?
6.	What is the area patented to each (a) in Manitoba ; (b) in the North-west Territories?
7.	With respect to lands reserved for, earned and selected by each company, what is the area remaining unpatented in each case (a) in Manitoba ; (b) in the North-west Territories ; (c) the date on which it is intended in each case that these lands shall be patented ?
8.	With respect to the lands voted, but not earned, what is the area in each case which may yet, under existing legislation, be earned ; and the area in each case, respecting which the time specified for the earning of the land has elapsed ?
9.	With respect of lands voted and earned, but not reserved for selection, if any, what is the area in each case ?
10.	With respect of lands voted and not earned, but which may. under existing legislation, be earned, what is the area reserved in each case, if any, (a) in Manitoba ; (b) in the North-west Territories ; (c) description of the same, if any, by township, range, &c. ?
11.	With respect of lands earned and reserved, but not selected, what steps, if any, have been, or are to be, taken by the government to expedite selection ?
12.	What is the area now reserved in each case, if any, for companies that have failed to earn their grants within the time specified, under existing legislation ; and the intention of the government regarding such cases ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I shall have to ask my hon. friend to move for a return.


IMPORTATIONS OF BAUXITE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBINSON (Northumberland)-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
How many tons of bauxite were imported into Canada for the fiscal year ending June, 1902 ? What country, or countries, was it imported from ? What port, or ports, was it entered at ?
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. William Paterson).: The quantity of bauxite imported into Canada during the fiscal year 1902 amounted to 1,524 tons. The countries from which imported, were Great Britain 234 tons, Germany G39 tons and United States 651 tons. One thousand and thirty-five tons of bauxite were imported at Montreal and 4S9 tons at Quebec.


SOUTH AFRICA AND THE PREFERENCE.
Mr. McCREARY asked :: 1. Has the government received from the Winnipeg Board of Trade a copy of the following resolution, passed by that body, in reference to trade with the South African Colonies ?
* Whereas It has been stated in the public press that a proposal for preferential treatment in the customs tariff of the British South African colonies, in favour of the mother country, was favourably received at the conference lately held at Bloemfontein ; and whereas the Dominion of Canada accords such preference, not only to the mother country, but also to such of the colonies as will accede such preferential treatment to the products of Canada. Therefore, be it resolved, that the Winnipeg Board of Trade desires to impress upon the government of the Dominion the importance of at once opening negotiations with the government of the British South African colonies, with the object of obtaining the benefit of a like preferential treatment for Canada, as may be accorded to the mother country.'

16S0
2. Has the government sent any reply to said Board of Trade in reference to said resolution; and what was the tenor of such reply ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Yes ; the communication has been received and acknowledged.


IMPORTATION OP RAILWAY TIES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. EMMERSON-by Mr. Calvert-asked :
1.	Is tjie government now importing, or intending to import, hard pine, or southern pine (so-called) railway ties, for use on government railway ? Have any such importations already been made, and when ?
2.	If so, what quantity of such ties, and from what country, or. countries, have such Importations been made, or are being made ?
3.	What is the cost of such ties, delivered to the railway, on board cars ?
4.	What are the sizes of such ties, either already imported, or intended to be imported ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The government is not now importing, nor has it arranged to import or decided to import, bal'd pine or southern pine (so called) railway ties for use on the government railways.


COST OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY.
Mr. JAMES J. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of (he Day are called, I wish to say a word or two in reference to a question answered in this House on the 8th instant, concerning which, perhaps, the Minister of Railways will make an explanation. On the day referred to the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) asked the following question :
What is the total cost (capital account) of the Intercolonial and other government railways ? What is the total amount of money paid by the federal government as subsidies to railways in each of the following provinces :- Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, North-west Territories, and British Columbia, since confederation ?
To this the lion. Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) answered :
The total cost (capital account) of the Intercolonial and other government railways to February 28th, 1903, is as follows : Intercolonial Railway, $39,418,275.54 ; Prince Edward Island Railway, $5,112,435,27.
The question having been asked in the form it was, I think the Minister of Railways could not answer it in any other way than as lie did. But it should be understood that the amounts given here include the amounts spent by the provinces as well as the amounts spent by the government of the Dominion of Canada. Without that explanation, the answer as it stands might give an incorrect impression to the House and the country, and also to the hon. member for Saskatchewan. There was a large amount of money spent by the provinces of Mr. McCREARY.
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia cn the Intercolonial Railway before confederation, and this was charged to these provinces at the time of confederation. The Prince Edward Island Railway was built by the people of the island, and paid for by them before confederation, the cost being $3,114,735.11, and that amount is included in the amount given by the minister in the answer I have quoted. The actual money paid by the Dominion government for the Prince Edward Island Railway was $1,907,700.16. I wish to ask the Minister of Railways to make that explanation, because, as I have said, the form in which the question was asked brought out an answer which, unexplained, might be misleading.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, P.E.I.), is entirely correct in the statement he has made with reference to the amount of money which was expended by the respective provinces through which the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway ran at the time of confederation. I think that must explain why those answers were given in reply to the question. The statement which was read by me was handed to me by the officer of the department in the usual way, and was entirely in keeping with the published capital statements that have been put forward from time to time. This has been the uniform method in which the accounts of what is called the capital expenditure upon the road have been tabulated and have been published in the report of the Department of Railways and Canals from the beginning. It is true, as the hon. member has said, that there was expended upon the Prince Edward Island Railway prior to confederation the sum of $3,114,000. This amount was a portion of the indebtedness of the province at the time it entered confederation. It was allowed to enter confederation with an admitted debt of a certain sum, and whatever might be the difference between its acknowledged existing obligations and the sum which was allowed it by way of credit in debt account, was applied either to new capital expenditure by provinces, or would entitle the province to be paid interest on such difference at the rate authorized in the account, viz., 5 per cent. Practically, I think, the statement as given then and the capital account as published now are correct. It shows just what the total capital expenditure was upon these two different roads. It would be misleading to conceal the fact that there had been this large capital expenditure made before confederation. I do not know how it could be very well stated in a more explicit way than it appears in the published report, because the inference is clear, when you read that the government expenditure prior to confederation was so much, it manifestly could not have been an expenditure made by the Dominion government in a

direct way. It was already made by the provinces, and if made by the provinces, of course it would be an account to be adjusted between tlie provinces and tlie Dominion subsequently to that date.


THE BRITISH CORN DUTIES.
Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the right lion, the First Minister, if he can give the House any information as to the abolition of the corn duties in the imperial parliament, if the abolition applies to all corn and grain imported into the United Kingdom, or only to grain imported from the colonies. I believe a cable lias been received to the effect that some action has been taken in the imperial parliament respecting such duties.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: We have received no information up to this moment.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Minister of Finance.
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty ; and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
["If I did, I would want to get out as soon as possible. If I were in office with no other purpose than that, I should consider myself the most mercenary creature in the country. I hope we shall never see the day when there will be a Conservative government that will have no higher aim than to draw salaries, to ' rest and be thankful ' as long as the people of Canada allow them to remain in office. There are things to be done for the country. We have heard the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) from the west telling us that there is a crying demand for railways in the west. We must have transportation equal to the requirements of the people. Is the government giving it ? They have done nothing and are doing nothing. They give us no outlook for the future, any more than they have given us achievement in the past. We can come to no conclusion but that their Mr. SPROULE.\nonly policy is a policy of procrastination, to remain where they are, to draw their salaries, so long as the people will allow. They have not reformed the Senate, though they promised to do so; they have not reduced the number of cabinet ministers, though they promised to do so. They will remain in office, draw their salaries, travel over the world for pleasure, and enjoy themselves as long as the people are willing to allow them to remain in office.\nMr. HEYD moved the adjournment of the debate."]
Mr. J. CLANCY (Bothwell).: Mr. Speaker, I do not imagine that it will be necessary for any hou. gentleman on either side of the House to offer any apology for making some criticism upon the budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance, nor upon the speeches that have followed by lion, gentlemen opposite in support of the position taken by the Minister of Finance. I confess, Sir, as I am sure almost every bon. gentleman in this House must confess, that the speech of the hon. Finance Minister was somewhat disappointing. True, it was not disappointing in that part of it which relates to successful tax gathering, it was not disappointing in regard to enormous and barren expenditures, it was not at all disappointing with regard to the increasing public debt; nor was it wanting in those respects which drew from hon. gentlemen opposite lusty cheers over the inconsistencies of their leaders.
Before I proceed further, I wish to make some remarks about the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). He made a very able speech from bis standpoint. The hon. gentleman is well known in this House as an old parliamentarian. a gentleman of admitted ability-I am not quite sure that it has always been well directed. But no one can deny that_ the hon. gentleman is possessed of great ability. I wish in the outset to congratulate the hon. gentleman on maintaining his splendid record of inconsistency, of facing every way
that is known, and in fact of facing ways in advance that no person knows anything of. I am not sure but that the hon. gentleman was selected to make that speech ;
I am informed he was selected by tbe First Minister to speak just at that juncture.
I am not certain but that the hon. gentleman was selected on account of his inconsistency. Under tbe conditions that now obtain in tliis House it was desirable that an hon. gentleman should speak just then so that no matter what he said members on that side of the House could at least quote him against himself, even if he had said something quite the opposite. But the hon. gentleman oceujnes a very important position in this country. Next to being a minister of the Crown, the hon. gentleman probably occupies the most important position of any man in this House in that he was selected by his leader as one of the Canadian delegates to take part in the international commission who had to deal with grave and important affairs affecting Canada. The bon. gentleman served on that commission, I have no doubt, with his usual ability. Now, Sir, I repeat that I have the best reasons for knowing, in fact I do know, that that hon. gentleman was selected to speak at that particular juncture at the special request of the Prime Minister. Whatever may be said of the hon. gentleman's inconsistencies, it must be admitted that the hon. member for North Norfolk, who had been a member of that commission, was not speaking his own mind alone when he addressed this House, the statements he made were not merely his own inventions ; and the country will understand that he spoke the mind of those hon. gentlemen who are his associates, including the mind of the right hon. tbe First Minister.
I shall now, with the permission of the TTrMiejp iiovG something to soy Tvltli rogorcl to the hon. gentleman's attitude upon that and some other questions. He started out with a renewal of the old campaign of unrestricted reciprocity. There is absolutely no mistake as to the position he has taken. He has taken the position that will at least appeal to one section of Canada, whether it appeals to another section or not. In order that I may make no mistake, I will quote some of his words. He declared that when the delegates went to Washington on the reassembling of that commission, their object was to secure, if possible, reciprocity with the United States. The hon. gentleman pointed to the advantages of reciprocity with the United States. What was the very first prominent advantage which he held out to the people of Canada ? It was that the province of British Columbia should look to Oregon and Washington as the places where they could get their supplies. Then, the hon. gentleman turned to the east and told the people of the maritime provinces to look to the state of New York, or to the state of Maine, in order to get their supplies. It is not difficult to translate that language into

plain English and the true translation is that those two sections of Canada were to look to the United States for a market. The hon. gentleman seems to have two schemes. I have no doubt both of his schemes have been thought out and discussed with his leaders, and I am perfectly sure, from the trend of his speech, that they were well and intimately discussed with hon. gentlemen representing the North-west Territoris. One was that the hon. gentleman was to ask for reciprocity with the United States, and failing in that the next course was to be the adoption of a retaliatory tariff. The House, I am sure, is somewhat at a loss as to which of these the hon. gentleman thought would be the more successful, but the one that seemed to please the hon. gentleman most, himself, was that we were to adopt a system of reciprocity. What else did he hold out to these hon. gentlemen from the west ? Let me say here that I have no doubt that of all the speeches delivered in this House during the session, copies of the hon. gentleman's speeches will be printed and distributed amongst hon. members from the Northwest and Manitoba and among the western people moi'e than the speeches of any hon. member.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: Hear, hear. Mr. CLANCY. I hope my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Ross) from down by the sea who says ' hear, hear ' and gives his approval to the ideas of the hon. gentleman will go down and apologize for the opinions of his colleague who sits beside him. I am uot going to say that all of the members from the North-west are going to take the course which I have suggested, but these speeches are delivered for the purpose of appealing to those who are coming into Canada today. We are told that what the farmers of the west want is access to the American market because they could get the best price for their wheat.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Nonsense.


James Clancy: True, it isi nonsense, but nonsense sometimes has an effect. Very often nonsense is more serious than truth because it is more difficult to meet nonseuse than truth. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) has, nevertheless, made use of such language. He has told the farmers that if they could get reciprocity with the United States the wheat market of the United States would be infinitely better for them than the British market. The hon. gentleman tells us that if we had reciprocity with the United States the question of a market for the farmers of the North-west is solved. He knows perfectly well that that country is rapidly settling and that the greater number of settlers who are going in there now are Americans, a class of men whom we all welcome to this country, a class of men who have been brought up and who have lived under institutions similar to our own, but a class of men who are Americans and Mr. CLANCY.
not Canadians. Does the hon. gentleman wish to cultivate a Canadian spirit or an American spirit V Does he mean to say that the people of western Canada are to turn their faces towards the United States? He went so far as to say that geographicallv the west was part of the United States, that it was part of the great Mississippi valley, and he told the people of that country that insofar as they were geographically concerned they did not belong to Canada, but that they belonged to the United States and that they must look to the United States for their supplies, that their wants must not lie supplied by Ontario and the maritime provinces, but by the Americans who live adjacent. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman, when, he is making that appeal to a false and un-Canadian sentiment in this country, when he is endeavouring to tell the people that they are infinitely better off in the United States commercially and politically, perhaps, for all I know, because that is the trend of his argument, what we are improving our waterways for, what are we improving our railways for, what are we spending large sums of money to improve Canadian transportation for, if the great stream of Canadian wheat produced in Manitoba and the North-west Territories is to be diverted to the United States ? Is that expenditure to be of any use if the plans of the hon. gentleman are carried out ? I have very grave doubts if hon. gentlemen opposite are prepared to go so far as to say that we are to have one Canada west of Lake Superior, and another east of Lake Superior. I think no more dangerous doctrine could be euunicated in this country. No man is less affected, perhaps, than I am, by what may be called false sentiment, but, this is no false sentiment; it is a danger to Canada and the hon. gentleman who is giving utterance to such ideas takes upon himself a grave responsibility.
This leads me now to the position of the right lion, leader of the government (lit. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in regard to the re-assembling of the International Commission. Thcj right hon. gentleman has given us. in clear and distinct language, what lie thinks should be, and what I should judge lie very well knows, will be the position of the Canadian delegates when the commission meets. But, is there not a question whether the commission should meet at all ? Is the government in a position now to retrace its steps, to violate the pledge which was solemnly given more than once by the right lion, gentleman to this House ? What was the pledge which the hon. gentleman gave to this House ? Why, Sir, when that commission met and they were unable to agree the House and the country approved of the position which the right hon. gentleman and, his colleagues took upon that occasion. These hon. gentlemen took a course that every true Canadian supported and applauded. AVhat was the position which they took ? The Americans laid down such

16S6
conditions for the settlement of the Alaska houndary question and in regard to other questions at issue, and which were discussed by the commission, as to make it utterly impossible for any self-respecting ministry; in Canada or elsewhere to accept these conditions. What were the conditions ? There were two important and distinct conditions laid down. In one instance the American commissioners insisted that 'f it were found that by friendly negotiation they were unable to come to a conclusion in regard to the Alaska boundary question, and it was left to arbitration there should be six commissioners, three upon each side, and that there should be no umpire. To that the right hon. gentleman stated in this House more than once that he objected, that he thought, and he gave several reasons for his opinion, that it would be impossible to arrive at any decision or to secure a settlement of the question upon that basis. Another condition laid down by the American commissioners was that in the event of the Lynn canal and the establishments being found by the arbitration to be in Canadian territory they were still to remain a part of the United States notwithstanding any such finding. The right hon. gentleman and his colleagues very properly rejected that proposition. Well, Sir, that condition was so absurd, so absolutely at variance with reason and common sense that no man could entertain it for a single moment on any ground whatever, but we are told by the right lion, gentleman that the Americans have receded from that position and that therefore the question, at least so far as that is concerned, has been somewhat solved. I ask the right hon. gentleman if the recession of the American people from the most absurd proposition that was ever made iu regard to any international arbitration is one that will be thought of advantage to Canada in any sense whatever or one that the British government should take advantage of ? Such a contention was absolutely at variance with) any idea of settling such an international question, and there is no thanks to the American government for having abandoned it, because there was never any rhyme nor reason for setting it up. We are to have an Alaskan boundary commission, and I venture to say in advance that there is no possibility of any decision being arrived at. I believe that the American people are simply temporizing in order to find out what the mind of the Canadian people is. And, as to reciprocity with the United States, what was the position of the right hon. the First Minister upon that question in its earlier stages. In 1899 (' Hansard,' page 1061), he said :
My moutli is closed on the subject and I cannot speak but there has been a statement made officially by the foreign office coming from the commission itself which has given to the public why we could not agree. The American commissioners did not want to have an umpire. They wanted to have three commissioners on one side and three on the other side. To this we could not agree because such an arrangement would not give us a definite settlement of the question. They also wanted it agreed that if the establishments they made at the head of the Lynn canal were found to be in Canadian territory they would continue to remain part of their own territory. We could not agree to that.
Well, every7 Canadian will agree in that sentiment. And speaking further the right hon. gentleman said :
We came to the conclusion after giving the matter our best thought that the only rule which could be adopted in the position of things which existed in that distant part of the country were the rules so recently adopted for the settlement of the Venezuelan question.
The right hon. gentleman was firm in liis decision at that date. He went on to say :
I have only to say this, however, that the attitude which we have taken has the approbation of the people of Canada generally and it is an attitude which must and will be maintained to the end.
I ask the right hon. gentleman now, if he proposes to give away the case of Canada. Does he propose to maintain to the end the policy he announced here. Does he not think that it is giving away the case of Canada when he consents to an international commission on which there is to be no umpire, and which in all human probability cannot come to a just decision. I ask the right hon. gentleman if he and his friends are prepared to go to Washington now to negotiate a reciprocity treaty with the United States when he has already declined in expressed terms to do any such thing. In the face of his declaration, I ask the right hon. gentleman if he thinks there is now any use whatever in going to Washington to try and negotiate a reciprocity treaty. I was going to say that the right hon. gentleman is in a humiliating position. Perhaps there is some truth in the statement made by a member in this House a few nights ago when he said that the letters that have passed between the Prime Minister and Mr. Fairbanks are a mere piece of theatricals, and that the whole thing was arranged for the purpose of impressing this country with the view that the Americans were seeking to have the commission reassemble to discuss reciprocity. Read that statement of the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) in connection with the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and in connection with the position of the First Minister when he came back from Washington disappointed as every Canadian was disappointed-not disappointed with the efforts of our Canadian delegates but disappointed with the barren results which must follow any discussion with a set of gentlemen who seem to have no reason on

their side. Let me point to what the right hon. gentleman said about the commission when lie came back in 1899. Here are liis words :
I have no right to speak of what took place in the commission, but I have a right to refer to what is now in the minds of the Canadian people, and if we know the hearts and minds of our people at present I think 1 am not making too wide a statement when I say that the general feeling in Canada to-day is not in favour of reciprocity.
I ask the right hon. gentleman now if lie has changed his mind upon that subject. I ask him what he thinks of the hou. member for Nortli Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) who has two policies up bis sleeve, one for a hostile tariff against the United States and the other for reciprocity, and lie is quite indifferent which he gets so long as he gets one of them. Then we have the Minister of Finance facing in another direction and holding out some comfort to the people who are looking for a revision of the tariff. In view of all this, is it not quite apparent to every man who reads between the lines that the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was quite right when he said : That this is all a piece of by play to deceive the public. It is quite evident that (lie government wants to run an election under two flags. They will go to the people of the west and say :	We will give you
reciprocity with the United States aud you can sell your wheat in the United States so that you need not be troubled about the congestion of tlie railways which prevents your products from being carried to the market. And then they will make another appeal to the people this side of Lake Superior and they will say to them :	There
will be no further concessions made to the United States; England will remove the tax upon breadstuffs in our favour and you will get your goods into the British market on better terms than the people of other countries. Is that not a fair reading of the whole subject, that bon. gentlemen stand in tlie position to-day of refusing to go either forward or backward, but are simply asking tlie people to wait for a revision of tlie tariff ? But there is danger of the people of this country being deceived on that subject now as they have been deceived in the past. When we have hon. gentlemen opposite supporting the government in all their contradictory positions, may we not conclude that that will be continued ? We have ministers of the Crown charged in this House by one who was but recently tlieir colleague, with haviug deliberately gone to the manufacturers in Montreal in 1896. with the consent of the First Minister and his colleagues, and telling them in unmistakable terms that they need not fear any tariff revision that would injure them, but that they would have such a tariff revision as would give them greater advantages than they had at that time. That


James Clancy: charge was made by a gentleman who holds not an inconsequential position in this country, but by one who knows the hearts and minds of hon. gentlemen opposite, the late Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). He did not mention names, though he said that some of them were in the House when he spoke, but the names are well known. When that charge of duplicity was made against ministers, what did we find ? We found the right hon. First Minister, instead of rising in his place and repudiating the charge, asking my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) to get up and make a speech on reciprocity. Do hon. gentlemen pretend to ignore a charge of so serious a kind ? The hon. member for St. Mary's Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) said :	There
are gentlemen sitting on this side of the House (meaning the ministerial side) who have written me letters, who have discussed the matter with me, who have stated to me that they are in favour of my views. And the hon. gentleman even went farther, and alluded to my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson). I am glad to see my hon. friend in his place to-day, and I ask him if lie repudiates the charge made by an hon. gentleman who was a few days ago a colleague of his, that he was in league with those who went to the city of Montreal for the purpose of pacifying the manufacturers, and that he was a protectionist and had done everything in his power to maintain the protection which existed when he came into office. I ask the hon. gentleman if he now repudiates that statement, or is willing to stand convicted of having committed himself along with his colleagues to a position which is scarcely creditable to any set of men in this country.
I now wish to direct my remarks to some of the hon. members from the North-west Territories, and I ask what was the position of the Minister of tlie Interior (lion. Mr. Sifton) ? Why, Sir, liis position was that after these lion, gentlemen had made tlie bargain that I have referred to with the manufacturers in the city of Montreal, after they had, as it were, secretly sold out the people of this country, he told liis people that he loyally accepted the position taken by the government on the tariff. He said they had had a revision of the tariff, but had not lowered it; on the contrary, they had left it generally where it was before. Yet we find some of these lion, gentlemen from tlie North-west Territories, like the hon. membgr for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) crying out against a possible revision of the tariff, feeling and knowing that it is higher in some respects than it was before. Notwithstanding this these hon. gentlemen have no word to say in denunciation of the present tariff as they did of the tariff of 1896. I ask these lion, gentlemen what they have been doing all tlie lime they have been in this House. Has there been one honest or courageous enough to rise in liis

place arid show that he was earnest or serious on the subject by moving a resolution that the tariff should be reduced ? Not one of them lias made any attempt to put himself on record in this way.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I propose, with the permission of the House, to deal shortly with the tariff.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Hear, hear.


James Clancy: My hon. friend from West York who says 'hear, hear,' not many years ago thought it would be better to blow up the bridges at Niagara and the tunnel crossing from Sarnia to Port Huron, and to stop all the possible means of comunication between this country and the United States, than to continue the state of affairs that existed when he wanted unrestricted reciprocity. The same bon. gentleman, who is a worthy colleague of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), made an eloquent speech only a few days ago, with tears in his heart and in his voice for the market gardeners and their sufferings under the tariff ; yet we find that lion, gentleman voting religiously against what he had said, and declaring by that vote that he was humbugging the market gardeners, and was just as earnest in that speech as he lias ever been. He turned his back on them without any regard for his professions or his utterances.
Now, we are told that Canada is very prosperous. Well, I am sure nobody will marvel at that. Would it not be an astonishing thing if Canada were not prosperous, if Canada were not caught in the whirlpool of expansion which has spread all over the world. Would it not be a wonderful thing if even the evil position taken by the hon. gentlemen opposite could be the means of preventing that ? Hon. gentlemen have taken to themselves credit for having borne some part in bringing about that prosperity; but the fact is that they have been no factor in the case at all ; they have been lost sight of ; they have been as powerless to do good as to do harm. The hon. gentlemen were no factors in it. No matter what position they took, it did not make any difference. But we are told that they have changed the times in this country. We are told by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce that we have a new state of affairs and that all the circumstances that once justified his extreme utterances in this House have ceased to exist. There was a time when the hon. gentlemen opposite, who now applaud an expenditure of $64,000,000, cried out against an expenditure of $40,000,000. It is only six years ago, in 1S96, when these same gentlemen denounced a Conservative government, which took from the people in round numbers $36,000,000, and to-day they laud to the skies a government which is taking from the people $65,000,000. We find those same hon. gentlemen who, in 1896, bewailed the sad position of Canada, labouring under a debt
of $158,000,000. which they described as a national mortgage, now wildly cheering a debt of $271,000,000.
But we are told that our trade has vastly increased. True, Mr. Speaker, it has. But why has our trade increased ? Both sides will concede that Canada is in a prosperous condition. The Conservative party has never put itself in a false position and will never, for the sake of a momentary or paltry party gain, seek to decry the condition of the country. But in discussing the increase of trade, let us compare the record of the two parties. We fortunately are in a position to do so. We had a Liberal government in power from 1873 to 1878 and a Conservative government from 1878 to 1896, and we have had a Liberal government in office in the last six years. And I may preface this comparison by remarking that we should not attach too much importance to the policy of a government-whether Liberal or Conservative- when considering the progress or otherwise of the country in matters of trade. Our aggregate trade;-and I want to call the attention of the hon. member for North Norfolk to this-in 1873 was $217,000,000, and in 1878, after the Liberal government had been five years in office, it was only $170,000,000. In other words, our aggregate trade decreased under the Liberal regime, $47,000.000 during five years. Perhaps the hon. member from North Norfolk -will find some means of explaining this decrease to the advantage of Liberal administration.
We then had the Conservative party coming into office in 1878 with an aggregate trade of $170,400,000, and we find that at the end of the next five years, that aggregate trade has increased to $221,000,0000, showing an increase of $51,000,000, which I consider was a very fair showing. In 1S97, the Liberal party came into office with an aggregate trade of $249,000,000, which in five years was increased to $414,000,000, being an increase of $105,000,000. There have been of course in Canada, as everywhere else, periods of depression. The Conservative party had to pass through two periods of depression during their regime of eighteen years. The Liberal party had but one period while it was in office. If we are to attribute anything to the policies of political parties, we have the record of the Liberal party, which was in power live years, from 1873 to 1878, during which the aggregate trade of Canada decreased to the extent of $45,000,000, and immediately following that we had five years of Conservative policy and administration, during which our aggregate trade increased $51,000,000. We must bear in mind that our aggregate trade is one which does not depend entirely on the policy of the government. The trade within our own country, our domestic trade, is dependent in a great measure on that policy, but our aggregate trade is one over which, save as regards the offering of facilities for transportation-the government has

absolutely no control. Let me now take up the question of expenditure. I would like to ask the lion. Minister of Customs, who is an authority on the trade question, if he will, before this debate is through, point to us any great public work in Canada resulting from that expenditure 1 We have had immense expenditures in this country and great public works constructed, but not by any Liberal administration. We have nothing to look forward to and nothing to look back upon, to put to the credit of this enormous increase in our public expenditure which has been the result of the present administration. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite if they can point to any compensation for that immense expenditure ? I have no doubt that these hon. gentlemen will endeavour to evade the point by replying to my challenge in vague and airy generalities. Let me go more into detail. A good deal has been said with regard to receipts and expenditures of the Post Office Department. Our hon. friend the Postmaster General-who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place-has shown an extreme anxiety to convince the country that he is going to balance the two sides of the ledger. His chief ambition sems to be to wipe out a deficit, without any regard to the efficiency of the service. The efficiency of the service seems to be with him a very secondary consideration. Well, I do not think that in a sparsely settled country such as this, where new territories are being continually opened up, there need be any necessity for any Postmaster General to apologize for having a deficit in the management of his department. If he does not show a large deficit, he is not giving the people an efficient service. Let me point out in detail how the hon. gentleman has managed his department. Take the number of post offices, which existed in 1890, just six years before the Conservative party went out of power. In order to be frank and fair, I shall compare the six years' period of Conservative administration with six years under the present government. First let me give the increase under the Conservative government. The number of post offices existing in 1890 was 7,913 ; six years later, in 1896, it had increased to 9,103, an increase within those six years of 1,190. Now, the increase under the present government is paraded as a proof of the splendid administration of this economical minister, this hon. gentleman who wants to balance the ledger. But what is he able to show at the end of six years, in a period of great expansion, when Canada was making greater strides than ever before in her history, when the need for post office expansion was most keenly felt ? Surely, if the hon. gentleman had thought of anything except having eulogiums pronounced upon himself through his own mediums, the labour journals, the percentage of increase should have been infinitely greater than before. But we find that the number of post Mr. CLANCY.
offices under his administration increased from 9,103 in 189G to 9,958 in 1902, an increase of 855 post offices. This is all that the hon. Postmaster General can show in a period of unexampled development-an increase of 855 post offices against an increase of 1,190 in the previous six years. The hon. gentleman speaks of having wiped out the deficit. I am ashamed to think that the hon. gentleman was so anxious to wipe off this deficit that he resorted to methods that were neither more nor less than a shameless repudiation of the country's obligations. Taking advantage of the outbust of patriotism which marked the great Victorian Jubilee, the hon. gentleman issued jubilee stamps of large- denominations. Under the influence of the prevailing patriotic fervour, men instantly bought these stamps, supposing that they were as good as the bills issued by the Treasury department, believing that they represented so much money and that Canada would redeem them. But the hon. gentleman refused to redeem these stamps, and so wiped out nearly half a million of dollars and came nearer to balancing the ledger than he ever did before. A great deal is made of the pretension that the hon. gentlemau has reduced the postage. The Postmaster General tells us that he has given the people great concessions by the reduction of the domestic letter postage from three cents to two cents, and of the imperial postage also to two cents. Now, in the first place, I may tell the hon. gentleman and his friends that this move is not in the interest of the general taxpayer of Canada. There may be a time when the government which happens to be in power, whether Conservative or Liberal, can make the reduction of the postage to the advantage of the mass of the common people. But this reduction which the hon. gentleman has made, as I say, is no benefit to the ordinary taxpayer. It is idle for the hon. gentleman to say that all who choose to do so can avail themselves of this reduction. But to put upon the statute-book a law, or to make any move on the part of the government, is no benefit to the people if the people are not in a position to take advantage of it. Besides, it must not be forgotten that, while the hon. gentleman has made his spectacular reduction in the rate of letter postage, he has made very substantial increases in the rates on other postal matter. The newspapers are a very Important element in the life of our people, for Canadians are careful renders. To enable the people to keep abreast of public questions they should have their newspapers furnished them as cheaply as possible. Formerly newspapers mailed from the office of publication were carried free. Under the changed rates brought into force under the present Postmaster General, newspapers sent outside a radius of twenty miles are charged one-half cent per pound. Of course, the publisher of a newspaper cannot afford to pay this, he must add it to

liis subscription rate. For instance, it iny lion, friend from Nova Scotia (Hon. air. Ross) receives a paper from Ontario he must pay postage on it. But he is so loyal a party man that, I venture to say, he will applaud the Postmaster General for this addition to the postal rates.
Hon. air. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.). Not a bit of it.


James Clancy: I am glad that the hon. gentleman (Hon. air. Ross) takes that position. What does the hon. gentleman think of the other increases that have been made ? For instance, newspapers and periodicals posted elsewhere than at the place of publication were formerly sent for one cent for four ounces. That rate lias been doubled, and now the charge is one cent for two ounces. Newspapers, single copies weighing not more than one ounce, were one-lialf cent, now they are one cent. Books, printed books of instruction, music and drawing books were one cent per four ounces, now they are one cent for two ounces. Pamphlets, circulars, hand-bills, packages of seeds, plants, grafts, &c., were one cent for four ounces, now one cent for two ounces. Maps, drawings, lithographs, photographs, sheet music, deeds, wills, mortgages, chattel mortgages, insurance policies, voters' lists, assessment rolls, municipal returns, patterns, samples of merchandise, and all that class of matter, which goes through tlie mails in large quantities, were formerly one cent for two ounces, now they are two cents for four ounces, four ounces being the minimum, a doubling of the rates. What do these increases represent ? We find, for Instance, that the increase in the number of newspapers and (periodicals posted elsewhere than at the place of publication was from 24,000,000 in 1S90 to 34,000,000 in 1901. Circulars, samples, patterns, &c., increased from 3,672,000 in 1896 to 7,364,000 in 1901. The effect of all this is that the ordinary taxpayer in Canada pays more for the postal service to-day than he did in 1896. This is proved by the fact that, whereas the total expenditure on the post office represented an average of 93 cents per head for the people of Canada in 1896, the expenditure in 1901 amounted to an average of 96 cents per head. Notwithstanding the withholding from the people of a proper postal service, notwithstanding that the service is starved in every direction, notwithstanding these professions of reduction in the rates, we find that the people actually pay more for the postal service to-day than they did in 1896. But that is not all. The bon. gentleman is guilty of concealment in the making up of his accounts. He is so anxious to have the ledger balance, so anxious to be able to declare that he has for once wiped out a deficit and gained a surplus, that he has resorted to what I believe to be discreditable tactics and has deceived the public by his manner of keeping his accounts. The lion Minister of Finance told us that there was a surplus, he believed, in the Post Office department. But he felt called upon to make apology and to make known the truth that there was, after all, a deficit. The expenditure for the whole Post Office department, according to the Public Accounts for 1902, was $4,023,000, while the revenue was $3,918,000, a deficit in round figures of $105,000. AVhy did not the Postmaster General, why did not the Minister of Finance tell the House the truth with no concealment ? But the hon. gentleman says : Wre had a service in the Yukon which cost us $117,000, and we only received $30,000. There was a deficit there of nearly $100,000, or, to be quite accurate, $87,485. Does the hon. gentleman think the Yukon is no part of Canada ? Why should he make an exception in that case, unless he wished to deceive the House and the country ? I repeat, Sir, such arguments are scarcely worthy a minister of the Crown, and are scarcely such as might be expected by the people of this country.
Now there is another matter, that with regard< to the Intercolonial Railway. I do not see the Minister of Railways in his place. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it has been your painful experience to notice that wo have no ministers of the Crown in their places in the House upon occasions of this kind when they ought to be here to defend the charges that are made against them. These are not merely empty charges, they are charges sufficiently serious to require that those hon. gentlemen should be present to defend themselves. But they show an utter disregard of these matters, and exhibit a most unedifying complacency when they happen to be in their places and are confronted with most damaging facts. Still, they sit there speechless, and receive the plaudits of their friends sitting behind them.
The Minister of Finance made a reference to the record of the Intercolonial Railway. Well, now, Mr. Speaker, I propose with your permission to deal with this question. I want to bring to the attention of the House the records of the two parties in managing that railway. That has always been a difficult business to administer; and I am prepared to admit that it always will be a difficult business to manage, and to manage with, success. But the hon. gentleman tried to make the country believe that at last they had found a solution of all the difficulties in connection with the Intercolonial Railway. Now, Sir, I will show you the results of the administration of that road during two periods of equal length, one under the Conservative government and one under the Liberal government. Take tlie six years from 1891 to 1896 inclusive, and what do we find ? The Minister of Railways in the Conservative government expended $20,651,000 on what is called working expenses; on capital account he expended

$2,698,000, or in all for those six years lie expended $23,350,000, in round numbers. Now, wlint was tlie revenue that came back to tlie people of Canada during that period? The revenue during those six years amounted to $19,020,000, in round numbers, or a deficit taken out of the pockets of the people-for I am prepared to admit that it had to] be taken out of the pockets of tlie people-of $4,320,000. That was the result during the six years preceding the advent of the Liberal government. Now the expenditure from 1897 to 1902 inclusive under the Liberal regime,! was, for working expenses, $26,048,000, and for capital expenditure $13,485,000, or a total expenditure of $40,133,000. The revenue during the six years period was $26,071,000, leaving a deficit that Canada must lose of $14,422,000 as against a deficit of $4,000,000 during the Conservative period. Is that, Mr. Speaker, a record to be boasted of by lion, gentlemen opposite ? During a period of great depression in Canada, wheu business was stagnant, not only in Canada but throughout the whole world, our friends administered that railway at a loss of only $4,000,000; but as soon as lion, gentlemen opposite came into power, during a period of the greatest expansion Canada lias ever known, when the Intercolonial Railway and every other road should have been making money, and most of them did make money, we have the spectacle presented by these lion, gentlemen of sinking $14,000,000 of the people's money in the Intercolonial Railway, t ask lion, gentlemen who sit opposite if they approve of a record of that kind ?
Now let me go a little further into details. Hon. gentlemen may say: Well, we have something to show for our expenditure, the public are getting a benefit from it, we have made that a paying institution, and tlie people are going to get their money back. Well, let us see what foundation they have upon which to base such a statement. There must be something radically wrong with the management of that institution. In the first place, we have a gentleman taken from the ranks of the Liberal party, a very able lawyer in the province from which he came, but a gentleman who has not shown any ability as) a railway manager, a gentleman who lias sunk millions of public money, who lias made of the Intercolonial Railway a dismal failure, who has made for himself a record as a railway manager that no man in this country will envy. Now. I want to make a fair comparison, and I think it will bo fair to make a comparison between the Intercolonial Railway on the one hand and the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway on the other. What do we find in 1896 ? In 1896 the earnings per train mile on the Canadian Pacific Railway were $1.40, and in 1901, five years later, the earnings were a little over $1.71 per train mile. On the Grand Trunk Railway in 1896, the earnings per train mile were $1. and ibis was a time, bear in mind, of great de-Mr. CLANC7.
pression. In 1901 the earnings of the Grand Trunkv Railway per train mile increased to $1.26. The average earnings per train mile on all the railroads in Canada for 1896 were $1.17; in 1901 they were $1.44. Now, Sir. what do you suppose were the earnings of the Intercolonial Railway in 1896 ? Why they were 76 cents per train mile, and in 1901 they were 79 cents, as against $1.71 on the Canadian Pacific Railway, $1.26 on the Grand Trunk Railway, and $1.44 on all the railways in Canada.
That is a splendid showing of the bon. Minister of Railways and Canals, that is the return the people are getting for this loss of $14,000,000 to which I have referred. But, there are other tests that I desire to refer to. The proportion of expenses to receipts is another test. The Canadian Pacific Railway, in 1896, had to pay out 60'05 per cent of its earnings for the purpose of carrying on its affairs and in 1901 it paid put 60'08 per cent. The Grand Trunk Railway paid out in 1896, 69-09 per cent of its earnings, while in 1901 it paid out 63-71 per cent of its earnings, or of its revenue. All the railways in Canada except the Intercolonial Railway, paid out 67 per cent of their earnings in 1896, and 65-92 per cent, or 66 cents practically, in 1901. What is the position of the Intercolonial Railway ? In this period of great expansion, when railways have had earnings jper train mile, in 1896, of $1.40, and in 1901 of $1.71, what is the record which we find in regard to the Intercolonial Railway ? Why, Sir, instead of comparing with the Canadian Pacific Railway system, with 60 per cent of its earnings being paid out, or with the Grand Trunk Railway system, with 63 per cent of its earnings being paid out, or with all the railways of Canada, except the Intercolonial Railway, with 65 per cent of its earnings being paid out, we find that the Intercolonial paid out, in 1896, 104-03 per cent, or 4 cents more than it earned, and that in 1901 it paid 110-76 per cent, or 11 cents more than it earned. That is the record of the Intercolonial Railway. Some lion, gentlemen say : Well, the Intercolonial Railway was built in the interest of the people of Canada. We have carried freight at reduced rates, we have given the money back to the people, they have it in their pockets and if there is a disparity between the two sides of the ledger it lias arisen by reason of the fact of giving the people special freights and other special advantages. Let me call the attention of the House to this point for a moment, and then I shall conclude : The revenue per ton per mile in 1896 for all freight carried over the Intercolonial Railway, was 1 -297 cents, nearly 2 cents, as you will see, and in 1901 it was 1-478 cents. Therefore, the people have not had any compensation for the increased taxation; they have paid higher rates of freight than before and we have the lamentable spectacle of the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals having sunk large sums of money

and having the credit of having managed the Intercolonial Railway worse than any other railway in Canada has been managed, and I venture to say, worse than any other railway on the continent of America.
Now, we come to the canals. These lion, gentlemen are telling us what they have done for the country. I shall only detain the House for a moment to call attention to the period in which the Conservatives were in power and in . which they spent nearly as much upon the canals as did lion, gentlemen after they came into office. During the period from 1892 to 1890 the Conservatives spent $14,828,981. The Liberal government, during the period from 1897 to 1901, spent $17,635,377, or a yearly increase of something like half a million-actually $561,000. We are told of the splendid results, and of the great expansion that has taken place since they came into power. They try to account for their magnificent expenditures, as they call them, by saying : We have gone to work and completed the canals, we have given facilities for transportation, we have aided Canada in every manner possible. What do we find has been the result of the completion of these canals of which these hon. gentlemen speak so much ? The revenue from these canals in 1896 was $339,539, and in 1901, $315,426, a decrease in that period of great expansion of $24,113. In that period, when we were all looking forward to our canal system as one which would be of great assistance in the transportation of commodities, when so much was being said about our waterways, we find that instead of our expectation being realized the very reverse was the fact. Let us take the traffic passing through these canals. In the period during which these hon. gentlemen expended this large amount of money, the period which they hold up to our view, we find the traffic returns to be as follows : In 1896 the total number of tons that passed through the canals was 5,033,869. In 1901, 2,408,985 tons passed through, or a decrease of more than one-half, a decrease of 2,624,884 tons. How have these hon. gentlemen compensated the people for these expenditures ? I am sorry that the hon. Minister of Finance is not in his place but I shall ask the hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) to be kind enough to tell him about the Yukon. When that hon. gentleman was addressing this House and displaying the splendid achievements of the Liberal party in 1901, he had this to say about the Yukon, as given in ' Hansard ' of 1901, page 1455 :
Now, it is the policy of the government at the beginning, to use an expression which has become current, to make the Yukon pay for the Yukon, and that has been carried out.
Well, nothing was said about the Yukon paying for the Yukon this year. What have we instead ? I will tell the hon. gentleman the secret. I am sure he has been let into it before, because it was so very palpable.
However I will tell him again. The total expenditure for 1902 was $2,474,419, and the revenue was $1,559,259, so that there was a deficit of $914,960. That is the reason nothing was said about the Yukon. Some hon. gentlemen will perhaps say : Well, it has gone back but the Yukon has paid for the Yukon. The Yukon has not paid for the Yukon. The total expenditure for the whole period during which these hon. gentlemen have been in office has been $8,437,597, and the total revenue $8,267,826, so that there has been a deficit on the whole transaction of $169,771.


George Taylor: Some of them made more than that out of it.


James Clancy: I am not including the pickings. I wish to call the attention of hon. gentlemen to what will be put forward as the reason for that. We will be told, no doubt, by hon. gentlemen who are to address this House in future that the royalties have been reduced and that therefore by reason of the reduction of royalties the people in that country have had some benefit from the reduction and that if the Yukon did not really pay for the Yukon, at least, the people, have the money in their pockets. AVell there was a reduction. The whole revenue from that source in 1901 was $1,237,000, and in 1902 it was $849,720, or a decrease of $387,000. I admit that was a reduction ini the right direction. It was a reduction wrung from the government by the efforts of the miners backed up by the strong effort made by the Conservative party in this House, and though the government at first refused to make the reduction they were forced to go back on their policy in that respect, as in many other respects. But although the reduction was $387,000, the deficit was $520,000, so that when the Finance Minister makes his next budget speech he will have to revise his statement that the Yukon pays for the Yukon.
I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) is not here, because I have something to say to him. We hear that he is attending banquets and wearing pig tails, and having degrees conferred upon him. and hobnobbing with their Oriental Majesties, and that he will leave for home on the first of May. That will prevent him arriving in time to hear what I have to say.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


James Clancy: Well, perhaps the Minister of Agriculture may be excused under the circumstances. We have been told often what the Liberals have done for the farmers in this country in the matter of cold storage, and how when the Liberals came into power they gave life to this system which was allowed to die for want of energy on the part of their predecessors in office. And when the First Minister was recently telling the people what his party had done for Canada, he mentioned this amongst other things :


Some hon. MEMBERS: Who asked that question ?


James Clancy: I asked the question myself and this is what the Minister of Agriculture replied, and this is the discussion that resulted from that question:


Mr. FISHER.: In a general way the products which have gone forward in cold storage have been butter of which practically the whole export of Canada goes in that way, and poultry meat of which practically the whole export of Canada to Great Britain, not to the United States, goes in cold storage.


James Clancy: What are the quantities ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not got the quantities. About two hundred tons of poultry meat went last fall to Great Britain by cold storage. Tender fruits, such as pears, peaches and grapes went forward in mechanical cold storage chambers (but these are about all). Cheese has not gone forward to any great extent in cold storage chambers. Some shipments of apples had gone in cold storage, but as a general rule the shippers of apples say, In the first place, that too large quantities go at one time to get the accommodation. And in the second place they do not think it will be worth while to pay the extra storage accommodation.


James Clancy: What was the value of the small fruits, and the value of the poultry sent forward in cold storage ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not got the figures of the exact quantities or the values of the fruit or the poultry.
The Minister of Agriculture was not able to answer the question as to the value of the fruit or the poultry, but I will answer it for him, ancl I take my figures from the Trade and Navigation Returns published by the government. For the year 1000, the" total exports of poultry dressed and undressed amounted to $210,822 including all in cold storage or not. In 1901 that had dropped to $145,158, and in 1902 it only reached the comparatively small sum of $238,047. Now, let us take the small fruits to which the hon. gentleman lias referred. I include what was sent in cold storage and otherwise


James Clancy: and I find that in 1900 we exported a total of $59,412 ; in 1901 that fell to $38,320, and in 1902 it had diminished to $20,311. That is the story from commencement to end of the success of cold storage for which so much credit is claimed by this Liberal government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to the expenditures and I take the controllable expenditure for which the ministers are accountable. I have made a comparison between the expenditures of the different departments as between 1890 and 1902 and here is the result:



[Stage Direction]
1896.	1902.
Administration of justice.	.$ 758,270	$ 949,229Civil Government	. 1,396,628	1,497,369Fisheries	. 427,250	548,894Geological Survey, &c.. .	. 134,368	224,015Immigration	. 120,199	494,841Quarantine	. 95,247	264,737Indians	. 880,408	1,057,130Marine Hospitals	. 36,683	51,827Militia and Defence	. 1,137,717	2,060,978Miscellaneous	. 172,363	1,146,120Mounted Police	, 533,014	948,215Penitentiaries	. 385,227	438,072Police	. 22,703	60,241Superannuation	. 311,231	338,764Customs	. 896,332	1,176,024Dominion Lands	. 119,908	158,843$7,427,548	$11,415,299
Here we have an increase in the controllable expenditure of 54 per cent, and mind you these are all expenditures that are under tlie control of the different ministers, and for which they can and ought to render an account. Where has the money gone, let me ask ? Why this increase of 54 per cent ? What is there to show for it ?
I now come to another question, Mr. Speaker which interests the people of Canada to a very great extent, and that is as to whether the system of bookkeeping adopted by this government is an honest system of bookkeeping under which the people of Canada can really tell what is going on in the service of the government. I address myself particularly now to the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) who is an authority on finances. He has referred to this question more than once in his speeches, and I shall probably have to quote some of his utterances as to what constitutes a surplus in Canada. When it is stated in this House that the Liberal party from 1S97 to 1902 inclusive, have had continuous surpluses, aggregating over $27,000,000, I say that that statement is absolutely destitute of a single particle of truth. Now, that is a broad statement, and when I make it I realize the serious responsibility I take as a member of this House, especially one occuping so humble a position as I do. Now, our total receipts and total expenditures for each year since 1897 have been as follows :
1T£)1

Year.	Total	Total Deficits.
Receipts. Expenditures.
1897		$ 37,829,778 $ 42,972,755 $ 5,142,977
1898	
40,556,510	45,334,281	4,777,7711899	
46,743,102	51,542,635	4,799,5331900	
51,031,466	52,717,466	1,686,0001901	
52,516,332	57,982,866	5,466,5341902	
58,052,333	63,970,799	5,918,466$286,729,521	$314,520,802Aggregate deficits	
$27,791,281
Every dollar of these deficits which have occurred since hon. gentlemen opposite have been in power, has been added to the public debt. I challenge any hon. gentleman who may reply to me to deny that statement if he can. Hon. gentlemen may apologize for this by saying what about the sinking fund? The sinking fund, as every hon. gentleman knows, is a statutory expenditure which we are obliged to make each year to provide for our loans ; and if the sums which we have had to put aside for that purpose are deducted, the result will show that the net debt has been increased by these annual deficits in the last six years by $13,331,657. When I say that the bookkeeping of hon. gentlemen opposite is not right, they will probably say, just as the hon. Finance Minister said, that he has followed the practice of his predecessor. But that does not alter the matter in the least. If a false position was taken by his predecessor or if his predecessor followed a system he found in vogue the hon. gentleman's plain duty, if he wanted to be as fair as he professes to be, was to keep the public accounts in such a way that the people of this country would understand them to be accurate. In this respect the hon. gentleman keeps his books differently from every other civilized country in the world. What is the case in England ? Do we find consolidated expenditures and capital expenditures there ? No. All the accounts are kept in one ledger and under one classification, so that when they show a surplus, it is an actual and not a visionary one. Then, take the people to the south of us. I am not as fond of taking them as an example as some hon. gentlemen in this House ; but what do we find there ? I challenge the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), a gentleman who is well versed in these matters, to rise in his place and tell the House and the country that in the United States they have such mixed expenditures as we have ; but th :ir ledger contains on one side the whole of the expenditures, and on the other side the total revenues, and the balance of $69,000,000 which was shown last year was no fiction, but an absolute surplus which they could show in dollars and cents. What does the honest taxpayer believe when he is told by the Minister of Finance that for the coming year we shall have a surplus of over $13,000,000 ? He concludes, as every honest man would conclude, that there will be $13,000,000 in the treasury. He would 54J
conclude, from the hon. minister's statement, that it was not a fiction, but a fact, that, as a result of this government's administration for the past six years, there were $27,000,000 in the treasury. I ask if there is one hon. gentleman who can rise and say that there was any such thing in existence, that there was at the end of any of those years a single dollar there. The result is that though we are charging millions up to the public debt, we have had the amusing spectacle of a gentleman, of high standing in this country-I refer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce-telling the House what he would do with surpluses. He said, referring to the leader of the opposition :
My hon. friend wants to know what I think about surpluses. I have no objection to tell him. There are three excellent uses to which a surplus may be applied. In the first place it may be applied to a reduction of taxation.
Well, Mr. Speaker, have these surpluses, which the right hon. gentleman boasts of, been applied to the reduction of taxation ? No, and for the very good reason that they have never existed. Our taxation has, on the contrary, been increased. The next purpose to which a surplus might be applied, was the paying off the debt. But our public debt, instead of being reduced, has been increased. And the third purpose for which a surplus could be utilized, he informs us, was the construction of useful and productive public works. But where are these public works ? I defy any hon. gentleman opposite to point to any productive public work of any magnitude which they have given the country. The system of bookkeeping adopted by this government is a most wonderful one. I have pointed out that you will find no such system of bookkeeping in any other country under any responsible government. You will certainly not find in the mother country any such deception practiced in the public accounts, and in no other country will you find the people presented with a statement showing fictitious and false surpluses.
On the question of the tariff, Mr. Speaker, I propose to offer a few remarks. You will remember, Sir, that the hon. Finance Minister read into his budget speech the platform adopted by the Liberal party in 1893. This is what he said
Now, as to the manner in which this tariff revision should be brought about, I want to read to you-not because it is any element of novelty, but because it properly fits in at this stage of my speech-the platform adopted by the Liberal party at the great convention held at Ottawa in 1893.
After reading the whole platform lie said
Mr. Speaker, the electors of Canada in due course gave their verdict upon that and upon other issues and subject to such changes as changing circumstances may require and as to . which I shall have something to say as I pro-
[Stage Direction]
ceefi. We accept the Liberal platform of Ottawa as the declaration of principle which we are bound to follow on our tariff reform.
The hon. gentleman, in his speech, laid down this principle with regard to the tariff :
That it should be so adjusted as to make free or bear as lightly as possible upon the necessaries of life and should be so arranged as to promote free trade with the whole world more particularly with Great Britain and the United States. We denounce the principle of protection as radically unsound and unjust to the masses of the people, and we declare our conviction that any tariff changeis based on that principle must fail to afford any substantial relief from the burdens under which the country labours.
This issue we unhesitatingly accept and upon it we await with the fullest confidence the verdict of the electors of Canada.
This is what the hon. gentleman read into his speech, and later on, addressing himself to the case of the manufacturers, he said
Every man who invested a dollar in the National Policy did so with his eyes wide open to certain important facts. He was well aware that from the beginning down to the end the National Policy was condemned by one of the great political parties in Canada. He was well aware that every effort had to be put forth by governmental influences and such influences as the manufacturers themselves are well aware of in order to obtain from the public an apparent endorsement of that policy	
Now the manufacturers knew of this, and they must have known that when they put their money into these factories they were taking their risk. There was a speculative element in this whole national policy business and the men who play the game and gather in the winnings ought to be prepared when the turn of the tide comes to pay the losses and try to look pleasant
Mr. GGURLEY.: He was familiar with the game.


James Clancy: Yes. That speech was made after a conference with the manufacturers had been held prior to the elections of 1896. There was in it an implied threat to the manufacturers, but he did not proceed much further before he sang another tune. He said
However, X wish to say and emphasize the fact that it has never been the policy of the Idberal party as declared by any member of the Liberal party occupying a responsible position if they came into power to destroy at one movement all the manufacturing industries or to so change the policy as to place them in peril.
What do you think of a Finance Minister who tells the manufacturers that they are playing a game, that their business is in the nature of a gamble, and they might look out and be prepared for what might happen, and then immediately after declares that it was not the policy of the Liberal party to so change the tariff policy of this country so as to injure the manu-


James Clancy: facturing interests. He went on further to say
I hesitate not to say that if we should to-day by some rash step do that which some hon. gentlemen say that we are bound to do but which intelligent men know that we are not bound to do and would not do, we should not only break down the manufacturing interests of the country, but deal a blow to other interests of a wider and more serious character.
The hon. gentleman has always had the faculty of making startling and alarming declarations with regard to the policy he was going to adopt and then explaining away those threats, so that his friends might go to the country and put any construction on his utterances that would best suit the party exigencies of the moment. Hon. gentlemen have always been in a position- and, no doubt, will try to keep themselves in a position-to use these two sides of the speeches of their leaders, one in favour of protection, and the other in favour of the policy adopted by the Liberal party in 1893, of revising the tariff with a view to destroying every vestige of the national policy. Rut we have now in the House an hon. gentleman-I refer to the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson)-who, according to the statement of his former colleague, the hon. member for St. Mary's. Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has tried within the cabinet to maintain the protectionist policy. I have referred to the hon. member for St. Mary's division. If any man has earned the gratitude of the people of Canada for maintaining in the tariff of 1897 a large measure of protection, that hon. gentleman has earned it. If that hon. gentleman told the truth about the hon. Minister of Customs, of which there seems no doubt, it would seem that the hon. Minister of Customs also was performing his part in the cabinet, under the influence of that strong man, to maintain the protectionist policy as this government found it in 1890. If that is the case, the Minister of Customs also deserves credit for the fact that the tariff was left in the form in which we find it to-day. But the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) cannot accept openly tlie praise that is said to be due to him, because he has put himself under pledge before the country in a different way. He tells the people that he despises the protection, he tells them that protection is an evil. But he tells the people also that the government is obliged to maintain a revenue tariff, a tax gathering tariff-and that it is a tax gathering tariff is proven by the enormous sums it wrings from the pockets of the people-and that, while he would abolish if he could the protection element, yet it is unavoidable that there must be in the tariff some measure of protection. The hon. gentleman has explained more than once the difference of the two parties on this point. He has told, ns that it is the cardinal principle of the Conservative party to give full protection to the country's industries, wrhile it is the policy

of the Liberal party to give barely ami beggarly the protection that cannot be withheld. But we are told now by the hou. gentleman'^ former colleague that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) is in favour of protection, and we are left to Infer that he fought for that principle in council. Will the hou. Minister of Customs rise before this debate closes and say that that statement is not true ? Will he repudiate the utterance of his late colleague ? Will he say that he bore no part in the retention of protection in the present tariff ? If so, will he be able to reconcile that with his declarations that the government did not want protection, but only wanted a tariff to collect taxes? That was his declaration, and that was what lie relied upon for commercial defence against a commercially hostile country alongside which is constantly invading our territory. If the hou. gentleman denies that this was his position I will give him the words of his own utterances. But I know that lie will not deny it, and I do not put that as ail offensive challenge.
Now, what is the position of the lion. Minister of Finance in asking for delay in the revision of the tariff ? He says that the manufacturers are more perplexed to find space and workmen than to find reasons for increases in the tariff, that what they fear is the fierce competition from outside from a period of depression, in the narrowing of our trade that, as everybody knows,i must follow the present great expansion-that they are more frightened of what is to come than of what is here now. He tells us that what the manufacturers are frightened of is a condition of things that does not now exist. He tells us that they look to the future and seek to provide against the possible evils of the future. In effect the hou. Minister of Finance tells us that the time to lock the door is not when we are secure, but when the burglar comes and rifles our money boxes, and when he stands there armed and ready to defend himself against attack. We have now a tax gathering tariff. That is the design of the tariff in the minds of bon. gentlemen opposite; if it affords protection, according to their cardinal tariff doctrine, that is an evil feature of it. But what -of the future ? The overflow of American markets is coming into Canada. I am within the mark when I say that the overflow of production of the United States is greater than the whole of our production in Canada. The hon. gentleman tells us that our manufactories are expanding and that the difficulty is anything but lack of orders. But our own manufacturers are not filling more than half our orders. If we had protection, we should find the space and the workmen, and should supply all the wants of our own people. But we have this evil of an invasion from the outside growing steadily, an evil which it may be impossible for us to eradicate by hostile
tariffs if we do not act in time. We have immense quantities of American goods coming into Canada; our people are being trained and educated to buy American goods and use them; we have the agents of American concerns in Canada, camping here by the score; we have even Canadians being enlisted in selling American goods who ought to be enlisted in selling Canadian goods. And when the evil ripens under the influence of reaction from the present good times, we shall be without a single weapon of defence against the invaders. The waiting game is the one that the Minister of Finance recommends to us-to wait for possible reciprocity; to wait for something to come in relation to the preferential tariff.
I do not wish to detain the House over this preferential tariff business. If I were to read from the speech of the Minister of Finance, I could only show that he faces both ways upon this question as he does upon the tariff, tie tells us that, if the British people do not give some concessions in their market, he is prepared to repeal the preferential tariff. But then he asks, notwithstanding that, whether it would be in the interest of the people of Canada to repeal it. The hon. gentleman always show's the faint heart. He stands at the cross roads and does not know which wray to go. He tells us that, if the British government do not take a certain course, he will take the other. But then his heart fails him, and he asks the hesitating question :	But
would it be in the interest of Canada ? He tells us that it is well to use their own tariff weapon against the United States. But when he thinks of our great North-west he asks :	But what would such a course cost
ais ? He lays down the principle that in every case, a protective duty is paid by the consumer in the enhanced price of the article. I deny that experience has ever shown anything of that kind, I deny that in Canada, at least, beyond a mere momentary spurt, protection has ever raised the prices of goods. Take machinery with regard to which a mean appeal is made to the people of the North-west Territories, made upon such small things as binder twine, barbed wire and farm implements. Is there an lion, gentleman representing a constituency in the North-west who will say that even if a duty of $10 w'ere put upon farm implements, a farmer in the North-west would find it any serious handicap, such does not follow as a result of the duty. Yet the Minister of the Interior tells us that the tax upon farm implements is a great burden to the people of the North-west. Well, to-day we have the Minister of Finance undoing every particle of the legislation that he put upon the statute-book in 1897, retracing his steps, showing his own blunders regarding binder twine, probably making the proposal of giving a bounty of three-eights of a cent per pound on importations of the raw material, and he thinks that will cause the

binder twine to be made in Canada after it bas been made free and tax our own people for it. But by whom was it made free ? It was made free by a blunder of tbe bon. gentleman opposite, made free in vain. Tbe people of Canada bare never profited by it. We have lost that much revenue, and tbe American people came into Canada and took possession of our market, and made our manufacturers join tbe combine. To-day tbe manufacturers of Canada are in a combine with those of the United States, and we are importing 14,000,000 pounds of binder twine out of tbe eighteen million pounds we consume in Canada. We are importing 14,000,000 pounds that ought to be made in Canada by Canadian workmen.
What was the position of tbe Minister of Finance upon that question? Why, it was tbe most extraordinary declaration ever made in this House, that a minister of tbe Crown should come down and say, I have not found a remedy for tbe evil, but I propose, before this session closes, to find a remedy-in other words, giving us to understand that be was going to change the tariff in some way. But what is the shift tbe lion, gentleman proposes to make ? He proposes to take out of the pockets of the people by means of a bounty the sum that is charged by tbe United States, to take it out of the pockets of Canadians in order to make good that loss that he inflicted upon them by taking away the protection. They not only take away the protection from the industry, but they have made binder twine higher, and they have deprived Canadian workmen of tlie opportunity of making binder twine that is now niade in the United States. There is no mistake about who pays the money that goes in bounties. It comes directly out of our pockets. They take away protection largely from a large class of iron goods. The Minister of Customs declared, when the tariff was being revised, that they gave these bounties in lieu of tbe protection that they took away from the manufacturers in that class of goods. In other words, money that ought to have been paid by foreign countries, is now placed upon the heads of Canadians to be paid out in the shape of bounties in order to sustain that industy. It is just another one of their procession of blunders. It is the same with binder twine. But who pays the duty ? We are told the consumer pays the duty. Why should we seek for reciprocity with the United States, I ask hon. gentlemen, if the American consumer pays the duty ? I appeal to the hon. member for North Norfolk, who now wants reciprocity with the United States to sell our wheat there ? According to the Liberal doctrine it is the people of the United States who pay that duty. If they do pay that duty, what is the difference between that and a duty on a binder coming from the United States ? Why should we seek to get a preference in the Mr. CLANCY.
British market ? Let the British taxpayer pay the duty, we are not paying it, according to hon. gentlemen opposite. How do lion, gentlemen reconcile the two positions ? Do they mean to say that every dollar that is put on by customs duties to defend our interests, and for the purpose of giving protection to our own Canadian people has the effect of raising the price ?
I ask hon. gentlemen who represent the North-west Territories what compensation they have for the taxes put upon them. In 1S96, we collected per head in taxes, $7.57, and in 1902 we collected $10.81. We are collecting $3.24 a head more than we collected in 1896. I ask hon. members who represent western constituencies what they have to compensate them for that. Do they still maintain that the old tariff taxed them to the extent of the duty upon the goods they consumed in this country ? If They do, then let them make their peace with their leaders. But not only are we paying an excess of $3.24 a head in taxes in 1902, but we have a prospect of paying $4.23 a head for the year coming.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to consider this reform tariff. The hon. Minister of Customs, who pays great attention to this matter, says the tariff has been reformed. Well, this is the way it has been reformed. We imported in 1902 $118,000,000 of dutiable goods, and of that amount, just $16,615,000 came in under the reform tariff of 1897. That is the extent of the burden lifted from the people, when the taxes went all into the treasury, when it was no longer the case that two dollars out of three went into the pockets of the manufacturers and the favoured few, and the other dollar went into the treasury. We have the tariff reformed to the extent of $16,615,000 out of $118,000,000, or about 14 per cent of the whole tariff was reformed. That has been a splendid reduction. That has been the new policy, if I may call it so, of a revenue tariff, of lifting the burdens, of changing the currents of trade ; that has been the new Liberal tariff policy. But it has another side to it, Mr. Speaker. Out of that $118,000,000 that came in last year coming under the general tariff of 1897 of dutiable goods, there were $34,542,000 raised. Is that a reformation of the tariff ? I do not think hon. gentlemen will say so. I do not speak at all in regard to the preferential tariff, because I have no hesitation in saying from my place in this House and in the presence of hon. gentlemen who are merchants and who know, that the people never derived one farthing of benefit as consumers from the preferential tariff. We, therefore, speak of the reformation where it existed, if it did exist, of the decreases by that reformed tariff of 14 per cent and the increases of that reformed tariff of no less than 29 per cent. Who got the benefit of the reductions? Was it the general consumer ? No. these reductions were made in the interest of the

manufacturers generally. Tlie manufacturers got the benefit. I do not object to the manufacturers getting the benefit of the reductions if the amount was not taxed back upon the people in the form of bounties to make it up. The value of the goods on which reductions were made to help the manufacturers, and I do not object to that, was $7,222,632. I shall not enumerate the goods, but if the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) is sufficiently interested and curious, I will read it over for him.
Hon. Mr. HAG 6ART. Read the list and it will be on record.


James Clancy: The list is a very considerable one.
An lion. MEMBER. Read it.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman want it read ?


An hon. MEMBER.: Yes.


James Clancy: I shall read it, but I shall ask the indulgence of the House if I do not conclude at six o'clock. I see the hon. Minister of Customs smiling. The first item is one in his interest and it is labels of all kinds.
Importations in 1902 of Goods on which the Duty was decreased in the Interests of the
Manufacturer.
Great Britain.
United States.
Other Countries.
Labels, fruit and vegetable

Straw-board	
Sulphuric acid	
Acid sulphate	
Lubricating oil.. .		
Crude oil	
Olive oil	
Shoe tacks	
Iron or steel nuts and washers.
Files and rasps	
Steam engines and boilers....
Iron and steel goods	
Fjlectrotypes and stereotypes..
Lead pipe	
W atch eases	
Cases for watches, jewels, &c
Cane, reed, rattan	
Glucose or grape sugar	
Jeans and sateens	
Rove	
Wool yams	
Enamelled oil cloth	
Window shades in pieces	
Nitro-glycerine	
Slate for mantels, roofs, &c. .
10,807
101
9,638
1,188
10,617
34,998
1,404,912
4,929
2,457
4,111
19,441
217,735
352,697
2,040
59
55,735
7,571
4,525
15,771
52,282
40,568
10,578
3,880
90,839
76,657
347,024
2,983,020
9,386
3,087
97,711
4,315
38,044
103,437
84,268
176,428
4,208
22,944
49,981
13,538
18,058
6,394
583,460
30
159
49,646
64,908
1,276
10,201
2,078,304	4,395,876	748,454Great Britain	$	2,078,304	United States	4.395,876	Other countries	748,454	$	7,222,632	
Then, when we take the goods on which the duties were reduced we will find that these reductions were concessions to the United States. Perhaps the hon. gentlemen opposite want to know what these concessions were. The articles ou which the duty was reduced in 1S97 were Indian corn, Indian corn meal, wheat and wheat flour.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: For the benefit of the farmer ?


James Clancy: Yes, for the benefit of the farmer. These hon. gentlemen claimed that the duty was taken off corn for the benefit of our farmer. The duty was lowered on wheat for the benefit of the men in the large centres like Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto, and other industrial centres which buy enormous quantities of wheat and while hon. gentlemen opposite were pretending that they were lifting the burden off the consumer they were placing a heavier

burden on the Canadian farmers. The value of the Indian corn, corn meal, wheat and wheat flour imported under the reduced duty and which duty was reduced for the benefit also of the people of the United States was $1,898,318. There was another concession made to the people of the United States from which the people of Canada derived no benefit of $878,087 on coal oil. Will any hon. gentleman say that the reduction of one cent a gallon on coal oil inured in the slightest to the benefit of the consumers of Canada ? It resulted in bringing in the Standard Oil Company with which the oil producers of Canada have been forced to join hands, an Institution which they dreaded ; but with which they have been forced to join and now we have the oil producers of Canada acting in concert with that foreign combine and putting up the price of oil. Then, there was another concession to the United States in the matter of barbed wire to the amount of $826,846. We have brought in that amount of barbed wire under this reduced duty. The barbed wire factories in Canada are practically all closed up. The workmen who should look to Canada for a day's labour and a means of earning a livelihood have been sent to make barbed wire in the United States. We are not only sending our Canadian workmen to the United States, but we are sending our Canadian money to buy the barbed wire which is now made in the United States. As I have said we gave a concession to the United States in the matter of barbed wire of $826,846. But, we gave still another concession of $1,507,344 in the matter of binder twine. I shall not discuss that again ; I have only to say that this concession was made in the interest of the United States workmen and it was one of those stupendous blunders that hon. gentlemen have made and the country are now paying for this blunder.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: The people have been paying more for binder twine ever since.


James Clancy: Yes. I wish now to point out what has been the l'esult of the raising of duties on goods imported into Canada. I appeal again, to the hon. Minister of Customs. He does not seem to suffer in this and I shall not have his sympathy so much. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to give the House the list of goods on which the duties were raised under this reformed tariff. They were raised mainly upon the necessaries of life notwithstanding the declaration of the hon. Minister of Finance that he made in this House that he proposed to adopt the policy, or the platform, enunciated at the Liberal convention of 1893 that the duties on the necessaries of life should not only be reduced but that these goods should be made free. Well, this is how they have been made free. The list is as follows : Mr. CLANCY.


IMPORTATION IN 1902 OF GOODS FORMING THE NECESSARIES OF LIFE UPON WHICH THE DUTIES WERE INCREASED BY THE TARIFF OF 1897.
[Stage Direction]
s s 5 Jj § a
[Stage Direction]
Rice, uncleaned (per lb.)	 Taff 1
Fruit in packages and jars..$ 88,901	2	21Jams and jellies	
63,814	3	31Hats and caps	
110,982	.25	30Clothes wringers	
16,916Cutlery, n.o.p	
212,076	25	30Cotton balls and batting.. ..	8,517	221	25Cotton, gray and unbleached.. 152,119	22J	25Cotton, printed	
3,523,912	30	35Braids, laces, &c	
1,357,055	25	30Sewing thread	
601,674	321	35Damask of linen doylies, &...	477,300	25	30Towels, all kinds	
193,366	25	30Wool fabrics	
3,374,062	30	35Wool manufactures	
3,780,177	321	35Shawls	
90,974	25	30
Women and children's dress
goods	
64,436	321	35Embroideries	
391,629	30	35Handkerchiefs	
254,762	30	35Curtains and shams	
477,762	30	35Ribbons, all kinds	
799,976	25	30Sugar candy and confectionery (1 cent per lb.)	82,580	35	35Molasses (11c. & 11c. p. gal.) 984,889	11 11Sugar	
7,652,808	1	66Total	$24,901,551 114 125
Hon. gentlemen will see that this list comprises all those little things that make up the outfit of any comfortably furnished house, and are to be found in the homes of the most humble citizens of Canada. Let me give the rates of duty. They were increased all along the line from 25 to 30 per cent, and from 22 to 25 per cent. I do not object to the increase on woollen goods, but while they gave a protection of 35 per cent on woollens they took it away on the other hand by the British preference in order to ruin our woollen manufacturers in Canada. I object in no sense to the 35 per cent, nor would I object to 40 per cent or to 50 per cent if such were necessary to protect our Canadian industries. But the government made a blunder here as elsewhere. They made a blunder by taking off the specific duty. We gave a rate of duty that with the specific and ad valorem combined amounted to 324 per cent only, and we had an infinitely better protection under that than we have under the higher duty of the Liberal party, which is now 35 per cent. The reason for that is that we have constantly unloaded on this country shoddy goods, and the consumer in Canada unfortunately uses these goods, and to that extent they displace our Canadian goods that ought to be made by Canadian labour in Canada. Out of the $34,000,000 on which the duty was

increased, this government has placed that increase upon $24,000,000 of these things that enter into general consumption and upon the necessaries of life.
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Who pays the increased duty on woollens ?


James Clancy: On wcollens ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman says that the consumers do not pay it.
Mr. CLANCY'. The increased duty on woollen goods has had the effect on the one hand to give the British manufacturer and tlie British exporter the advantage of the increase, but the increased duty to the people is because the duty has been raised to the people of Canada, who are paying the tax and receive absolutely not one farthing reduction from the retail dealers in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


James Clancy: That is where it is. We were told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the leader of the opposition did not point out one case where there was an oppressive duty. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that all duties and all taxes are oppressive, and the m st oppressive taxes are those that we pay without receiving compensation in return, and these are the kind of taxes we are paying to-day in Canada. I am not prepared to say we ought to reduce our duties, but I say that under a better arrangement of the duties we would take less taxes from the people and we would give more labour to the people of Canada. These gentlemen opposite talk of being friendly to a protective tariff. Why they would not know how to administer a protective tariff. They do not understand the aims of a protective tariff ; they understand no tariff but a tax collecting tariff.
In conclusion, Sir, I wish to say a few words in reference to the conditions in western Canada. That country is rapidly being settled, and if properly directed that immigration will be of immense benefit to Canada. But in this connection, 1 know of nothing so dangerous as the position taken by the Liberal leaders in this country. Unfortunately they are preaching, not Canadian but American sentiment. They are telling the people of the west that they are not to look upon Canada as their home. They are placing such literature as the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) before them, which counsels them to look to American institutions and to trade with the. American people. What do the people of the older provinces think of that state of affairs ? We have done what was our duty in voting millions of dollars to advance the west, and I trust
this House will not be beggarly in voting generously sums of money to promote the welfare of that country. But I ask the patriotic Canadians who are ready to bear this taxation, what the outlook is to be if we are to adopt the policy propounded by hon. gentlemen opposite. Our railways will cease to be an advantage to the west; our waterways will fall into disuse ; we will find ourselves a part of the American republic without our consent, and we will find the great west which ultimately will be a controlling factor in this Dominion ; we will find it not a part of British North America, but a part of the United States, if the Liberal government succeed in their policy. These gentlemen have a shifting policy for every occasion. They commenced with a reciprocal tariff, and they end with a preferential tariff, that they now threaten to abandon. They commenced with what they called a reform tariff, and now they are ending with increased taxation. Every policy they have adopted they have abandoned in turn, and their latest policy is unrestricted policy. Let us not conceal it from ourselves that we are on the dangerous ground we were in 1891. We are to be Americanized by this Liberal government.
I see gentlemen upon the other side of the House who will go back and appeal to the people of the North-west on the ground set forth by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and sanctioned by the ministers, including the first minister, who asked him to make that speech.


Mr. DOUGLAS.: How do yon know ?


James Clancy: I will tell my hon. friend (Mr. Douglas) because he intends to repeat that speech.


James Moffat Douglas: I intend to do nothing of the kind.


James Clancy: I would be the last to disclose a thing that comes to me in the way of confidence, but I will gratify my hon. friend's curiosity by telling him that the hon. gentleman from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) told me so himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS: What did he tell you ?


James Clancy: I will tell what he told me. I wish the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) was in the House, so that he might hear my words. I met him in the corridor and I said : 1 When are you going to speak.' He said :	' I am very sorry that I am
taking your place, but at the request of the first minister I was asked to follow the Hon. Mr. Tarte.' That is what he told me. Is that specific enough to satisfy the curiosity of my hon. friends opposite, who intend to ) use that speech in the North-west ?

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say tliat we cannot have two Canadas ; one east of Lake Superior and the other west. If we are not to lose our identity ; if we are to be saved from another campaign such as that of 1891, which was frustrated by the good sense and patriotism of the Canadian people, then we must be on our guard. This government on the eve of an election, intends to make such another campaign with the hope of being returned to power on it. But, Sir, our first duty is to cultivate a Canadian sentiment; our first duty is to show to the people of Canada that it makes a great deal of difference whether an article is manufactured by Canadian labour or by foreign labour, and our first duty is to provide home labour for the people of our own country. Well, Sir, how are we to do that ? We must do it by cultivating a Canadian sentiment, by giving the first opportunity to Canadian enterprise and Canadian industry. If we prefer our Canadian home trade for Canadians rather than giving it to foreigners, if we prefer, in a word, to remain Canadians rather than to become a part of the United States, we must above all cultivate the sentiment of Canada for Canadians. Hon. gentlemen who fail to do that, who, instead, discuss the question from the standpoint of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) seem to me to be enemies rather than friends of that part of the country. I doubt if they are not playing a false part. I am not sure but that they will be the principle sufferers themselves ; but what compensation is that for the wrong done to Canada and the evil effects that will follow the proclaiming of such an evil policy ? I indulge the hope, however, that these hon. gentlemen will retrace their steps and follow a course that will unite rather than separate the country, that they will come to advocate a policy for the goad of Canada as a whole, instead of different policies for different parts, each contending for itself and against the others. That we should have a united Canada, and not one broken into parts by the principles proclaimed by hon. gentlemen opposite, is, I am sure, the devout wish of every loyal Canadian.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) who addressed the House this afternoon at some length, said that the budget speech was somewhat disappointing. I have not the least doubt that it was somewhat disappointing to members on the other side of the House; but so far as the members on this side are concerned, I want to say that it was not disappointing at all, but was Mr. CLANCY.
a speech with which we are very much pleased. The hon. gentleman saw fit to read the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) a lecture on patriotism. He told the House that the hon. gentleman, in making a speech on reciprocity with the United States, was speaking to the new settlers who are going into the North-west Territories at the present time with the desire of influencing their votes. He also stated that the hon. member for North Norfolk had made that speech by arrangement with the government. He said further that the hon. member for St. Mary's, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) had made a protectionist speech the other night also by arrangement with the government. In fact, he asserted that members of the government had arranged with their supporters to speak to different parts of the country; that is, one section of the House was to speak to the manufacturers of the east, another section to the farmers of the west, and another section to the new settlers coming into the country, with the intention of influencing their votes. Now, surely the hon. member for Botliwell (Mr. Clancy) has forgotten that in days gone by the party of which he is a member were guilty of what he is accusing the Liberals of at the present time. I suppose he has not forgotten that on a certain occasion a gentleman who was Minister of the Interior for a few days, the Hon. Hugh John Macdonald, came to the west and advocated a policy of free implements, while the Hon. Mr. Foster, the Finance Minister at the time, and the other leaders of the party, were advocating protection in all other parts of the country. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that the candidates of the Conservative party in the North-west Territories previous to the last election went all over the country advocating free implements and everything of that kind; but we did not hear anything of that kind in this part of the country. With reference to the hon. member for St. Mary's, I presume he speaks for himself and himself alone. I presume that the hon. member for North Norfolk, in advocating the policy of reciprocity with the United States, a policy which I want to say I myself believe in, also spoke for himself. I fancy that the policy of the government is laid before the House by the Finance Minister in the budget speech. Every individual member of this House has a perfect right to advocate whatever policy he considers to be in the interest of the country or in the interest of his particular locality, without being read a lecture on patriotism by the hon. member for Bothwell. Ol' course, the hon. member for Bothwell and his political friends imagined at one time that they had a monopoly of all the patriotism in this country. They used to boast of being the only patriotic party. They kept themselves in power for several years by waving the old flag; but in 1890 their hand seemed to lose its cunning. They

lost power, and In the last parliament, al- [ though they began by waving the old flag j as before, they found that the people did not take any stock in it any longer and they dropped it. The speech made by the hon. member for Bothwell this afternoon was the same old speech that we have heard from him on several occasions during the last seven years. It was an old friend with a new face. It is true, he rubbed some of the corners off it, and put a little varnish on it, and tried to pass it off as a new article; but every member of this House who listened to it knows that it was the same old speech which has been replied to in this House half a dozen times. But I suppose the hon. member had nothing new, and in order to have something to say he had to refurbish the old speech and deliver it once more to the House. The leader of the party opposite, the hon. member for Halifax, dwelt at some length on ancient history. He told us what the Finance Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce had said and written some fifteen or sixteen years ago. We have heard that time and time again in this House for the last seven years. There has not been a budget under discussion when those same gentlemen did not resurrect something which the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Trade and Commerce had said some fifteen years ago. Let me tell them that the people of this country do not care tuppense ha'penny what the views of these or any other hon. gentlemen might have been long ago. Conditions change, and any statesman who cannot change with them, would be a very poor specimen. A policy that might have been good fifteen years ago might be anything but good at present. Why, in private life, a speculation which might have been a very good one a year ago might be just the reverse to-day. I have seen a gentleman in my town want to swap horses one day, but the next day changed his mind because he thought he could do better by keeping his own. And so with the government. They must keep up with the times and suit their policy to the changing conditions of the country. What our hon. friends opposite did was just the reverse. They stuck to the one policy until they practically drove half the people out of the country and had the whole country in a state of stagnation. The hon. leader of the opposition and also the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) had to admit that the country was highly prosperous, but they made desperate efforts to show that none of that prosperity was due to the administration and policy of this government. Well, Mr. Speaker, while we do not claim that governments make the rain to fall and the sun to shine or the little birds to sing, we do claim that by adopting business methods and applying these methods to the administration of public affairs and by adopting a fiscal policy suited to the needs of the times, this government has brought about a certain measure of
prosperity. It is astonishing how, as times change, these hon. gentlemen sing a diffei'-ent tune. In days gone by they claimed every dollar of prosperity was due to their national policy. That policy, they said, made the hens lay more eggs, and they argued that the government which could not bring about prosperity should be turned down. To-day, however, they refuse all credit to the present government for the prosperity which they are forced to admit our country is enjoying. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that these hon. gentlemen protest too much. To ordinary people, the business of the country is governed by the same general principles as those of a private Individual. If you want to do business to the best advantage you must advertise, you must let people know what you have to sell. If you have lands to sell, you must let the whole world know it. That is what this government has done and what the other government did not do. We have advertised our wares in the British markets and the other markets of the world. We have let the people of the other countries know what we have to dispose of and we have in this way brought about a prosperous condition of affairs. We have taken a leaf from the book of the United States. We have adopted up-to-date methods and applied them to our immigration policy, and in this way we have started a stream of immigration into our unoccupied lands, which is bound to produce the happiest results.
I do not intend to follow the example of my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) and weary the House with an abundance of figures. If those given by my hon. friend were analysed, it would be found that he was considerably astray in his conclusions. I have, however, here a couple of statements to show the progress this country has made in the way of business during the last few years. Take the foreign trade of Canada and that of the United States and compare the two. I am taking this trade on a basis of merchandise only. In the United States the increase was 38 per cent and in the Dominion it was 81 per cent. Then, take tiie domestic trade, on the basis of merchandise only. In the United States the increase was 51 per cent, while in Canada it was 81 per cent.
Then, take the per capita of the foreign trade of the United States, on a basis of merchandise only, and compare with that of Canada :
United States. Canada.
In 1890	
26-30	41-38" 1896	
23-66	45-16" 1902	
28-92	76-47
That, I think, is a pretty fair showing, and you will notice that most of the increase took place under the administration of this government. Let me now give the per capita trade, in domestic imports of merchandise only, in the United States and Canada :

United States. Canada.
In 1890	13-50	17-18" 1896	
12-29	20-97" 1902	
17-49	36-04
I submit that the statement made the other evening by the hon. leader of the opposition ivas misleading, because he gave the amounts en bloc in comparing the trade of Canada with that of the United States. The only proper way to make a comparison is to take the per capita basis.
My hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) dwelt at some length on the tariff, which is a question that interests particularly the people of our western country. He is kind enough to tell us that we are going to get the support of the people out there by circulating the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). Well, Mr. Speaker, I know something about the people in the west, and judging by the sentiment out there, X should say that there is no necessity whatever to circulate the speeches of the hon. member for North Norfolk-although they certainly are good ones-or of anybody else, in order to get support for this government. The people in that part of the country know that they are prosperous. They can put their hands down into their pockets and feel that they have some money. But in 1896, they would feel in their pockets a long time before they could find a six-pence. It does not require speeches by my hon. friend from Bothwell or my hon. friend from Norfolk to convince them that the country is prosperous. With reference to the tariff, I submit, with all due respect to the hon. member for St. Mary's division of Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte), that the tariff should remain as it is. We in the west, as I have said, expect that we must pay our share of taxes to run the affairs of the country. We are not selfish; we know that the government of this country is a matter of compromise, and that we are not to be exempt from taxation while our brothers in the east are taxed. But the conditions in the west are different from those in the east. Practically everything that we in the west produce must be exported, and our products must be sold in the open markets in the face of the worlds' competition. Even products of ours that are sold within the Dominion are sold on the basis of the English price, so that we get no benefit from any home market whatever and thus we get nothing in return for the taxes we are called upon to pay in customs or excise. There are no industries as in the east and we are not building up a home market. As I have already said, we are contented with the tariff. We got reductions in certain lines, such as in woollen goods that were beneficial to the people, and we are willing to accept the present status. But we do not want to have an increase in the tariff at the present time or at any other time. That is the feeling of the people west of the lakes.


Thomas Osborne Davis: and I submit that that feeling will have to be taken into consideration now and in the future in carrying out a fiscal policy for this country. Our hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) in discussing this question the other afternoon told us that what we wanted was to have industries started west of the lakes. That may be very true. If gentlemen interested in manufacturing enterprises use some of their capital to set up establishments west of the great lakes to manufacture agricultural machinery, woollen goods or other commodities that we have to use, the creation of a home market will be begun, and we might take into consideration the fact that we are getting some benefit. But at the present time we feel that we are paying enough.
Now, as to the propaganda for an increase in the tariff, as I understand it, those who are most strongly in favour of an increase in our taxes, who have been the prime movers in the manufacturers' association to have petitions signed and delegations sent to wait on the government, are those interested in the manufacture of woollen goods and those interested in the manufacture of cotton goods. I venture to say there are no two industries in this country so well off at present as the woollen industry and the cotton industry. The great point is that they have a raw material on tiie free list. The class of wool used by the woollen manufacturers comes in absolutely free. The cotton people are in a similar position, for they get their raw cotton free. Contrast this with any other line of manufacture. Take, for instance, the furniture manufacturing interest. They certainly get their rough lumber free, but every other commodity that goes into the manufacture of furniture is taxed. What is raw material to the manufacture of furniture is the finished produce of other lines of manufacture. For instance, varnish, bolts and screws- everything that enters into the manufacture of furniture except rough lumber is subject to customs duty. It does not make any difference for my present argument whether the commodities are imported and pay the customs duty or whether they are manufactured in Canada, the price is increased to the extent of the duty, for the men who manufacture the varnish or the bolts or any of these other things take advantage of the duty and sell up to the limit that it allows. The manufacture of shirts is another illustration. Cambric and cottons of all sorts are the raw material of those who make shirts, and these are the manufactured products of the cotton people. It is true that the shirt manufacturer has the benefit of the duty upon the shirts brought into the country. I have not at hand at the moment a copy of the customs law, but we will say, for the sake of argument that the duty on these shirts is thirty per cent. If, then, the duty on raw material is thirty per cent,

the men who manufacture shirts have very little to protect them. All they have is the duty on the value of the labour put into the manufacture of the shirts which must be a small rate of protection. The same thing applies all along the line. It applies even in the case of agricultural implements. Unless the manufacturers in that line have their own paint factory, they must buy their paint, and, whether it is imported or whether it is manufactured in this country, the price is higher to the extent of the duty. And so in all classes of goods used in the manufacture of agricultural implements. When we consider these things, we see what an advantage the manufacturers of woollens have in being able to import their raw material absolutely free. Therefore, it seems to me, that these are the last people who should put up a propaganda in favour of increasing the tariff. The country is fairly prosperous. I know, as a matter of fact that the manufacturers of woollen goods in this country cannot fill their orders. I happen to be in business and know all about it. They are three, four, five or six months behind with their orders. They employ all the men they have room for and are increasing the size of their plants and working over time. We have a right to believe that they are working at a profit-they would not work at a loss, for they are not in this business in a philanthropic basis. In view of the prosperity they now enjoy I think they might very well leave the tariff alone. But they tell us :	That is all very well,
but the hard times will come. Weil, there is an old saying it is time enough to bid the old gentleman good day when you meet him. When the hard times come, if there is necessity for the revision of the tariff, I suppose the Finance Minister will take it into his consideration and will arrange the duties to suit the affairs of the country. For my part, I am in favour of no tariff at all. But, as we must have revenue, I admit that we must have customs duties. But those duties should be imposed so as to bear as lightly upon the poorer classes of the community as possible. My hon. friend from Bothwell, speaking of the woollen trade this afternoon found fault with the government for taking the specific duty off woollens. It appears to me, on the contrary, that taking off the specific duties was a great boon to the poorer class of the community. The hon. gentleman talks about shoddy, I suppose he was alluding to blankets. I might illustrate the point with a case which I have given before, but which will bear repetition. Take a blanket weighing eight pounds and costing say $1.50. There is specific duty of forty cents. Add to this the ad valorum duty, and you make a duty of about fifty-five per cent on the blanket that is bought by the poor man. On the other hand, the better blanket that would be bought by the rich man pays a duty of only thirty per cent. The same point is illustrated by the case
of shirts. A dozen shirts of the coarser quality costs $3.05-say $3 for the sake of the argument. There is a specific duty of $1 per dozen or thirty-three and one-third per cent, and an ad valorem duty of twenty-five per cent. That is a duty altogether of about fifty-eight per cent.
Now, if you take the other line of shirts worn by the rich man, which costs $30 a dozen, and spread a dollar a dozen over that, you have five per cent ; add to that, 25 per cent, and you have 30 per cent that the rich man will pay on a shirt, while the poor man has to pay 55 per cent. That is the way of raising a revenue that appeals to the hon. member for Bothwell. He says the government should never have done away with the duty. I say the government in doing away with it, did something that is in the interests of the people of Canada.
Hon. gentlemen opposite would like to make the tariff of this country prohibitive, so far as I can gather. I am not sure what they do want. The leader of the opposition has talked about adequate protection. In the west we never can get a statement of what is meant by that ; but from the drift of their speeches we must come to the conclusion that they are all in favour of raising the duties right along. Now, if you make a prohibitory tariff what will the effect be ? You will enrich a few individuals at the expense of the great majority of the people; you will divert taxation from the treasury where it is going at the present time, into the pockets of a few individuals who will get rich ; because if there are no goods coming into the country, if you raise the tariff high enough, so that you will have no importations into the country, of course there is no duty to be paid and nothing to go into the treasury, and men who sell goods to the people are going to get the benefit, and the majority of the people who use goods, although paying high prices, will have to pay taxes in some other way in order to run the affairs of the country, so they will pay taxes twice over.
Now, there is another thing, Mr. Speaker, If you impose a high tariff of any kind you are going to reduce the value of lands all over the country, because a high tariff will increase the cost of the production of every bushel of wheat, and every bushel of oats that a farmer raises, or of every animal or anything else that the farmer of this country has to raise ; because he will have to pay so much more for his mowing machine and his rake, so much more for his plough, so much more for anything else he uses on his farm. That is going to increase the cost of the production of his grain' and his animals. If you do that, you are lowering the earning power of that farm, and if you lower the earning power of the farm, you are lowering the value of the farm and lowering the value of the land. That is one of the results that would follow from increasing the duties.
Now, what would we get by adopting the

policy advocated by bon. gentlemen opposite ? If you put the duties up sufficiently high-and I have heard some lion, gentlemen opposite-I think the member for Bothwell himself advocated putting them up forty or fifty per cent-you would immediately close out all the importations coming into this country and you would leave us without sufficient revenue to develop this country. It is admitted by all classes of people that this country will require money for public works. If we are to keep pace with other countries we must have money to do it with. Now, the only way to have money coming into the treasury is by way of duties, otherwise you will have to borrow the money and pay interest on it. Now, Sir,' under the scale of duties existing at the present time our revenue is increasing, it has doubled in seven years. Existing duties already give us sufficient money to run the country with, and this year we have a surplus. But if you were to adopt a high tariff you would simply shut off revenue and leave us without any money. You would build up a few millionaires, a few Rockefellers, you would build tip a few trusts and combines such as the hon. member for Bothwell was talking about this afternoon. That has been the effect of high tariff in the United States, and that is the effect a high tariff would have in this country if it was enacted, there is no doubt at ali about that. Talk to any bon. gentleman you please from the other side of the line, I don't care if he is a Republican or a Democrat, I don't care how high a protectionist he may be, he will not deny that the outcome of a high protective tariff in the United States has been to build up the trusts and combines they have there at the present time. These trusts and combines have got so strong that they are able to take the people by the throat. There is no legislature that the people can elect in the United States that is able to cope with the trusts at the present time. The trusts have got so strong there that they would simply turn out any government that would interfere with them. If the people were to elect a president of the United States to-morrow who was in favour of reducing the duties, who was in favour of regulating the trusts and combines, they would simply shut up their factories and turn hundreds of thousands of people on to the streets to starve. That would create a panic, and the consequences would be of the most alarming character. Now, we do not need to go to the United States for any patent of that kind. I think the people of this country have sufficient intelligence to frame a tariff to suit themselves, and if they are sensible they will frame a tariff to suit themselves without reference to what their neighbours are doing around them. It does not make any difference to us whether the people of the United States put a dollar a ton on iron going from this country to the United States. We have got to have iron, we have got to


Thomas Osborne Davis: have raw material for our manufacturers. If it is a benefit to this country to get that iron in here, we will simply put it on the free list without reference to what the people of the United States may think or may do.
Now, an argument that has been used a good deal in this country, by gentlemen on this side of the House as well as gentlemen on the other side, is in regard to the balance of trade. They tell us that because we buy from the Americans some forty or fifty million dollars worth more than we sell to them, it is a ruinous policy for us to pursue, because the balance of trade is against us. I don't look at it in that way, I don't think there is anything in the balance-of-trade argument at all. We buy from the United States such commodities as we require, we buy raw material from them if we want it. If we want iron we buy it from the United States, simply because we want it in our own interest. If we buy certain other commodities from the United States we buy them because we want them, and if we put up a duty on these articles merely for the purpose of retaliation, we are simply, as the old saying is, cutting off our nose to spite our face. If the manufacturers of agricultural implements in this country, for example, had to pay a higher duty on the raw material which must come from the United States, they would have to increase the price * of their commodities, and the people of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific would have to pay that increased price. So I say there is nothing in the balance-of-trade argument at all. I myself as a business man have bought goods for years from a firm, and paid them thousands and thousands of dollars, but they never bought anything of me in return. Still I did not lose any money by it, I made a little money as I went along. When we do buy more from the United States than they buy from us, we sell more to other countries than we buy from other countries, so on the whole the balance-of-trade is pretty nearly even, at the present time I think it is exactly even. Therefore, so far as the balanee-of-trade argument is concerned. there is nothing in it.
Now I have something to say of the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) on reciprocity. That seemed to trouble my hon. friend from Bothwell a good deal this afternoon, tie seemed to think that if that speech was circulated it would have the effect of turning the votes of the newcomers in the west in favour of the Liberal party. Well, setting aside the political question * entirely, as a member from the west, as one who has lived in the west for many years, and studied the conditions, and knows* something about the feeling of the people there, I would like to see reciprocity brought about. We have a great field in the west for raising sheep. If we can get the markets of the United States for our wool, sheep raising will become a profitable

*enterprise and millions of acres of very valuable land that is not used very much at the present time because it cannot be used for anything else, would be utilized for the purpose of pasturing sheep. Sheep can be raised profitably in the west and the people would make money out of it. We would also be able to get more for our cattle. We sell a great many young store cattle to the people of the United States. We would also get more for our wheat. I want to say a word in reference to wheat. To those who are acquainted with affairs in the west it is a well known fact that the laird wheat belt is moving northward all the time. Thirty years ago the state of Minnesota could not grow wheat on account of frost. To-day the state of Minnesota is turned into a corn state. They cannot produce hard wheat at all, the climate has changed entirely and they are producing scarcely anything but corn. In South Dakota, where they were affected by frost a few years ago. they are to-day going into the raising of corn. It has been figured down by scientific men that the wheat belt is moving northward at the rate of about five miles per year. The millers of the United States have found that it is impossible for them to run their mills at a profit without getting more hard wheat. They have managed to get permission from their government to mill ou'' wheat in bond, and to-day we find that the Americans are building elevators all over the western country and entering into competition with the local buyers, thus increasing the price that the farmers are getting for their wheat. The Americans must have our wheat, and if we get reciprocity the demand will be greater and we will get a larger price. I claim that reciprocity with the United States would be one of the best things that could happen the people of the North-west. We must take into consideration, in speaking of the west, that the west and the east are practically one. We cannot be prosperous out there without the people of the east feeling it :	you cannot bn
prosperous here without the people of the west feeling it. We are talking about reciprocity in natural products; we are not talking about reciprocity in manufactured articles. You will always have your market for manufactured articles in the west. The more we get for our wheat the more you will get for your manufactured articles. It is to the advantage of the people of eastern Canada to see the people of the west in a state of prosperity. The first step to take in bringing about that condition of prosperity is to secure reciprocity in the products which we raise in the west. I feel confident that we are going to get it. The feeling.in the western states is growing strongly hi favour of reciprocity with the Dominion of Canada. Anybody who studies the times knows that. There have been meetings held all over the United States to consider the question. We have had pronouncements made by several of the most prominent men
of the middle and western states upon that question. The feeling, as I have said, is strong and reciprocity is going to be brought about. One of the reasons for this change of feeling is the fact that the government have advertised this country in the United States and the Americans now know what we have. Eight or nine years ago they did not know what we had. They imagined we had nothing but a country where everything froze up. To-day they know we have tlie finest agricultural lands in the world and they are anxious to come over and get some of these lands, and notwithstanding the statement made by the hon. member for Botliwell (Mr. Clancy) I am of the impression that they will make first-class Canadians. In my own district as soon as they put in the three years which enables them to become Canadian citizens, they become Canadians. In one case a state senator from Minnesota in my district, who will have completed his three years next year, is going to take out his papers and become a Canadian citizen, so well satisfied is he with the institutions of the country, and I may say that these people are better satisfied with our institutions than with those which they had in their old homes. The sentiment is growing in favour of reciprocity and we should not do anything to hamper it. If you adopt a policy of retaliation you are merely going to strengthen the hands of those people who are opposed to freer trade between the two countries in the New England states. The proper policy to pursue is to arrange our own tariff to suit our own people and never mind what our neighbours are doing and in a very short time we will find that this feeling has grown so strong that reciprocity will be brought about and when it is brought about it will confer a great benefit upon the people.
Mr. Speaker, I have never looked upon the British preference, from the sentimental standpoint from which a great many people claim to have looked upon it. I have looked upon the British preference as a reduction in the taxation that the people of our part of the country have benefited by. With that preference we have been enabled to buy goods more cheaply, notwithstanding the statement of the hon. member for Both well. I think I am in about as good a position, having been in business for over twenty years, being in business at the present time and handling wcollen goods, to speak with authority on that question as the hon. member for Botliwell, and I say that the British preference lias reduced the price of woollen goods and other commodities of all kinds to the people of the whole Dominion. Not only has it had the effect of reducing the price on all kinds of goods that come from Great Britain, whether they be great or small, but it has had the effect of reducing the price of all commodities that we import from the United States. It has also had the effect in reducing the cost of all commodities that are

produced by the Canadian manufacturers, because, if any person who is doing a business can go to a Canadian manufacturer, if he wants to buy a bale of blankets, or a bale of tweeds, make him an offer, saying : tinder the preferential tariff of 334 per cent I can lay these goods down at such a price, you are a Canadian I would like to deal with you and if you can supply the goods at that price I will give you the order, but if you cannot, 1 will get the goods from Great Britain. If the business .man can do that, the Canadian manufacturer in order to hold the market, comes down to the price which has been mentioned, the merchant obtains the goods at a lesser cost and the people who consume those goods get the benefit of the reduction in price. Therefore, not only does the British preference apply to what we import from Great Britain, but it applies to what we import from the United States and all other countries, and also to goods manufactured in the country. I noticed this evening, and I have no doubt other hon. gentlemen have noticed, that Mr. Ritchie, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced to-day that the tax will be taken off wheat. I have observed that for some time the opposition have tried to make a point of that. I think it was generally understood by the majority of people that the tax was a war measure, and I think most people were under the impression in this House, as well as in Great Britain, that it would only last so long as they required to have it, for the purpose of getting revenue, that it would be taken off again and we see that it has been taken off. That will exclude some of the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite and some hon. gentlemen no doubt will have to change the speeches that they have written up in view of the statement that has come over the wire today. Now, the people in my part of the country, as well as the people in all other parts of the country, are very much interested in the amount of taxes they have to pay. The people in the west are not as partisan as those in the east. The people out there are more independent.
In the west a man may vote one way to-day and another to-morrow, for he is always on the lookout for the best government he can get, and naturally to pay as little taxes as he can. They will vote for the platform that will best suit their views, but they want to know what that platform is. The leader of the opposition accom* panied by some of his leading supporters, toured through the west last summer, and I think he must have come to the conclusion that the people whom he counted as Conservatives would not be favourable to his policy ; that is if they could find out what it was. Personally I am at sea as to what ' adequate protection ' means. It may mean anything, and it may mean nothing. It is like the American pedlar Mr. DAVIS.
who had but one suit of clothes in his bag, and it was big enough for any man and small enough for any boy. The policy of the opposition at present is intended to suit every body, like the pedlar's clothes. When the Conservatives try to convert us to their way of thinking we have a right to know what their policy is before we take a plunge in the dark. Does the leader of the opposition think that the present duty on agricultural machinery is adequate ? He was asked in Manitoba if he thought 20 per cent was adequate protection on mowing machines, and he said it was. We have his policy as to that particular item, but what is his opinion about the duty on threshing mills, fanning mills, disc harows, ploughs, and all that class of machinery ? Is it adequate or does he want to raise it. The manufacturer might think that 40 per cent would be about adequate protection, while the farmer might think that 10 per cent is adequate enough. Now, the hon. gentleman from Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) did not give as much consolation to gentlemen on the other side of the House as they expected, but nevertheless he is a high priest of protection, and he says that about 49 per cent would be about a fair rate of duty, and I suppose he voiced the sentiments of the Conservatives in this House when he said that. The people of the west would like to know if the Conservatives think that 49 per cent on farm machinery is adequate protection. What would they consider adequate protection on blankets and shirts and course tweeds and woollens, which the farmers of the North-west use a great deal of, it being a cold country, and all of which they have to import. A farmer does not want to pay 35 per cent more for a piece of tweed than he would otherwise pay, in order that there should be adequate protection. These gentlemen opposite, if they hope to make any headway in the west, will have to come out of the woods and state exactly what they mean by adequate protection. They cannot play fast and loose with the people as they are trying to do.
I tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) who is leading the opposition to-night, that in the west his party cannot run with, the hare and hunt with the hounds. He will find that his own supporters in the west, and there may be a few left, are in favour of a lower rate of duty, or at least that they are in favour of leaving the duty as it is to-day. It is certain that they do not want any increase of duty. Now, the leader of the opposition told us that from our standpoint we should have no surpluses at all, but that we should reduce the taxes. That may be true, but does not the hon. gentleman know that it is desirable to have stability of tariff and that it would be a very foolish thing to tinker with the tariff in the middle of a session just for the purpose of dissipating a surplus. A surplus is a good thing in its way. This is a great

*nd growing country, and we must have money to develop our resources, and if gentlemen in the east do not know what to do with a surplus of $13,000,000, I can tell them how they can spend it in a way that will redound to the interests of Canada at large. We are getting a hundred thousand immigrants or more into our North-west this year, and you can with great advantage devote your surplus so as to improve the condition of the people who are flocking into that country. You can equip a winter port in the beautiful harbour of St. John, and you can go to the St. Lawrence and expend money there in improving your transportation facilities. That will get rid of your surplus and it will confer great benefits on the people of Canada as a whole. I am afraid that most hon. gentlemen do not realize what the immense immigration into the west means to Canada. It means that each immigrant, man, woman and child, whom we bring in is assuming $50 of the national debt, and for 100,000 people, that means $5,000,000 a year. These 100,000 immigrants will bring $10,000,000 in wealth in the shape of merchandise and cash, and there you have $15,000,000 to figure on immediately. I submit that in a young and growing country like this, each immigrant is worth at least not less than $1,000, and therefore, if the government would spend $1,000,000 out of the surplus in bringing in say 150,000 people, we would be getting $5 back for every dollar we would expend in that way. Is not that a very profitable way in which to get rid of your surplus ? The leader of the opposition presented a statement to the House which purported to show the money taken out of the pockets of the people when the Conservatives we.-o in power and the money taken out of the pockets of the people as he alleged since the Liberals came into power. He went on to say that when the Conservatives were in power in 1896 the taxation of the people amounted to $27,759,285, and that it had increased in 1902 to $43,389,122, which he said meant that in seven years the Liberal government had practically doubled the taxation of the people. The hon. member for Bothwell said this afternoon that when the Conservatives left office the taxation was something like $7 per head, and that this government had increased it to over $11 per head. I never heard, and no hon. member on the other side of the House ever heard, of this or any other government going to any man's door to collect taxes. Perhaps the hon. leader of the opposition has heard of it, but I never have. The government do not go to collect taxes from any person. The people tax themselves, because they are able to pay taxes. The hon. leader of the opposition the other day undertook to show that the Conservative government in 1891 collected $30,000,000 from the people and in 1894 brought it down to $27,000,000. I suppose he wanted 55
to make out that that meant economy; but what does it show ? It shows that the people in those days of deficits were so hard up that they could not import many commodities. If a farmer buys a binder, and is is imported, he pays a certain amount of taxes. If he buys a plough, and it is imported, he has to pay more taxes. If he buys a suit of clothes made of tweed which is imported, he has to pay more taxes. When hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, he could not afford to buy a binder or a plough; perhaps he could not buy clothes; and then of course he did not pay taxes. If he is able to-day to dress his family or has luxuries which he could not afford when the Conservatives were in power, and a certain portion of these commodities are imported, he pays more taxes. If he lives more as a human being ought to live at the present time, he of course pays more taxes. The people were not able to pay as much taxes when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. The farmers could not buy binders, mowing machines and ploughs; they were so poor that they could hardly buy a suit of clothes. Now that prosperity has come, and is rolling over the country, they have more money; they can buy the machinery they require on their farms, they can dress their families in a proper manner, and have ten cents to put on the collection plate on Sunday, which they did not have when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. The greatest evidence of the prosperity which is rolling over the country at the present time, is the fact that the revenues of the country have increased by leaps and bounds. This shows that the people are able to buy largely of everything they need, and are consequently paying more taxes. If hon. gentlemen opposite had their way they would put up a high tariff wall, so that this money, instead of going into the public treasury, would dribble into the pockets of some individuals, and the people would get no advantage. That is the policy they want to adopt, but I think it will be a great many years before they have a chance to put into force a policy of adequate protection.
We have a great deal of money in the treasury of the Dominion at the present time; we are told that this year we shall have over $60,000,000. How is this money being spent ? Have hon. gentlemen opposite been able to put their finger upon a single dollar of improper expenditure ? I notice that when the estimates are going through, every member on the other side of the House wants more money spent. One wants a dock, another a post office, another a public building, another a harbour, another a dredge; and after they have all clamoured for more expenditures of every kind, they come down with a mock motion at the end in favour of retrenchment, and claiming that the government have spent too much money. How many of these votes



Lave they challenged 1 Perhaps one or two out of millions and millions in a whole session of parliament. Yet they will talk about the increased expenditures.
If the money that is coming into the treasury is properly expended-and it is, because hon. gentlemen opposite have not been able to show any wrong expenditure, although they have had their microscope on it right along-the people of the country will be perfectly satisfied. We require a good deal of money to-day. When the Finance Minister took over the financial affairs of this country, he found a pretty serious state of affairs. Mr. Foster, the Finance Minister, under the Conservative government, did not leave very much behind. It reminds me of a story I heard about an Irish undertaker, who was called in to bury a man who belonged to a peculiar sect. After he had prepared the corpse for burial, an elder of the sect to which he belonged gave him a five dollar bill to put into the box along with the corpse. The undertaker asked him what that was for. The elder told him it was to pay the passage of the corpse across the river Styx. After the elder left, instead of putting it in the coffin, the undertaker put it in his pocket, saying to himself, ' Begorra, times is hard, and I need that in my business, so I will let this fellow schwim.' That is exactly what the late Minister of Finance did with the present Minister of Finance ; he took everything in the treasury, and when the present Minister of Finance came in, he had to swim, and in his first year or two he had a good deal of swimming in order to pay off the debts left by his predecessor.
The hon. member for Bothwell referred to the expenditure of the Post Office Department. I was surprised that the hon. gentleman had the audacity to attack the Post Office Department of ail the departments in the government. He said that the Postmaster General in the late government had opened about 1,000 post offices while in the same length of time the present Postmaster General had only opened 556-to show that the other Postmaster General had spent more money. But, when the present Postmaster General took over the Post Office Department, he found a deficit in the finances of about $700,000. He took over those thousand post offices, a great many of which I suppose had been opened for political purposes; he had to provide funds to run them, and, according to the hon. gentleman's own argument, he has run them and 556 more, and run them successfully. And with all that he has wiped out the deficit, and given the people penny postage. Then the hon. gentleman said that he had cut off a lot of mail contracts, and had dismissed a lot of people who should not have been dismissed. Any person who will take the time to look into the affairs of the Post Office Department and who knows anything about the Mr. DAVIS.
inside history of that department, must come to the conclusion that the pruning knife was badly needed when the change of government took place. Look at what was going on all over the country. In my own riding a man was getting $7,000 for carrying the mails ninety miles. He had that contract year after year, but when the present Postmaster General took office, he cancelled it and called for tenders. What was the result ? The same work is now done for $1,000. Six thousand dollars per year have thus been saved to the people and we are getting a better mail service. This man had the contract some ten years, so that $60,000 were squandered of the people's money on this one contract, or sufficient to build a bridge for the people at Saskatoon. Hon. gentlemen opposite can surely not have forgotten the case at Brockville, where a man was paid a certain sum of money for transferring the mails from one platform to another and paid the same amount for watching himself while he did it. Nor can they have forgotten what took place in Nova Scotia, where a relative of the late leader of the opposition (Sir Charles Tupper), was getting some $600 per year for carrying the mails from the railway station at Amherst to the Amherst post office. And this man farmed the contract to another, who did the work for the sum of $200. So that this friend of the former leader of the opposition put $400 of the people's money into his pocket as long as he lived and did nothing for it. And when he was about to shuffle off tliis mortal coil, he bequeathed his contract to another relative of Sir Charles Tupper, who in his turn sub-let it for $200 and pocketed the $400. And when this man was about to die, he transferred it to another relative of the Tupper family, who also farmed it out for $200, and pocketed the $400. When the present Postmaster General came in, he applied the pruning knife to this transaction and let the contract for less than $200. Is it any wonder that with leakages of this kind, there should have been a deficit of some $700,000 which our Postmaster General is now succeeding in wiping out. My hon. friend from Bothwell can talk as much as he pleases about the Post Office Department, it will take a long while for him to convince the people that any change is necessary.
I wish now to crave the attention of the House for a few moments while I discuss a subject which more particularly interests that part of the country I come from, but which of course closely interests every part of the Dominion. We all belong to the same country, and what benefits the one is bound to be of advantage to the others. We have to work together, and our proper policy, as the hon. Minister of Finance has told us, is to build up our western country. Every producer you put on the soil is bound to consume manufactured products. Every one who grows wheat must buy manufactured articles. Let us fill up that country, and the

big industries down east will reap tlie benefit. It is well known that railway construction in the west is not keeping pace with the development of that country. Very little has been done in the past few years outside of the province of Manitoba in the way of constructing railways. We are getting people in there very fast, and if we do not do something at once towards building railways in that country, we may have a reaction and find people going out perhaps faster than we are bringing them in. What are the facts of the case ? The congestion which has existed in that country in the way of accumulated freights during the past two years is well known. I am not going to blame the railway companies. Although I hold no brief from the Canadian Pacific Railway, as everybody knows, I do not blame that company. I believe that its intentions were good. I believe that the $9,000,000 which it was supposed to spend west of the lakes in improving its terminals and motive powers and rolling stock, it intended expending there. But if a man wants a horse and can find no one with a horse to sell, what can he do ? If the Canadian Pacific Railway wants locomotives and could find none to buy, it is difficult to blame that company for not getting any. But the situation is one which demands a remedy. We have spent money on our canal system, but I am sorry to say that it has not proved, as my hon. friend from Bothwell has shown, a success. My hon. friend from Bothwell shows that although a lot of money has been expended on our canals, the tonnage passing through them is decreasing, but he forgot that while business is decreasing on the canals it is growing up by leaps and bounds on our railways. This is a railway age. I have given some study to the subject, and I am convinced that any money spent on canals, except for the purpose of utilizing them as a safety valve to regulate freights, is money wasted. I shall not take into account the people who came into our western country last year and who are coming in this year, because they are not yet producers, but the people who were there up to two years ago have produced about 125,000,000 bushels of grain in round figures. Up to two years, there were not more in that western country than 500,000 people. If 500,000 people produced over 125,000.000 bushels of grain, and if we put people into that country at the rate of 100,000 per year, we will double our production in five years. To-day we are suffering from a congestion of traffic; we cannot get our grain out. What we got to the lake ports we had not sufficient boats there to move, and, even if we had boats, we could not get it all to the lake ports in sufficient time for navigation. Consequently more than one-half of our crop is in the terminals or elevators throughout the country and will have to be kept there a year. Every bushel of wheat which has to be kept over at the close of navigation
costs six cents to the farmer. The storage insurance, interest on money and other charges, amounts in round figures to about six cents per bushel. We have 50,000,000 bushels lying on our hands, and if you figure out how much this comes to at six cents a bushel, you will find that our 500,000 people in the North-west have lost enough money to pay the interest on the bonds of railways which would carry that grain out during the winter months. What we absolutely require is some way of marketing our grain every year. We cannot store our grain at the head of the lakes. We have a surplus of fifty million bushels this year, and it is quite within the range of possibility that in ten years we shall have a surplus of one hundred and fifty millions requiring to he stored thei'e. Suppose you throw one hundred and fifty millions of bushels on the market in the spring of the year, you would certainly depreciate the market very seriously. This would be an addition to cost of five or six cents per bushel for keeping it in store and depreciation while there. The only safety for the people is to have a railway built with proper grades, with large locomotives and cars of great capacity such as we have now. We could then market our grain twelve months in the year. This must be done some time, and the sooner it is taken up the better. It will unite the two parts of the country, it will bring the people of the east and the people of the west together and there will be a better feeling. It will make it possible to carry out cheaply the products of the west and to bring in at proportionately low rates the commodities that the people of the west require. You would have no trouble then about bringing in goods from the outside. You would build up a solid country, and this is the only way you could do it. In the meantime, with conditions as they are in the west, something must be done immediately. If some action is not taken in the present session to provide a railway along the Saskatchewan Valley up towards Edmonton to afford railway facilities for the people in that country, some of whom are fifty or sixty miles from a railway, it is within the range of possibility that you may have people going out of the country faster than you can bring them in. We know that a great many of the people going in there are people from the United States, from a country where they have railway facilities-


Mr. MACLEAN.: Who built the railways?


Thomas Osborne Davis: It is the money of the people that builds everything. These people from the United States are accustomed to having railways close at hand, and to everything moving quick. If they stay there two years and find that the government is taking no action towards giving them relief, it is, as I say, quite within the range of possibility that they may pack up and leave the country. What would that mean ? That would

mean a depreciation in the value of farm lands from one end of the country to the other. The condition of things is serious, and it is absolutely necessary that this matter should be dealt with at once-the sooner tiie better for all parties interested. Now,
I notice that my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) is very much interested in the railway problem. Judging from the speeches lie has made on the question, he is always in favour of government ownership of railways. 1 may tell him and other gentlemen who are troubled with the disease of government ownership of railways that if he had been in this House this afternoon and had heard the criticism of his friend from Botliwell, he would have come to the conclusion that government ownership of railways is not a paying proposition. But, I am not very particular about how the roads are built. Some people are opposed to giving subsidies to railways. If any person can get capitalists to go in there and build a road in the Saskatchewan Valley, with the necessary branches and do it without subsidies, I shall be quite in favour of it. But before capitalists will enter upon an enterprise of that kind, they must see where the interest on their money is coming from. Except for the business of taking the people into the country you are not going to get any revenue for the first two years, I do not suppose my hon. friend from East York would propose taxing immigrants enough to pay the interest on the cost of the road for those first two years. How, then, is the interest to be provided ? Of course, if you can get the roads built without subsidies, I am with you. But we must have railways, whether the companies build them or whether the government build them. There are people in the west who are in favour of government ownership of railways. But, it seems to me, from the study I have given to it, that it would not work very well with the system of government we have here. Put the railways under control of the government, I do not care whether it is a Liberal or Conservative government, and the result, it seems to me, would be dangerous. In place of government ownership of railways, I think it would be government ownership of people. I think my hon. friend from East York and the people of his way of thinking will find, that if the railways were in the hands of the government, it would be difficult to move the government from power, whatever the occasion for doing so might be.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I would call the attention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) to the fact that there is an amendment before the Chair moved by the leader of the opposition concerning the tariff. According to the rules of parliamentary procedure, when an amendment has been moved the discussion would be confined to that amendment. I find that the hon. gentleman is now discussing the question of government owner-Mr. DAVIS.
ship of railways. The amendment as he is aware, deals with the tariff question.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I have not read the amendment. I did not think it worth my while.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The amendment reads as follows :
This House regarding the operation ot 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.
I would invite the hon. member to confine his remarks as much as possible to the question of the tariff.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I am glad to hear the amendment. I had not taken much notice of the wording of it, but I understood that it was generally in favour of adequate protection. It seems to me, that the discussion of railways is quite germain to the subject. A vigorous railway policy is necessary for the welfare of the agriculturists as well as for the healthy development of trade. I do not see how the railway question is to be omitted from a consideration of the financial affairs of the country. The hon. member for Rothwell, this afternoon, discussed the Intercolonial railway and every other question from Dan to Beersheba and if there had been anything outside of that that he could have got after, he would have brought it in too. I am under the impression that the subject I was trying to discuss is as important as those covered by the hon. member for Botliwell, and it has a direct bearing upon the welfare of the country and on the question of the tariff, for, as I have shown, if you build up railways between the east and the west you are going to keep trade within ourselves, and it will not be necessary to go outside the country to buy the commodities we require.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I thought the hon. gentl-man was discussing the question of ownership of railways, which was, perhaps, going a little outside the question.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I am in the wilderness, I was led there by the hon. member for Both well. He was in the wilderness all afternoon. He gave us the track mileage of I don't know how many railways and all sorts of details on railway questions. I was going on to say that we need railways from the east to the west. I was not going to discuss the question of government ownership of railways- I leave that to my hon. friend from East York who appears to have a patent on that kind of thing for this country. I keep well within the lines of the trade question when I say that if we are going to build up the

country and keep the trade of the west for our home industries, whether the tariff is high or low, we must build railways so that the people may be contented with their lot, and so that the people of the west and the people of the east may exchange ideas and everything else.
Now we must have railroads built. As I said before, it does not make much difference to the people of the west in what way they are built. We have some people up there in favour of government ownership. But how is the government going to construct those railroads ? For my part 1 believe that the time for giving subsidies to railways has passed. I think there is a better way than by giving cash subsidies, and that the majority of the people of this country are coming to that opinion. We cannot at the present time have government ownership of railways because it yyould not be practicable under our system of government. It would not be practicable unless you took over all the railroads in the country, because you cannot run a government railway to compete with an independent line, the government railway has got to go to the wall. So I say it would not be wise for us to build government railroads at the present time. But there is another way of doing it, and that is by guaranteeing bonds.
Now I want to say a few words with reference to the state of feeling in the province of Ontario at the present time. I find that certain delegations of farmers have been waiting on the government protesting against giving bonuses to railways. 1 find that such papers as the ' Farmers' Sun,' and perhaps the Toronto ' World,' are also opposed to granting cash subsidies to railways at the present time. That feeling seems to have taken strong hold of the people of Ontai'io. But the people of Ontario seem to forget that every man in the province has a railway at least within five miles of his own door, and they seem to forget that those railways were built with money out of the public treasury of this country, and if it did not come out of the treasury it was money bon-owed on the credit of the whole people, who have to pay interest on that money. The other day I asked a question about how much public money had been given for building railways. I find that $09,418,275.54 have been spent on the Intercolonial Railway ; I find that $5,000,000 odd were spent on the Prince Edward Island Railway. I find that subsidies have been granted to railways to the extent of $1,872,000 in Nova Scotia, and $1,292,000 to New Brunswick. I am not complaining of anything that has been given to these provinces, I think they are entitled to it. I find that Quebec got $10,000,000 and over by way of railway subsidies, and I find that Ontario got $18,750,000, money that was borrowed on the credit of the whole people of Canada towards constructing her railways. And to-day, after every man
has got a road at his own door, he says : Well, it is time to stop giving subsidies. It is like a man sitting down to a free dinner, and after eating a good hearty meal himself he pushes the dishes away and says : No more meals to be given away. This money that has been spent on railways all over this country, has been borrowed on the credit of the people. Now let me go a little further. I find that $3,000,000 odd were spent on railroads in Manitoba, principally on the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway ; in the North-west provinces, $7,000,000, on main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway ; British Columbia, $9,000,000 odd on main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Now it is often said that the Canadian Pacific Railway was built for the people of the west. I take issue with that statement. Where did the $25,000,000 given to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the west, come from ? It was not paid out of consolidated revenue, it was borrowed on the credit of the people of Canada. The people of the west have got to help pay the interest on it, and it is within the range of probability that in the near future, judging by the development up there, we may be called upon to pay the greater part of the principal. W'hen they tell us that they are building railroads for us in the west-it is nothing of the kind. Every railroad in the west has been built out of our own land, granted without stint. More than 80,000,000 acres of the most fertile lands in the world have been given away for railroad construction ; in my own district, 10,000,000 acres of land, have been given away to subsidize railways. How many miles of railway do you think we have in Saskatchewan 1 About one hundred miles. We have given $50,000,000 worth of land and have got one hundred miles of road. We are not complaining about that, because after all I do not think it will matter much to the 1 people of this country in thirty years from now whether that land is given away to railroads or to settlers. The land is of no value until you get some person to buy it and begin producing, then it becomes valuable. But the argument still remains that we in the west, who have contributed to build all the railroads in the east for the last eighteen years, think it is not unreasonable now to ask the people of the east to assist ns in opening up and developing that country.
I was going on to say that there was a better way of building railroads than by granting cash subsidies, because I think the age of cash subsidies is past. Now a railroad should not be built at all unless it is built in a section of country that will support a population. If a tract of country will not support a population, there should be no railroad built there. If you build a railroad through a fertile tract of country that has passed the experimental stage, and where the people are coming in and settling, there can be no risk at all in the govern-

ment guaranteeing bonds to the railway under certain conditions. 1 claim that tbe government would do well to guarantee tbe bonds of a railway company to build that road through to Edmonton, or further if it is found necessary, at a certain figure, and take a first mortgage on that road, so that we may have something to show, and that we may get interest on the money. And in order to satisfy the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) and gentlemen of that school, let us insert a clause in the agreement that the government will have a right to purchase. If you do that the gentlemen who build that road will be able to go into the money markets of the 'world and borrow money for 3 per cent and less, on a government guarantee. That being the case, if you put $13,000 or $14,000 a mile into a railroad at 3 per cent, it must necessarily follow that the fixed charges and the interest on that money every year are going to be less than if it was built with 6 per cent money that a corporation would have to pay if they had to borrow money without a guarantee. You would have double the amount of interest to pay every year if you built the road by a private corporation without a government guarantee. If the government guarantee the bonds, they should also take the right of supervising the rates to be charged on the road. As soon as the country settles up thickly, as soon as development takes place, as soon as production takes place, the road becomes more valuable. If the government do not wish to purchase the road in the meantime, the company can get other parties to take bonds without a government guarantee. After the country is settled, the government can release the mortgage and the railroad will not cost the people of the country a cent. Bonds were guaranteed on railways in Manitoba eight or ten years ago, and the government of Manitoba have never been called on to pay a dollar, because the profits after the opening up of the road were sufficient to meet all the charges on the road.
I think, if the government takes this question up, and there is an urgent necessity that it should be taken up at once, by guaranteeing the bonds and taking a first mortgage on the road, inserting a clause to suit the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) if it is necessary, we will get the road built this year, and we will be enabled to hold not only the people we have, but we will be enabled to get hundreds and thousands of more people to come into that country. We have a boom on now, we are bound to get the people, we have the land, the climate is all right, but we must be alive, we must act quickly, we must show that we are alive, because", if we do not, people are not going to stay here and let the moss grow upon them. Now, I think I have taken up, perhaps, too much of the time of the House. I may be trans-Mr. DAVIS.
gressing the rules of the House in bringing this question of railway construction in the west to the attention of the government, but in doing so I am only doing what I feel is right, not only in the interests of the people of the west, but in the interests of the people of the east. I know what the conditions up there are. I know people forty and fifty miles away from a railway, and I know that a man cannot farm with profit fifty miles away from a railway. If a man has to haul his wheat a thousand miles by railway and fifty miles by laud, it will cost him more to haul it fifty miles by land than to pay the freight for 1,000 miles by rail. We must secure cheaper freight rates for the people in that country. These people who are waiting year in and year out for railways will get tired and leave the country. I know people in my district who have been for twenty years fifty or sixty miles away from a railway, and if they do not get some relief they will feel like moving out. If the newcomers see old settlers going out, they will not look with favour upon the country. I hope the government will take this question up and deal with it. We have a large surplus and we will have large surpluses in the future, because, having a government which carries on the affairs of the country on business principles, we are bound to have surpluses. I do not claim that this government have made all this prosperity, that they have made the rain to fall or the sun to shine, but they have done something in the way of building up the country by adopting business methods in the conduct of public affairs. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that while prosperity exists in Canada today all the world is prosperous, and that we are only getting our share. I will say however, that there is a possibility that if the government had not risen to the occasion while other countries were carrying on an increased business and enjoying a large measure of prosperity this country might not have been prosperous. If a man is running a business in a town and he does not advertise his business, look after it and apply modern methods to it, he might set on his counter and do nothing, while every other merchant of the town was doing a rushing business. I claim that this government are a first-class business government, that they are conducting the affairs of the country upon business principles, and I am certain that when the appeal is made to the country again, the people will think twice before they return to what they had seven or eight years ago- periods of depression, stagnation, and people going out of the country faster than we could bring them in.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Mr. Speaker, in continuing this debate, I may refer for a very few moments to some of the points taken up by the hon. gentleman

(Mr. Davis) who has just resumed his seat. The notes which I have taken of them are something like the following, and I hope the hon. gentleman will not do as they often do on that side of the House-get up and run out of the House as soon as they deliver themselves of their speeches. First, he says : ' surpluses are a good thing.' I may have something to say in regard to that later on. ' The government never collect taxes.' I will refer to that as well, because I am able to refer him to very good authorities on that side of the House- the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) and the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. iMr. Fielding). ' The Postmaster General, when he came to power found a deficit of $700,000. He wiped out the deficit by saving on contracts for carrying the mails.' I will refer to that as well. ' The railway problem of the west; we must have some way to market our grain. If the railway is not built this year, people will move out.' I imagine the influx of settlers to that country will be the best market the people will have for their surplus products for a year or two whether they have railways or not. Therefore, I do not think there is any great danger in that respect. It is said in the section of the country from which the hon. gentleman comes, that they have occasionally what they call Chinook winds that come through the crevices of the mountains. They are dry, they are higher in temperature than the average temperature of the atmosphere, and out of that condition has grown the saying whenever a scheme is floated upon nothing, that it is a hot air scheme. I must confess that the logic that the hon. gentleman presented to this House to back up his convictions was largely of the hot air character, and I do not wonder at it because he comes from a section of the country where they know something about hot air.
The hon. Minister of Finance made his statement in this House a few days ago in regard to the condition of the country financially, commercially, and industrially. Its treasury, he said, was overflowing with wealth. The incoming revenues of the country were not only ample for its needs, but there was a large surplus every year, the largest, expected at the end of the present year, would reach about $13,000,000. The expenditure, he said it was true, had been heavy, but we had the money, the country required the expenditure, and if the expenditure was wisely made no one could object. The people, he said, are industrially employed to their fullest extent at good wages, and the country is becoming wealthy, so the banking and financial operations up to the present indicate. The financial statement in the line of bookkeeping which he gave us showed that the country was in a prosperous condition so far as its revenue went, and that the government were expending lavishly so far as their expenditures went. He said the revenue was overflowing and going up every year. In round figures we find that it is something like the following :
Year	Revenue.
1897.'	$37,000,000
7898		 40,000,000
7899		 46,000,000
7900	. 51,000,000
7907* ] "	 52,000,000
	 58,000,000
Well, this was a large revenue, very much larger than Canada had ever been accustomed to before these last few years. But, while the revenue was large the expenditure also was large. The statement is as follows :
' Year.	Revenue. Expenditure.
7897	$37,000,000	$42,000,0007898	
40,000,000	45,000,0007899	.. .. 46,000,000	51,000,0007900	
51,000,000	52,000,0001901	.. .. 52,000,000	57,000,0007902	
68,000,000	63,900,000
The people of Canada cannot complain of the parsimony of the government in expenditure, nor of their slowness to collect heavy taxes. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) told us that the government does not collect taxes, but it is quite plain that they get a very large amount of money from one source or another, including customs and inland revenue. The Minister of Finance told us that from 1897-8 to the present he had had, not only enough money to expend for the requirements of the country (not including capital expenditure) but that he had $40,900,000 of surpluses besides. Does it not seem passing strange that if the government could collect a surplus of $41,000,000 in six years, they did not succeed in reducing the national debt by more than $6,000,000. If a farmer has a mortgage on his farm and he has seven years of prosperity and a surplus of $2,000, what kind of a farmer would he be if he did not pay his mortgage. If he spent his money extravagantly and recklessly and neglected the mortgage would not any sensible man say that that farmer was a poor financier, and that he was not acting in the interests of himself and his family. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) told us that a surplus was a good thing, and I asked him why should this extra money be taken out of the pockets of the people-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I call the attention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) to the rule that when an amendment to the motion for ways and means has been moved the debate should be confined to the subject matter of the amendment. The hon. gentleman is now discussing the question of the expenditure of the country. Does the hon. gentlemen think that is relevant to the amendment ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I respectfully submit that it is relevant to the amendment. I am

endeavouring to show that by their system of taxation the government is taking more money out of the people than is needed for the requirements of the country, and that what we want is adequate protection and a fair revenue. But while I bow to your ruling Mr. Speaker, I will give another reason. I hold in my hand extracts from the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce who spoke after the amendment was moved and he dealt with exactly the same question as I am dealing with now. I respectfully submit that since he was allowed that latitude I should not be refused the right of a reply. I would point out also Mr. Speaker that for the last two years the amendment has been moved at the commencement of this debate, and therefore if you confine yourself closely to the rule and not permit a reply to the budget speech, it will lead to a great deal of inconvenience.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Mr. Speaker, while I recognize that your ruling is absolutely correct and that the amendment being moved at the beginning of the debate shuts off general discussion, still Sir, on behalf of the government I would desire that with the consent of the House you should allow debate on everything comprehended in the financial statement. Beyond that I do not think we should travel however. That is our desire Sir, if you can see your way clear to waive the rule.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The rule is clear on the question but I am anxious to be guided by the feeling of the House and that is why I mention the matter. It is better that there should be some understanding on the question. Personally I have no feeling on the matter, and if the House wishes it I have no objection.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The rule lias been already departed from and it is only fair that we should have the same rule applied to us all.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I believe Sir, that if we are allowed to discuss the question treated of in the financial statement generally, it may have the effect of shortening the discussion rather than that there should be a new debate on the financial question and on the trade question as well.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There is a motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair and there is an amendment to that motion, and the rule is that the debate should be confined to the amendment. It would not be in order to speak on the expenditure of the country or on the railway policy as was done by the last speaker (Mr. Davis), I call attention to the rule and it is for the House to come to an understanding upon the matter.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The rule is a very proper one but if it were applied here it would lead to a double debate upon the same question, and I think we might all agree to avoid that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am quite satisfied Mr. Speaker that your only desire is to preserve the rules of the House, but when you intimated to me some time ago that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) was travelling outside of the rule I said that if the rule were insisted upon it would be very inconvenient. I believe that it would be an economy of time to permit a general debate now. Let me Sir, direct the attention of the House and particularly of the last speaker (Mr. Davis) to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said with reference to surpluses a few years ago. Here it is
If the surpluses were created by government in some magic way there might be in them a cause for thankfulness, but they are not. But when it is considered that every dollar of a surplus is money taken out of the pockets of the people without a shadow of excuse ; money not even required by the reckless expenditure of the government, there is not as much cause for lejoicing.
I commend that language of the hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) to the attention of hon. gentlemen on the other side as peculiarly appropriate to the condition of things now existing. Even under a reckless system of expenditures, the Minister of Finance tells us that at the end of the present year he will have for the number of years the Liberals have been in power aggregate surpluses amounting to about $41,000,0000. Then I say apply to the present system the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce's own logic of a few years ago, and it is the strongest proof that that system is burdening the country, is taking money out of the people that is not needed, and is indicative of very bad government. He went on to say :
That millions of dollars should be taken yearly from the consuming classes of the coun try, and this without being absolutely necessary, is a cardinal principle of the Finance Minister to which even his best friends could not unreservedly assent.
I wonder how that applies to the present Finance Minister. The hon. gentleman said :
A surplus of so many millions is so much money drawn from the trade of the country. How long can the Dominion stand the drain ? Certainly not many years longer.
This was said at a time when the aggregate surpluses of eighteen years amounted to $0,800,000. How much stronger will the application of this language be to-day, when in seven years the government have taken $41,000,000 from the people more than they required ? Do I require to comment on it ?
I say comment is unnecessary. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce is noted for his direct reasoning, his strong adjectives and his logic; and if these ever applied with special force to a party in power, they apply to the party in power at the present time. Why was this extra money taken out of the people ? Not because it was de-

manded by the needs of the country, because lion, gentlemen admit that they do not require to spend that much. Then, why not do as the Conservative party did when in power ? When we found that there was a surplus of revenue over expenditure, we threw off that amount of taxation. In 1894, when the surplus was going to be largely increased, we threw off $3,500,000 of that taxation, so as not to take more out of the pockets of the jieople than was absolutely necessary for the needs of the country as economically governed.
We are told that we have good times today. We have not attempted to deny that. No people in the country are more grateful and thankful for it than we are. But what wonder is it that we have good times ? Before 1896 we had a cycle of hard times, the hardest times that we had for many years. Then a cycle of good times started up all over the world, and Canada shared in those good times as well as every other country. But look at the expenditures of the government during the last seven years. How much have they spent in that time ? They have spent $314,500,000, while in the seven years previous, the party that was declared by these same hon. gentlemen to be reckless spendthrifts only spent $251,000,000. Is it to be wondered at that this large expenditure helped to make good times for Canada ? They were spending all that their predecessors spent each year, and over $10,000,000 a year more. In these seven years they have spent $63,000,000 more than their predecessors did in the same time. That expenditure helped to make good times, there is no doubt whatever. Add $10,000,000 to our expenditure every year, and think what it means to the people of Canada. Now, with this heavy revenue, this large collection of taxes, and this heavy expenditure, I ask, what great national undertaking has been accomplished by the present government ? What national highway have they built ? What great national good have they secured for the people of Canada ? I answer none. There is not to-day a living monument to their management of the country during the last seven years. The Minister of Finance says that every department of the government has been wisely and economically managed, from a business and financial standpoint. He referred to the Post Office Department as an illustration, claiming that the present Postmaster General found a deficit of $700,000 when he took charge of the business, which he reduced from year to year, until last year there was a deficit of only $105,221. But the hon. Postmaster General stated in Toronto a few months ago that there was no deficit at all. Which statement is correct ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but lie knows that the hon. Postmaster General did not say that. He said, omitting the
Yukon and the Atlin districts, there was no deficit.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was going to explain that. Omitting the Yukon district, there was no deficit; but the unfairness of omitting the Yukon must be clear to any one, because it is part and parcel of the post office system. If you deal with the whole post office system under the late government, you must do the same under the present government, otherwise the comparison is no comparison at all. You cannot compare things that are not comparable. You must compare things that are comparable. The hon. Minister of Finance said that there was a deficit of $105,000, including the Yukon. The hon. gentleman who took his seat a few moments ago said that the hon. Postmaster General had wiped out that deficit by saving on the contracts for carrying mails. What has the Minister of Finance to say of that ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He did effect large savings.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I asked the hon. Minister of Finance :
Is that deficit reduced out of the revenue of the post office ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: So far as I am aware, it was. I do not quite see the point of my hon. friend's question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Simply this, if I may be allowed to explain. I understand that the old deficit of $700,000 was wiped out by an item put in the estimates for that purpose, but it was not revenue from the post office.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not quite see the difference ; the fact remains that at the close of the year 1896 there wras a deficiency of some $700,000, just how it was paid is of little consequence ; and if under the circumstances which I have described, my hon. friend has reduced that to $105,000, I think that is a record which even my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) should receive with satisfaction.
Now, was that the way the deficit was wiped out ? I say It was not.


Mr. COWAN.: Well, you are wrong.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) is to the fore again. He is usually noisy when any one else is speaking.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I have been pretty patient to-night.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do I say it was not wiped out in that way ? For this reason :
At the close of the fiscal year of 1895-1896, the parliamentary appropriation for that year had been exhausted and large sums were still owing by the department. With the view of ascertaining the true financial position of the department, two accountants, Messieurs Cross and Munro, were appointed to make certain inquiries, the result of their investigations being set forth in the aunual report of 1897.
What were they to inquire into ? One of their inquiries was to ascertain the exact

amount of the unpaid debts or liabiliaties of the department on the first of July, 1896, oyer and above the appropriation made to parliament for the fiscal year 1895-6 and classify the same. They were to inquire about several other things as well. They then made this report. They said that at the close of the fiscal year 1895-6 the liabilities of the department, in excess of all parliamentary appropriflitions applicable, thereto amounted to the sum of $685,449, increase of these liabilities during the year 1895-96 made it $68,734 more, which made in all $781,152. That was the actual deficit the auditors found.
I asked whether that was wiped out by the savings, and I understood from the reply and the process of reasoning of the Finance Minister that it was. But what do the estimates of 1897 show ? An item was proposed for the Post Office Department of $685,447, or just what the auditors found was the deficit and for which there was no appropriation. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was then looking after the estimates of the Postmaster General, said in explanation of that item :
The Postmaster General is not here at the moment. But I can state briefly what this is. They are the accumulated deficits of the post oflice for the last twenty years. It appears that they have always been out running the constable in that department, and that they have been constantly paying out of one years appropriations, sums which were due in the last year and adding thereto from time to time. They have finally run up to this large sum and the Postmaster General thinks that it is time that should stop.
And he proposed an item of $685,447 for that purpose. And we voted that amount. Was it by any saving in the department that this amount was wiped out ? Not at all. That should for ever set at rest the contention that the Postmaster General, by any exercise of economy, wiped out this deficit. What more did the hon. Postmaster General do ? He sold that year $444,000 worth of Jubilee stamps, which were not redeemable by the post oflice except you used them by way of postage. A large portion of them were never used at all. I sent two sets to Kansas and had an application for more, but could not get them. It was a disgrace, I contend, to this government to take that money out of the people and give them nothing in return. Ordinary stamps were redeemable in cash, but not these stamps. When we find this item of $685,447 voted to wipe out part of the deficit and when we find the Postmaster General realizing $444,000 out off Jubilee stamps, are we to conclude that he is entitled to any great credit 1	1 do
not think it. And I do not think that any gentleman on that side should be inclined to give him credit for great economy in the administration of this department. I am not saying a word against the hon. gentleman for what he has done. Many of the things lie has done I approve of. I approve Mr. SPROULE.
of the reduction in the postage, but while he reduced the postage on letters he increased it on papers. While he reduced on the one hand he raised on the other. But what I find fault with is that he should take credit to himself for good management and for wiping out the deficit and making the department self-sustaining. Whereas, as a matter of fact, as I have shown, lie did nothing of the kind. What did Mr. Foster say in reply to the explanation I have cited of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce ? He said ;
We will accept that explanation. We knew that the hon. gentlemen opposite were going to bring down enormous appropriations, and we suppose that we will have to let them pass.
It passed oft' at that. That is the history of how the post office deficit was wiped out.
We are told that there is economy in every department. We are told that the Intercolonial Railway has been economically managed, but that question has been already dealt with and will be dealt with at greater length by hon. gentlemen on this side in the future.
I would ask :	Has the Department of
Public Works been wisely and economically administered ? I could readily give a dozen items as Illustrating the very reverse. Take that vote which was given last year for a public work, the Grand Vallee pier, Which will be found in last year's ' Hansard, ' page 1585. A public work was started there which is going to cost the country $63,000. It was started in a place where there were not a dozen people, where no boat heretofore ever called, where no trade was done, which was nothing but a wilderness. 4nd for what purpose was it started ? Simply to benefit a member of this House who had invested in a timber limit there a short time before. The place, as the hon. member described it the other night, was when this work was begun, a perfect ' terra incognita'-no boats at all, no population, no village, no post office. That wharf, when finished will cost the country, according to the Minister of Public Works, $63,357. If time permitted I could give a dozen examples which would show just as effectively as this does the lack of wisdom and economy which characterizes the administration of this important department. There is no extravagance, we are told; every department is managed wisely and well. Bet me take one example from the Department of Agriculture, and it is quite as striking as the other I have given. The present government had a work to do that their predecessors did several times-'the taking of the census. This government took the census in 1901. The census was taken by their predecessors in 1891, in 1881 and in 1871. The first time the census was taken in 1871, the cost was $511,330. In 1881, the cost of taking the census was $456,904. In 1891, the expense of this service $570,000, only once under the Conservative regime did the

expense of taking the census go above half a million. What did it cost this government to take the census in 3901 ? So far they have spent $1,130,000, double what it cost in 1891. This is the record of this government which we are told is a government of economy and ability. But they tell us that there was much more work in taking the last census. Well, they had nine schedules in the census of 1891 and eleven schedules in the last census. But the expense has already been doubled, all but $10,000, and that amount and more will be spent this year. Will the people of the country regard this as wise expenditure V Will they regard it as an example of strict economy ? I do not think they will.
What has the government accomplished ia the way of national statesmanship since they came into power ? What great thing-have they accomplished for the benefit of the people ? Before coming into power they said they would negotiate a trade treaty with the United States. Have they done so ? No ! They tried to negotiate a treaty with France to establish better trade relations between the two countries, but so far they have not succeeded. They tried to improve our trade relations with Germany, and they have brought about a trade war with that country, so that we are shut out of its markets. They tried to negotiate a treaty with the United States, but it was a failure. They tried to negotiate a treaty with the little island of Trinidad but failed. They told us that at the late intercolonial conference we would get a treaty with the Australian colonies. They told us that the granting of the l>referential trade with England was a great achievement. We have had that system a few years and what is the effect of it ? Taking up to-day's paper, I find the following :
London, April 23.-Mr. Harold Cox, secretary of the Cobden Club has written to the Westminster ' Gazette ' with regard to the Canadian tariff policy as follows : ' The main tariff of Canada was deliberately framed to shut out English manufacturers and English goods. It gives greater encouragement to the manufacturers from the United States than from Great Britain. There is no reason commercially, for British gratitude to Canada. The boot is on the other leg.'
That is what the secretary of the Cobden Club says.


Mr. HEYD.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) believe that ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not saying now, what X believe, but I am telling the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) what the great free trade Cobden Club of England thinks. This is written by the gentleman who pinned the medal on the premier's breast a few years ago because of the granting of the preferential tariff, which, they thought, was a move in the direction of free trade. I am afraid the premier will be humiliated by being compelled to send the medal back
to the Codben Club to be kept for some future free trader.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I heard he had sent it back after the surtax was put on German goods.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No doubt he would feel very uncomfortable in keeping it. We have preferential trade, and what has it giveu us ? Members of this government were at the interimperial conference last year, and they went there saying they were going to establish better trade relations with the Australian colonies and New Zealand. Moreover they were going to try and get some consideration in the British market over the foreigner. But they gained nothing. But, while they gained nothing in the way of better markets, they humiliated Canada by declaring that Canada would not consider the question of imperial defence. And Canada stands as the laughing stock of the world, because, notwithstanding our wealth and position and loyalty and everything else, our premier, who was in the band wagon of the great jubilee of our late beloved Queen in 1897, refused to even discuss, on the lines desired, the question of imperial defence. They said Canada was not prepared to pay her share for the defence of the empire. I say this is a humiliation to Canada. We are doing less than we ought to do and are the laughing stock of the world.
Have lion, gentlemen opposite materially cheapened the transportation ? They are always talking of the transportation problem ; have they actually done anything in connection with it ?. If so, I do not know where to look for the record of it. The fast Atlantic service question was really settled when they came into office, the contract having been practically made. But they cancelled it, saying they could get a better one at less cost. But they have made no contract yet. A few years ago we were going to have the bottle-necked ships that would accomplish so much. But it was only hot air from the west. Then, we were to have had a contract at very much less than tile old one. They worked away at that for years. At last they declared that they had failed, and nothing has been ever accomplished. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) says : Oh, we have done a great deal for the people of Canada ; we have changed the system of taxation, giving them a revenue tariff instead of a protective tariff. The lion. Minister of Trade and Commerce, in commencing his address, twitted the leader of the opposition with being inclined to resort to scrap-book literature-with dealing with history of the past. If there was one member of this House who ought to be afraid of scrap-books, it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He seems like Ban-quo in the play of Macbeth. When he hears of a scrap-book, his previous record will not down. Like Banquo's ghost it will come up to confront him. That was why he displayed

so much dread of scrap-boolc literature, because he is confronted by his utterances of the past. In dealing -with the system of taxation, he said :
Under our system the great bulk of the taxes goes into the treasury, under the old regime the great bulk of it went Into the pockets of the manufacturers.
Now I ask the people of this country if that is so ? He says :
If we have to-day an exceedingly unfair and oppressive system of taxation under which we were practically putting two dollars into the private pockets for every one that went into the public treasury, I might see my way to deliver myself of some public criticism. There are the strongest possible grounds for believing that since we came into office the exodus is stopped and the tide of immigration has been flowing into our country to the tune of 125.000 to 200,000 a year.
Where are they now ? Referring to the leader of the opposition lie-said :
He has paid no attention whatever to the difference between the real taxation inflicted on the people under a protective tariff, and the actual taxation inflicted on the people under a revenue tariff, even if it be a high one. The difference is this, that substantially the great bulk of the taxes go into the treasury under the present tariff, whereas, under the administration which preceded ours, an enormous percentage of the taxes which the people of Canada had to pay did not go into the treasury but went to swell the profits of private individuals.
Is that so ? Now, I take up the Trade and Navigation returns, and let me give one illustration of the working of the tariff called protective under the old government under which, as he says, for every dollar that went into the treasury two dollars went into the pockets of the manufacturers. Now I take the importations of those lines in which the farmers are interested : Cultivators, drills, seed drills, harrows, harvesters, horse rakes, mowing machines, ploughs, reapers and such like. These are manufactured in Canada. Under the old system, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce is right, for every dollar of revenue that went into the treasury, and that was collected by customs duties, two dollars went into the manufacturers pockets. Now, take the last year the Conservative government were in power, I find that 9,321 articles were imported on which a duty of $70,000 was paid. In 1902, under a tariff exactly the same in every particular, the same duty as in 1896 on every article, this government took out of the people of Canada $417,000 in duties as against $70,000 by the Conservative government-the same system, the same duty, the only difference being that one was called protective, while the other is called a revenue tariff. And yet the Minister of Trade and Commerce says that under the Conservative government for ever dollar that went into the treasury two dollars went into the manufacturers' pocket, whereas in 1902 no-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: thing goes into the manufacturers' pocket but all goes into the treasury. How can any one believe that ? If a duty of 20 per cent and 25 per cent in 1896 was a protective duty, is it not a protective duty to-day ? If it enabled the manufacturer to put two dollars into his pocket for every dollar that went into the treasury, does it not enable him to do the same thing to-day ? Does the Minister of Trade and Commerce think the people of Canada are so stupid or so gullible as to believe such a statement ? Is that logic or is it not ? I need not deal with corn and other items. I merely give this as an illustration, as an example, of the hon. gentleman's style of reasoning.
Now he says : We have stopped the exodus from the country by our system, and we have done a great good in that respect. Is it true that they have stopped the exodus V How do we know whether the exodus is stopped or not ? We know it by the Trade and Navigation returns of the United States, which show the value of settlers' effects going into that country every year from Canada. Now, if the exodus was stopped there would be no settlers' effects going in there, because it is only goods taken in by men who actually settle there that are taken account of by the Trade and Navigation returns of the United States. I find by those returns that in 1897, $1,275,000 worth of settlers' effects went into the United States accompanied by people who went there from Canada to settle. In 1898 there were $904,000; in 1S99, $1,037,000; in 1900, $1,144,000; in 1901, $1,042,000; in 1902, the very last year, at a time when the exodus has all been stopped, according to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, there were $1,278,000 worth of settlers' effects crossing the frontier from Canada to the United States, accompanied by Canadian citizens who went over there and settled in that country.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Win. Paterson).: Would that not include effects of settlers who come to our ports from England and other places ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They say not. Only from Canada. Now I find that this very year there is a considerable exodus going on, largely to the New England States, where manufactures are plentiful. Very naturally they go to a country that has varied industries and which offers employment in so many lines. If our protective tariff was accomplishing for Canada what we think it ought to accomplish, provided it was high enough, it would build up our own industries and keep our operatives at home.
I want to ask, what helped the exodus. We are told that we have 125,000 to 150,000 immigrants coming into Canada, and that we had a very heavy exodus when the Conservative party were in power. What helped to make that exodus ? The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said that

the loss of Canada in those eighteen years during which the Conservative party were in power amounted to millions. Every train going to the United States was crowded with settlers and their effects. Why was every train crowded with settlers and their effects ?-because every Reformer in Canada became an immigration agent for the United States, with the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce at the head of the bureau. Am I justified in saying so ? I think I am. Why do I say so ? When I look at the ' Economist ' and read that letter written by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce years ago, to tell the people of Europe what a bad country Canada was, how heavily it was taxed, how the people were bled white by taxation, that it offered no inducements for people to come and settle, that it was the place above all others in the world for them to avoid, is it any wonder that people were deterred from coming ? At that time the Conservative party had eleven principal agents at work to get immigrants to come to this country and they spent $120,000 during the last year they were in power on immigration. To-day the government have no less than forty-four principal agents drawing from S1,000 to $4,000 a year, most of them receiving large amounts for expenses in addition and they have also 275 agents in the United States on commission working in the interests of Canada. When we were endeavouring to get immigrants to come to this country we had every Reform member of this House acting as an immigration agent for the United States, saying that the people of that country were happy and prosperous and that they were getting rich while we were getting poorer and poorer. It was not enough to confine their operations to the continent of America, but the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce had to write about the condition of Canada to the * Economist,' so as to prevent immigrants coming to us from Europe ; and what did he say :
But it is not equally well known on your side of the Atlantic that it has become painfully apparent for some time back to every one who has been at pains to examine the evidence which has accumulated on the subject, that, even in that comparatively short space of time, this most ill advised policy has resulted in a tremendous exodus of the very choicest portion of the population of Canada.
Talking to the people that we were trying to get to come here, he told them that the people were leaving the country because of the policy of the Conservative party.
And in a very grave depreciation in the selling values of farm lands and of town and village property throughout all the older sections of the Dominion, including Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
This has been accompanied, as is usual in such cases, by an immense increase in the aggregate indebtedness of the Dominion in the shape of
large additions to its federal, provincial and municipal debts, and also to the mortgage debts incurred by private individuals and liabilities incurred for the construction of railways-by far the greater part of all which obligations are held abroad.
Briefly, in these thirteen years, there has been a great displacement of wealth, caused mainly by artificial legislation, but (as regards the older provinces) absolutely no increase at all in the collective wealth of the community. Two or three cities, and perhaps a score of towns, have increased considerably, and a few hundred individuals (who have been privileged to tax their fellows for their private advantage) have grown rich by this system of legalized robbery ; but the great mass of the population, and notably the agricultural class, are distinctly poorer and less prosperous than they were twelve years ago.
This he was saying to the farmers, mechanics and labourers of England, that we were trying to get to come here, and whom we were telling that there were greater advantages here than those which they enjoyed In the bid country. Is it any wonder we did not get immigrants to come to our country ? I think not.
In one word, if the assertions and official statements of the present government are to be relied on, and these 900,000 immigrants, did really come to Canada as they assert, what between immigrants who came to Canada and who have quitted it chiefly for the United States, and the loss of its own natural increase which has disappeared in the same direction, the Dominion has lost not less than one million and a half of people in the last ten years.
As to the amount of taxation, the agricultural class has been simply bled white.
This is told to the farmers of England whom we were asking to come over here that they might better their condition.
Over and above the taxes actually paid into the Dominion treasury to be expended for so-called federal purposes they have been mulcted during all these years under the proctective system of at least an equal amount which is either totally wasted or goes into the pockets of a very small number of protected manufacturers.
The exact a,mount levied, or to speak more accurately, pilaged, in this way can hardly he estimated ; but it is known not to be less than a sum fully equal to the entire amount credited to the treasury.
Such an amount of taxation levied for thirteen years is a very formidable burthen for a country like Canada to bear.
It would be well if this were all, but unfortunately, the economic results of protective system adopted by Canada in 1879, grevious as they are fade almost into insignificance compared with the moral and political pollution it has brought in its train.
No moral or political pollution to-day-not at all. Then, to continue this article :
It is not merely the policy but the fixed determination of the Liberal party in the Dominion of Canada to overthrow this system at all hazards ; and, after very full deliberation, they have come to the conclusion that the best and probably the only really available method which presents itself for the purpose lies in introduc-ing-tbe system of perfect continental free trade

or unrestricted reciprocity with the United States.
Compare that with their statement lately, giving the reasons why they made a reduction in the duty on British goods.
That is what they were asking for then. Look at their loyalty to England to-day. Out of goodness of our heart and out of generosity we give that preference to England in recognition of the splendid freedom she has given to us. We did it out of the generosity of our heart and because of our overflowing loyalty. Then, they wanted unrestricted reciprocity that Hon. Mr. Blake said if adopted, would lead to annexation. It goes on to say :
One thing, I think ought to be clear to all intelligent Englishmen, and that is, that it is utterly impossible that Canada can prosper under her present conditions-isolated and in danger of being still more completely isolated, from trade and commerce with the entire continent to which she belongs geographically, losing her population at the rate of one million and a half in ten years (if the official statements of the present government are to be relied on) and subject, at the same time to a system of taxation and of organized political corruption such as you have happily been strangers to since the days of Walpole or Charles II.
The Liberal party of Canada and, indeed, the great bulk of the people of the Dominion, wish well to the mother country, and it is very far from their desire to do anything which in the long run can injure her interests ; but their duty in the premises is plain. As Canadians they must consult the advantages of Canada first
And he declared for a policy of unrestricted reciprocity or continental free trade with the people of the United States. That was written to the ' Economist ' by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, written to a country where we were trying our level best, with a very small expenditure of money, to get immigrants to come out to this country, when we were endeavouring to show them that we had a better country, and that it offered better opportunities for battling with the conditions of life than any other country. Yet, the hon. gentleman, in this article, declares that such is not the case. Is it any wonder that we did not get immigrants to come to this country ? Now, I take up the writings of the hon. gentleman to the ' North American Review ' declaring that the country is so burdened with taxation and debt that no man can succeed in Canada and that the United States is the only place where people can succeed. What was the situation during the time that the Conservative party were in power ? I say that at least there were seventy-five immigration agents in this House who were immigration agents always for the United States and never for Canada. They went about preaching the same doctrine and they had thousands of their friends outside. The bureau was here headed by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Hon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Blake, whose portrait adorned an immigration pamphlet that was distributed in the state of Kansas with his speech in the House of Commons added to show the people of that country that Canada was the last place in the world to go to. This pamphlet contained speeches of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce decrying Canada, saying that Canadians were bled white and that Canadians were kept in bondage worse than any slavery they ever had in that country. It was then said that there was an exodus, and that the people were fleeing from the country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, why are immigrants coming to Canada to-day. It is because every member of this House is an immigration agent in the interest of Canada. There never was a Conservative, who in power or in opposition, would decry his country. In power or out of power, the Conservatives stand up for Canada, and you will not find in the ' Economist ' or the ' North American Review ' or in any other publication, an article from a Conservative decrying his own country and telling the people to go to the American republic where they could amass wealth, rather than to Canada where the farmers were bled white and the inhabitants kept down by heavy taxation. It was left for the Minister of Trade and Commerce and for other Liberals to denounce their country in that way. I repeat, Sir, that every member of parliament to-day has a good word to say for his country, and that amongst the people of Europe and amongst the people of the United States their object is to create the impression that Canada is a happy country to live in. I know it to be a fact that in many Reform constituencies in this country the Reformers believed their member when he told them that Canada was the last place in the world to live in, and taking him at his word they left in such large numbers that many of these Reform members got defeated when they returned for election. That was notably so in South Grey, which was a Reform constituency, but which at the last two elections went Conservative for the reason that the Liberals, believing their member that Canada was a bad place to live in. cleared out to the states and left the Conservatives who had faith in their country, in the majority. Every Canadian member of the parliament, I repeat, is to-day an immigration agent for Canada, whereas before 1800, every Reform member of parliament was an immigration agent for the United States, with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) at the head of the bureau.
We were told. Sir, when the Liberals came into power that their fiscal policy was going to be that of a revenue tariff. But what is their policy to-day. It is a very peculiar policy indeed. In the budget speech of 1897 ('nansard,' page 1,111) the Minister of Finance said :

I shall have something to say which will show that in respect of our relations with Great Britain, and in respect of our relations with any other country, that is willing to meet us on equal terms, we shall be prepared to offer a measure of tariff reform, of the most substantial character, which is not contained in this tariff I am going to read.
He told us here that he would read two tariffs, one not much different from the tariff of the Conservatives, but as they were pledged to tariff reform they would give a substantial measure of tariff reform in relation to those countries that would trade freely with us. Further, in answer to a question by Sir Charles Tupper, the Minister of Finance said :
I stated that the tariff I am about to read to you is the general tariff, but that before I conclude, I shall be prepared to make a statement in relation to a special tariff that will apply to Great Britain, and any other country which is prepared to accept the conditions that that tariff imposes.
There are men, well meaning men in Canada-Liberals, some of them, let us admit- who say that we should meet the Dingley Bill on the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a dollar for a dollar. Such is the demand of many men in Canada to-day, but we submit it would not be wise to adopt that policy. We submit that it is a wiser policy to wait and see what shall be the outcome of the present uncertainty in the United States in relation to their trade policy and of the negotia-ions which we are willing to enter into with respect to reciprocity. We submit, that pending such negotiations, and pending the settlement of the American tariff question, and a clear understanding of what will be the effect which their policy may have upon the affairs of Canada, it is the part of prudence that we should to-day hold our hands and not extend to that country the measure of tariff reform which we would be anxious to extend if they would meet us on liberal terms.
But there are those who say that if we do not care to deal with the tariff in its relations with the United States to-day, we ought not to disturb our existing tariff at all. I have heard it argued that what we should do is to let our own tariff stand as it is to-day. I cannot subscribe to that doctrine. The Liberal party has pledged itself to give tariff reform and the country expects the Liberal party to fulfil that pledge. And if the events across the border have taken such a course as to justify us in withholding action in relation to our trade with that country, that is no reason why we should not proceed to deal with tariff reform in its relation to those countries which are
prepared to deal with us	X have to
tell the House that it is not the intention of the government-speaking of the question generally, and not, with reference to any particular article-to propose any great reduction in the tariff as applied to those countries which are not disposed to trade with us. We propose, therefore, to have a general tariff, and that general tariff will be, to a large extent, the tariff of to-day-but the tariff of to-day freed from some cf its enormities.
His tariff reform or the reform part of his tariff was the preference clause, and he offered it to every country in the world who would accept it. He told us afterwards that
it only applied to England and to-day he threatens to take it away from England. He tells us that his general tariff was to a large extent the then existing tariff of the Conservative party, and if that be the case, it is the tariff of to-day because there have been practically no changes made in it since. If, as the Liberals claimed before 1896, the tariff policy of the Conservative government put $2 into the manufacturers' pocket for every dollar it put into the treasury, how can our fiscal policy of to-day be a revenue tariff, when as the Minister of Finance has told us it is practically the same tariff as that in force during the Conservative regime. -In 1902, the Minister of Finance said :
There are several reasons which operate in our minds against entering a policy of tariff changes to-day.
That is what the Minister of Finance said two years ago. This government gave ns the preferential tariff and that was the only substantial change they made in the tariff, and let me ask what has been the result of that, England says it has done her no good; Canada finds it has done her no good and to-day the Minister of Finance threatens to repeal that great measure of tariff reform. As a reason for not changing the tariff in 1902, the Minister of Finance said :	That
the census was not taken; that he hoped to get a better treaty with France, and that he thought Germany would change her mind and give us better treatment in her markets. Well, Sir, we have seen that Germany has not changed her mind. Another is the present position of our trade relations with the mother country and her colonies. Two important conferences are to take place ; one on the question of trade and commerce, affecting the empire ; and. second, a conference with New Zealand, Australia and Canada. For these reasons we postpone for the present the question of tariff revision. That-was in 1902. We come down to 1903. and he still does not propose to give any more tariff reform. What reason does he give to-day ?
Coming now to the question of the tariff. I have two clauses to propose which will affect the tariff in certain directions, and I shall ask for some amendments to the free list. Of these I shall speak presently. With these exceptions
__and they are important exceptions as respects
the clauses referred to-we do not propose any change in the schedule rates of dutiable goods. We are not unmindful of the fact that there has been some agitation for a general revision of the tariff, but we think there is nothing in the present circumstances of the country which calls for this, and there are some strong reasons why any extensive changes in the tariff schedules would be inopportune.
That is what he says to-day. Now, what has been the tariff policy of hon. gentlemen opposite ? The only substantial change they made was in giving the preference to England. But that has resulted in a commercial war with Germany, which may

extend beyond Canada and even to England. It has resulted in our being shut out of the German market and our trade with Germany being circumscribed. It has done England no good, it has done Canada no good, and now hon. gentlemen opposite threaten to repeal it. That is their trade *policy for the present. What is it for tie future ? The Finance Minister has stated [DOT]it: no change. What has it been all along? It has been procrastination, and it is procrastination to-day. They know that some of the industries of the country are waning for want of encouragement, but they are doing nothing.
The great beet-root sugar industry, which is rapidly springing up in Canada, wants more protection, wants a little bounty. That is an industry above all others for the farmer-why ? Because $60 out of every $100 spent in that industry goes direct to the farmer. But those who are engaged in that industry want an increase in the tariff on sugars coming into the country, and for the want of this they are handicapped m carrying on their business. We are told that unless they get some consideration in the tariff their industry is likely to go down instead of becoming one of the great established industries of the country. There is a large amount of money invested in it to-day, and there is going to be much more in the future if it is given the assistance it requires. Canada,' is admirably adapted to that industry. There are hundreds employed in it to-day, and there will be tens of thousands in the future if it is granted proper encouragement. But procrastination is the thief of time, and the present Minister of Finance will give that industry no consideration beyond allowing its machinery to come in free for another year.
Then, look at the lead industry of British Columbia, in which there were over 1,000 people employed last summer. The men engaged in that industry declare that unless something is done for them, it must be closed down. I was in British Oolumoia last fall, and I saw there some of the most valuable lead mines, I suppose, in the world, one with over 300 men employed; but they had to shut down because there was no profit in the business. If the government would put a duty on lead and give them a small bounty, that industry would go on and flourish. The 1,000 men and more indirectly employed in that industry must be thrown out of employment, or turn to some other occupation, or go across the line to find employment in the lead mines of the United States which they ought to And at home.
We are told that the government are going to put a duty of $7 a ton on steel rails, but I think they are going to do it in such a way that it will not do any good. I think that duty is right, and I commend the Finance Minister for it. I was up through the factory at Sault Ste. Marie last fall. It is a most valuable factory, and I Mr. SPROULE.
for one would go farther than the Finance Minister. He says :
We will give this duty if the quantity is sufficient to supply the demand and the quality is as good as can be got from other countries.
Even if the quality were not quite as good, I would give the duty.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Who would buy the rails if the quality were not as good ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Canadian people would buy them.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They will not. They have refused to buy theui.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is within my knowledge that the quality of rails made has not given satisfaction,' and the railway companies have objected to diem on that ground.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood that the price was pretty high, but I saw that they got a contract for the Temiscamingue Railway only a few weeks ago.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I hope they will do better, and I think they will.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The rails I saw them turning out at Sault Ste. Marie last fall seemed good ; but, I am no judge of rails.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Lest I might be misunderstood, I believe they are taking steps to improve the quality of the rails, and I have no doubt they will' make good rails in the immediate future.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I hope they will, and I commend the Minister of Finance for offering to give them this assistance. That is what we like to see. That is what will build up Canada; and this is a suffering industry that cannot continue unless it gets some support.
Then, the hon. Minister of Finance says he is going to assist the binder twine industry, he has not told us how. I hope that whatever means he advises will be effective. A few years ago, he took the duty off and helped to kill the industry without doing any good to the Canadian farmer.
Then, he proposes to license foreign-built vessels. I do not object to that.
With regard to certain lines of industries the government are not giving the relief they should give. We are told that the woollen industry is suffering very much to-day. I believe it is, and a change in the tariff would tend to build up that industry, and enable it to employ hundreds and thousands of operators which it cannot employ to-day. Procrastination is killing it.
But the Minister of Trade and Commerce says ; You cannot do anything with your tariff to help the farmer. He says, speaking to the leader of the opposition :

We sell about $20,000,000 worth of cheese, chiefly in the English market. I suppose we consume about two million dollars worth in Canada. I would like to/ know how the hon. gentleman would protect us in that. We sell nearly as much bacon and hams. I would like to know how he will protect us In that.
Let me. tell the hon. gentleman how we could protect the Canadian farmer. The late government protected him by passing a tariff law which shut out the spurious cheese of the United States. This cheese was coming into our country and being shipped over to England as Canadian cheese, and in this way it was destroying the reputation of our product, but the late government put on a high tariff.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: You could not do it by putting on a tariff, because it came through Canada in bond.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We put on a tariff which was prohibitive.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It was done by regulation. No matter how high you make your tariff you could not prevent American cheese passing through Canada in bond, without paying any duty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We charged a duty on the cheese that came in, and if we did not put the tariff high enough to keep out the ordinary cheese and pass regulations to prevent spurious cheese being branded as Canadian, our cheese would not enjoy the reputation it does in England. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce says we cannot add any value by our tariff to what our farmers raise. Is that a fact 7


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Yes.
Mi-. SPROULE. The hon. member for South Brant says yes. Let me tell him that in 1890, we found that the Americans were supplying Canada with fresh meats. They sold in 1890 in Canada 33,062,979 pounds of fresh meat, or $1,729,603 worth. Have we not farmers enough in Canada to raise meat and pork to feed Canadians 7 The late government believed that we had, and raised the duty to two cents a pound on fresh meats. What was the result 7 In two years we reduced the importation by 20,000,000 pounds of those meats. Did not that benefit the Canadian farmers 7 Will the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce say that that was of no use to our farmers 7 If not, why does he not take the duty off to-day 7 I defy him to do it. If he should attempt anything of the kind, our farmers would soon send this government to the right about. What was the result of our giving our Canadian farmers the control of our own markets 7 In 1890, we only exported $895,817 worth of meats. That was before our Canadian farmers had control of their own market. But when we raised the tariff so high as to 56
shut out Armour and Company and Swift and Company, and the other Americans who were dumping their meats into Hamilton, Toronto, Kingston and Montreal, every week in the year, our exports of meats increased. In 1902 we exported meats to the extent of $41,122,071, and at the same time supplied our own markets, whereas in 1890 we only exported $895,000 worth and our markets were in the hands of the Chicago men. As soon as our Canadian farmers were given control of their own market, they at once began to raise a greater quantity of meat, and they sent out in 1902, after two year's experience of the higher tariff, $41,122,071 worth of meats, and at the same time supplied their own market with 20,000,000 lbs. a year which had been formerly supplied by Armour and Company and Swift and Company, of Chicago. Would any man, in face of these figures say that you cannot help the farmer and enhance the value of his products 7 But I find that we are beginning to import meats again, and if I were Minister of Finance, I would again raise the duty. Last year we imported $1,787,920 worth. Changed values have given the Americans an opportunity to place their meats in our market again. But whenever changed conditions and value give foreigners the advantage' of our markets, I would put the duty up and keep them out. If the hon. Minister of Finance were doing his duty to the farmer, he would raise the tariff again, keep out the Americans, and reserve the Canadian market for our Canadian farmers.
But we can not expect much from the present government. The only real act of statesmanship they ever attempted was the preferential tariff, and that is a rank failure. They admit themselves to-day that it is a failure. The Cobden Club, through its secretary says that it is a failure. England says that it is a failure. Every one condemns It. It has brought about a commercial war with Germany. It has shut Canada out of the German market. It has got England into trouble. The government have not succeeded in getting any treaty with the United States. They have not succeeded in getting any improved trade relations with France, Trinidad, Australia or New Zealand. And our Canadian farmers have no other markets than they had before this government came into power. Every act of statesmanship they have attempted is stamped as a failure, and now they have decided to rest on their laurels, and be thankful so long as the Canadian electorates will allow them to remain in power, and enjoy themselves travelling over the country. They will not make any material changes in the tariff but remain in power and draw their salaries and take their excursions all over the world. Let me refer to what has become a growing evil ever since this government has taken office, and that is the absence of the heads of departments. When-



ever parliament is called together we find two or three ministers absent. Not only have we had four or five absent all summer, enjoying themselves in Europe-France, Italy and elsewhere, but we have two important ministers absent to-day. One of them is in Japan. I see that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) has been visiting the college where they train the Geisha girls over in Japan, no doubt with a view of ascertaining whether it would not be wise to introduce such colleges here in connection with our experimental farms to train girls in this country. He is feasting and enjoying himself with the Mikado. But he is not here to answer the questions we require him to answer. The hon Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) is away. It is sometimes said that these ministers are purposely and conveniently away for fear embarrassing questions may be asked, questions that they would not like to be called upon to answer. So, I say this lias been a government of pleasure trips, a government by deputies. It has been so for years, and it is so to-day. Five or six ministers are away every summer, and two or three are away every session of parliament, touring over the world for pleasure. They might as well allow the government to go on by deputies, for it will do just as well as when they are present. This government have done nothing. Procrastination is their only policy. They dare not touch the tariff, for fear that in revising it they might offend their free trade friends on the one side or the manufacturers, whom they have promised not to injure, on the other. So long as they can travel over the country on pleasure, so long as Providence is kind enough to give them good health and enjoyment, they will hold their offices and draw their salaries.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Would not the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) do the same ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I did, I would want to get out as soon as possible. If I were in office with no other purpose than that, I should consider myself the most mercenary creature in the country. I hope we shall never see the day when there will be a Conservative government that will have no higher aim than to draw salaries, to ' rest and be thankful ' as long as the people of Canada allow them to remain in office. There are things to be done for the country. We have heard the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) from the west telling us that there is a crying demand for railways in the west. We must have transportation equal to the requirements of the people. Is the government giving it ? They have done nothing and are doing nothing. They give us no outlook for the future, any more than they have given us achievement in the past. We can come to no conclusion but that their Mr. SPROULE.
only policy is a policy of procrastination, to remain where they are, to draw their salaries, so long as the people will allow. They have not reformed the Senate, though they promised to do so; they have not reduced the number of cabinet ministers, though they promised to do so. They will remain in office, draw their salaries, travel over the world for pleasure, and enjoy themselves as long as the people are willing to allow them to remain in office.
Mr. HEYD moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Fbiday, April 24, 1903.