1903-04-24

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 123) to incorporate the Huron, Erie and Buffalo Railway Company.-Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 124) respecting the Hudson's Bay and Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Stewart.
Bill (No. 125) to incorporate the Guelph and Georgian Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie.

Mr. L. N. CHAMPAGNE (Wright) moved :: That the third report of the Select Standing Committee appointed to supervise the official Report of the Debates of the House during the present session ; which recommends a gratuity to the widow of the late N. H. Beaulieu be adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[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.
["Bill (No. 115) to incorporate the Richmond and Drummond Fire Insurance Company.- Mr. Tobin.\nBill (No. 116) respecting the Restigouche Boom Company, and to change its name to ' The Restigouche Boom and Log Driving Company.'-Mr. Logan.\nBill (No. 117) to incorporate the Hudson's Bay and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Haggart.\nBill (No. 118) respecting the Canada Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Belcourt."]
Mr. C. B. HEYD (South Brant).: Mr. Speaker, I rejoiced, in common, I presume with most citizens of Canada, when I heard the speech of the Finance Minister setting forth the financial affairs of this country. The satisfaction I experienced was doubtless felt by all on this side of the House as
1765 APKIL 24, 1906 1766	
well as by our friends on the other side, though perhaps their satisfaction was dampened a little by the fact that such magnificent progress had taken place in our country during the term of a Liberal administration, and that it had never obtained while they had control of our affairs. It was also a matter of satisfaction to learn that the government had discharged their duties while they were lately in Great Britain in endeavouring to obtain a preference in the British market. That they were unsuccessful was not their fault. They evidently did all they could to obtain what our friends on	at present of no use to the people of the United States as a protection, they could increase their trade, by all means let them reduce the duty. But, Sir, a preference of that kind offered to us that will not interfere with any of the protected industries of the United States, would be of such limited value to us that it would be impossible for us to accept it. The idea that the United States will ever allow us reciprocity in natural products, for a right to sell their manufactured goods in Canada under the present tariff, is expecting entirely too much. I am therefore confident that there will be
but were unsuccessful. It Was also a matter of satisfaction for us on this side of the House to learn that the government did not fail to do their duty, when it was forced upon them by the action of the German government, by retaliating in adopting a surtax on German goods. There is a misconception as to how far this surtax will operate; but if it prevents, as 1 believe it will, the importation of German goods made in England,which has been going on for a long time past, it will go far to remove the difficulties under which some of the manufacturers of this country labour at the present time. As I understand it, if 51 per cent of the pidce of a finished product represents the German portion of the work, the article comes under the operation of the surtax, and is placed on the general list to which an addition of 33J per cent is added. Therefore, if that surtax is applied as it should be applied, it will prohibit from entering into this country the German goods that are made in England, and almost prohibit the importation into this country of goods that are made in Germany. Now, I am quite willing to admit that our hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) may feel hopeful of some reciprocity arrangements being entered into with the people of the United States. That, apparently, has been the one -object of his life. Personally, I am not so hopeful as he appears to be, because in my own mind I have not the slightest idea that anything will ever come of our attempt to have reciprocal arrangements with the people of the United States. From their public men, who have a right to speak with authority because they know the opinions of the people for whom they speak, we have never yet heard one utterance which would justify us in believing that they would concede to Canada any reciprocal arrangements that it would be in our interest to accept. President Roosevelt, for instance, has distinctly laid down the conditions upon which a foreign country can have reciprocity with the United States. This reciprocity must not interfere with their manufacturing, their industrial, and their commercial interests. The late Mr. McKinley also laid down the same doctrine in a clear and emphatic manner. He said that if by lowering the duties that are 56*	United States, believing that they will never offer reciprocity on such terms as it would be our interest to accept. Nor do I believe that what has recently taken place in the House of Commons of Great Britain gives us any reason to expect that we will get a preference in Great Britain for many years to come. We did hope that the imposition of the duty upon flour and wheat would give the British people an opportunity to grant us a preference without putting a tax on the British people, but I understand that that duty has been wiped out, so hostile was it to the feelings of our friends across the ocean. I see no prospect in the immediate future, either for a reciprocity treaty with the United States, or for a preferential treaty with Great Britain; and now that the grain duties have been removed, I see no reason why this government should not be able, when the necessity present itself to rearrange the tariff of this country in such a way as will be in the best interests of all classes of the people. It may be that under present circumstances courtesy demands us to wait, because Mr. Chamberlain has not had an opportunity of exerting his influence in favour of the preference. It may be judicious as well as courteous to our American friends also not to anticipate the deliberations of the commission that has been appointed, seeing that the first move towards reciprocity has emanated from our friends across the line. But after we shall have found that our hopes in obtaining reciprocity with the United States, or a preference in Great Britain, are in vain, one of the principal reasons will be removed which have made us unwilling to interfere with the preference that has existed in the past; and the government has promised us that they will exercise a free hand in that matter, and that they will abolish the preference if it is seen to be needed in the interests of Canada. I am also gratified to learn, from the papers that were brought down, that the efforts of the government to prevent the scheduling of Canadian cattle in the British market, were put forth with force, with skill, and with earnestness, and their failure to get that embargo removed was due, as I believe, and as all the members of this

House believe, to a desire on tlie part of the British people to protect the raising of animals in that country. With all these facts before us, we have a right to assume that we will be able in the near future to rearrange our own tariff, if it is necessary, entirely in the interests of our own people. I can assure the Minister of Finance and the government that their desire to build up in this country the industry of the manufacture of steel rails, and for that purpose to give a substantial bonus, meets with the enthusiastic support, not only of their supporters on this side of the House, but also of our friends on the other side.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been treated to a few addresses on the budget speech, and on what I will call for courtesy's sake, the amendment that is before the House. I regret to say that the hon. gentlemen who have spoken so far have not even alluded to that amendment, although it is one of considerable importance; but they have criticised the financial administration of our affairs, which, as was clearly pointed out last night by Mr. Speaker, is contrary to the rules of the House, but which, by the courtesy of the Minister of Finance, we are to continue to-day.
Our hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) was the last speaker last night, and he was terribly exercised over the fact that we have had a surplus amounting to some $40,000,000 during the period of our administration. He asked :	What did we
do with it ? What would he expect a wise and judicious administration to do with a surplus of some $40,000,000, but to invest it prudently in the interest of the people of Canada ? He instanced as a parallel case the farmer, who, after seven years of plenty had not succeeded in paying off the mortgage on his house, and he asked what would be thought of such a person. He went on to say that this would be a very foolish farmer, but that would depend upon conditions. If the farmer had taken the surplus of his labour and invested it building new bams, in draining his ground and in improving the productive power of his farm, he would have done much more wisely than to have applied it towards paying off the mortgage, which, in the case of the Dominion of Canada, only costs about 3 per cent. The government were wise in not reducing the debt, but in judiciously expending that money. But, he goes on to ask :	How long can the people stand this
tremendous expenditure ? He predicted that the day of reckoning is soon to come. Let us look and see how the people have stood it during past years, and if the present conditions obtain, how long they are likely to stand it. The best evidence of that is to ascertain what effect this large expenditure and these large surpluses of ours have had upon the welfare of our people. I presume it would be fair to direct the attention of the hon. gentleman to Mr. HEYD.
the amount of deposits the people have in the large chartered banks of tills country. In 1890 they amounted to $128,000,000. Six years after the time they were not so profusely bled as they say we are bleeding people now, the deposits had increased to $183,000,000, or in six years, only $55,000,000 had been added, while, during the last six years, while they have been paying such a tremendous tribute to the country, the deposits of the people increased from $183,000,000 to $382,000,000, or an increase of $199,000,000. It strikes me that the people are standing it, and at the same time improving their ovjn condition very perceptibly. I am quite content, myself, to believe that they are quite willing to continue such a state of affairs. Hon. gentlemen opposite appear to think that a surplus is an insuperable obstacle to the country's progress. They must remember that they also have had surpluses in times past. In 1882 and in 1883 they had a surplus amounting to $14,000,000. We have to go a long time back in order to get a surplus of that kind. After seventeen years experience, we do not find any more, but in these two years they had a surplus of $14,000,000. But, compare the conditions of the country then with the conditions of the country to-day. While they had a surplus of $14,000,000, the savings of the people in the banks of the country diminished from $97,000,000 to $95,000,000, so that the people were $2,000,000 poorer during their period of surpluses, while they were $199,000,000 richer during our period of surpluses. I think the country need have no special anxiety about these surpluses of ours. I owe my hon. friend from East Grey a slight apology for last night stating that the duty upon meat was of no benefit to the farmers of this country. I understood him to say wheat, but he was talking about meat, and I am quite willing to confess that it was of great benefit to the people of this country.


Mr. SPROULE.: Hear, hear.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: There is another thing I would like to draw your attention to, Mr. Speaker, and it is the few remarks that were made by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), that were not replied to by my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis). The hon. member for Bothwell alluded to the period of deficits. He appeared to feel proud that there had been deficits amounting to $5,694,758 in the three years ending the administration of hon. gentlemen opposite, and he made it a charge against us that we had $20,994,445 to our credit at the end of the last three years, and in order to get over that difficulty he condemned the system of bookkeeping. He said our system of bookkeeping was all wrong. Well, it is the system we have inherited from the old government, the system that has been carried down since the period of confederation, and though the hon.

gentleman lias been a member of this House he never before raised his voice to find fault with our system of keeping our books. But, I can readily understand why he should find fault with our system when it shows quite clearly that our surpluses amounted to $20,994,445 in the last three years, while lion, gentlemen opposite had three years of deficits. In order to get over the difficulty, he takes the expenditure, both consolidated and capital, and says : See, they had no surplus because they were behind at the end of their period of time and actually increased the net debt of the people of this country. Well, that is true, but I claim still that the present system of keeping our accounts is correct, that it has ' always been correct and it never has been objected to except by the hon. member for Bothwell and the late Minister of Finance, who also found fault with it when it continued to show surpluses as a result of the good management of the Liberal party. But, if this contention is true to-day, where would the Conservative party be a few years ago ? Their receipts in 1884 were $31,000,000, their expenditure $57,000,000, showing a deficit of $26,000,000. Where would they have been in 1885 with a deficit of $16,000,000, where would they have been in 1880 with a deficit of $28,000,000, or a deficit of $70,000,000 in three years, and with an increase in the national debt of the people of $64,691,000 ? No system of bookkeeping can get over that. We are obliged to keep our books that way, but if the hon. gentleman is right now, they must have been wrong then, and these expenditures must be explained. Hon. gentlemen opposite say they are easily explained. The old government were building the Canadian Pacific Railway, and it was necessary to exceed the income of the country. This has been the case and this is our excuse to-day, that notwithstanding that we have been in receipt of large revenues we have engaged in large capital expenditures. But, our hon. friend goes on to say that the national debt is the true balance of the account when the final summing up takes place. I say that too. I say it is quite immaterial whether you charge the expenditure to consolidated account or capital account except for certain purposes, and that in the end it all comes to the increase in the national debt. Let us look at that for a short period of time. Our friends opposite increased the national debt in the three years ending 1896 by $17,000,000. We increased the national debt in the three years ending 1902 by $5,556,000. If we take the debt as it stood in 1897 at $261,538,596, which was the time when we got absolute control of our affairs, and take the actual debt on the 31st March, 1903, which was $261,620,000, we find that it was only $82,000 more than it was when we got control of the affairs of this country. That is the position to-day in connection with the national debt. Our hon.
friend (Mr. Clancy) had a great deal of fault to find with the tariff duties, and he tried hard to convince the country that the people of Canada were not paying the duty, and that the raising of the tariff would not increase the burdens on the people. If that be true, then all our efforts to remove the preference are absolutely of no use. But we have been told time and again, and we know it is true, that the preference in favour of Great Britain has reduced the price of goods in Canada, has brought disaster upon the woollen mills, and that the manufacturers want the preference removed and the full duty restored. Do they want that in order to still further increase their tariff r no, they want it to stiffen prices and to remove the tremendous competition that they are subject to because of this preference. It is of no use at this late date to try to make people believe that by increasing the tariff you do not increase the price of goods.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: The gentlemen who spoke on the other side have kept a long way off from the amendment that is before the House. I desire Sir, to confine my attention particularly to that amendment and to see just what it means. But let me say Sir, that the hon. gentleman from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) owes an apology to the leader of the House as well to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) for the statement he made last night to the effect that Mr. Charlton was inspired by the Prime Minister to make his speech and that the sentiments entertained by Mr. Charlton are those entertained by the leader of the government. The member for Bothwell told us that he got this information from Mr. Charlton himself. I deny that. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) was told by the member for North Norfolk that he would speak at a certain time at the request of the premier, but to hold the premier responsible for the utterances of Mr. Charlton and then to say that Mr. Charlton himself was the author of the story, is something that we on this side will not believe.


Mr. GOURLEY.: I thought it was the devil and not the Prime Minister that inspired the speech of Mr. Charlton.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Well, you will admit at all events that the Prime Minister is not the devil. Now the amendment which has been presented to the House is couched in very ambiguous terms as are all the statements with reference to the tariff which are formulated by gentlemen on the other side. I have taken considerable trouble to ascertain what the meaning of the word ' adequate ' is. I find in the dictionaries that the words ' sufficient ' or ' enough ' are very fair equivalents, but when you begin to apply words to a thing of vast importance like the tariff of Canada, it is well to be definite. In

order to find out just what the Conservative party means by the word 'adequate' we have to go to a little town in Manitoba to illustrate it in a practical way. The leader of the opposition and his friends were in Manitoba last summer and a poet in that country hearing what they said, although he might have applied himself with much better advantage to something else, got off this version of adequate protection.
Through a western town called Morden Passed a famous man called Borden Who, in a tone articulate The problem tried to demonstrate That duties, that were adequate Would be a boon, as sure as fate.
To the merry men of Morden If they'd only bear the burden.
But the men in Western Morden With contempt refused the burden. Though he did his best to stimulate,
They thought he did but simulate.
So they more and more do hesitate To believe that duties adequate Would relieve the men of Morden Of the heavy useless burden.
That is an interpretation of the word ' adequate ' as used by the leader of tlie opposition. We all know that Mr. Hugh John Macdonald had promised the people of Manitoba that if the Conservative party were returned to power they would have free agricultural implements and while the leader of the opposition was delivering his speech in the town of Morden some one asked :	What about free agricultural implements. The Winnipeg ' Telegram ' which I presume gives a fair report has the following account of what happened. The leader of the opposition replied as follows to the question
Question : What about free agricultural implements promised by Mr. Macdonald ?


Mr. BORDEN.: I will answer my friend's question before I sit down so definitely that there will be no question about it. I will answer on behalf of the Liberal-Conservative party which has no Sifton at one end and Tarte at the other.
Question : Will you raise the duty ?


Robert Laird Borden: We will make the duty adequate and if it is now high enough, * as I believe it is,' to enable manufacturers to make implements in Canada, we will not increase it. I am informed that implements are as cheap in Canada as in the United States. So the duty seems high enough.
The leader of the opposition tells us that ' adequate ' means to enable manufacturers to make goods in Canada. It is to that interpretation of the word that I shall address my remarks. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) tells us that ' adequate ' means to enable manufacturers of cotton or wool or steam engines or anything else to make them in Canada if the duty is high enough to secure that, and that there is no Tarte at one end and no Sifton at the other end to preach a high tariff or a low tariff as the case may be. He told us that the word Mr. HEYD.
' adequate ' meant a duty high enough to enable manufacturers to make implements in Canada, and that he believed the duty on agricultural implements is high enough.
Do the Conservatives intend that the plough makers and the binder makers and the agricultural implement makers of Canada should believe that ' adequate ' means the ability to manufacture in this country. Is it for that that the manufacturers' associations are giving banquets and inducing the Hon. Mr. Tarte to make speeches. Do they not mean something else by the word ' adequate.' That word ' adequate ' is the crux of the whole question.
If the leader of the opposition is right that the word ' adequate ' means a tariff that would enable the manufacturer to make goods in Canada reserving to himself a reasonable and a fair profit; then we are all adequate protectionists. I do not think you will find on this side of the House even the most pronounced free trader who would object to that kind of adequate protection. But concealed behind that word ' adequate ' is something that we do not understand. The manufacturer believes it means high tariff, so high as to secure Canada for the Canadian manufacturers. That is what we think is meant by that word ' adequate,' and with that catch phrase, hon. gentlemen opposite will not raise the duty on agricultural implements; they say that is high enough. They go from one end of the country to the other, and, with such an amendment as is presented to this House, vague and meaningless, they fool the people, as they attempted to fool the people away up in that western town of Morden.
Now, let us see what that resolution means in its practical application. It reads as follows :
This House regarding the operation of the present tariff as unsatisfactory is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries as will at al'l times secure the Canadian market for Canadians ;
The hon. gentleman's first proposition is to protect labour. Well, I want somebody who has more ability than I have to devise some plan whereby labour can be protected. Labour is as free as air, and gravitates to the points where wages are most remunerative. It leaves the points where wages become less than is necessary for the maintenance of the labourers ; it is constantly shifting ; and it cannot be protected or, if it can be, then, what I hold in my hand is absolutely meaningless. I have here the proceedings of the Trades and Labour Council of the Dominion of Canada at their annual meeting held in the city of Berlin and attended by the representatives of one hundred and two organizations. Are these men entitled to speak for labour, or is our friend who leads the opposition ? That meeting passed the following resolution :

Whereas the Manufacturers' Association has declared its intention to seek an increase in the tariff, and, whereas, the injury and oppression of industry comes not from the various industries offering to exchange riches for riches, but from the extortions to which labour is subjected by the holders of the land, the forests, the mines and oljjer natural opportunities, therefore this congress would condemn any increase in the tariff, and would urge that taxes be removed as soon as possible to those values which now enable non-production to impoverish industry.
That is the opinion of one hundred and two labour organizations, met for the purpose of considering how they could advance their own interests. That resolution passed unanimously, and I say that these representative labour men in convention assembled are more entitled to say what will conduce to the interests of labour than even the hou. leader of the opposition, and this whole House along with him. I, therefore, say that the hon. gentleman's resolution, in its application to the first part of the population whom it proposes to protect, is absolutely ineffective, but, on the contrary, is injurious.
Now, let us see to what other classes it applies. In our trade returns we divide the interests of Canada into about six classes :	Mining, fishing, forests, animals, agriculture and manufactures. Let us take the miners first. The exports of our mines last year amounted to $34,947,575. The resolution proposes by adequate protection to benefit them. How can the miners out in the Yukon, who have everything to buy, and who have to take their returns out of the soil, be protected by increasing the prices of their tools and their food, while in no way providing them with a market V They are a class who cannot be protected no matter how much we try. It is true, the lead miners in British Columbia are just now subjected to a terrible inconvenience ; but this is not particularly for the want of protection. It is because an organized trust in the United States will not buy their ore. If they could secure a market for their ore, they would not ask for protection ; but they are asking for protection for lead ore, because they have no foreign market for it; and so far as I am personally concerned, I will endorse the action of the Minister of Finance if he will put such a duty on everything into which lead enters as will enable these men to live, in the particular circumstances in which they are placed. At the same time, do not let us try to persuade ourselves that we can, by a policy of adequate protection, advance the interests of the miners of this country.
Can we do it with our fisheries ? They exported last year $14,143,294 worth of fish, besides supplying nearly the entire requirements of the country, and they were subjected to a competition of how much ? Six hundred and twenty thousand seven hundred and six dollars, consisting of :	Oysters, $240,000 ; fish bait, $101,088 ; anchovies and sardines, $107,000 ; and forty-three other items, amounting to $172,018. Therefore, it is impossible for adequate protection to advance the interests of our great fishing industries.
Let us now turn to the lumbering industry, which is sufficiently large to warrant us in devoting a little time to its consideration. Our exports of forest products last year, amounted to $32,119,420, and our imports to $4,242,358, including $941,000 of oak and $065,000 of logs and round timber. Add the imports of fancy woods, such as we have not got in this country, amounting to $1,000,000 or $1,500,000, and the lumber required for the people of the North-west who are many miles from a lumber yard, and you have all the foreign lumber brought into Canada. Have we had any delegations from the labour interests, the mining industry, except the lead miners, the fishing industry or the lumber interest, asking us by means of a protective tariff to better their conditions ? Not at all.
The greatest industry which we have in this country is that of animals and animal products. That has taken on a wonderful development during the last few years. Our exports of animals and their products last year amounted to $59,161,209. Let us look at this question in an honest, candid way, and ask ourselves if we can improve tbe condition of the farmers by giving them adequate protection. The leader of the opposition tried the other day to show that they are subjected to a tremendous competition. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce showed that out of the $28,000,000 of agricultural products that were imported, not more than $6,000,000 came into competition with the products of our farmers. Of the actual imports of last ye*r which our cattle-growers had to face, amounting to $3,000,000, there were $1,064,988 of animals, $1,716,747 of food products and $375,515 of stock for breeding purposes, while we exported $59,000,000 worth of our surplus product, after supplying the requirements of our own people. How can you protect that great industry by increasing the protection of the farmers. They have no competition now. You might raise the duty to 100 per cent, and it would be of no benefit to the farmers, except that in an indirect sense it would produce a home market for some of their surplus products.
Take our agricultural returns, take last year we exported $37,000,000 of our surplus products and our exports of these products are likely to increase in much greater ratio than they have done in the past. But what competition were our agriculturists subjected to ? We must not forget that it is not the amount we import into this country which comes into competition with our own products, but the amount consumed in this country. It is the quantity imported for

home consumption which competes with our own products, and the hon. leader of the opposition seeks to create a false impression when he says we imported some $7,000,000 or $S,000,000 worth of wheat last year. What we imported from the west went out of this country by the east. It merely passed through this country, yet the hon. gentleman would have us believe that that importation of wheat came into competition with what was raised by our own farmers. Out of $489,000 worth of grain which came into this country, the actual amount that did enter into competition with our own products was $89,000 worth. If we included corn, which we imported at the request and for the benefit of our farmers, the whole amount of agricultural products that came into competition with the products of our own farmers was but $5,700,000. When we consider these facts, must we not conclude that the resolution of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition goes a good deal further than the circumstances justify, when it calls on us to declare that our agricultural industry requires to be stimulated by an adequate tariff. It seems to me perfectly clear that, with the exception of a few manufacturing industries, there is no industry in this country that could be stimulated by an increased tariff, and during the past six years the output of our manufacturing industries has increased from $9,365,000 in 1896 to $18,462,000 last year. Even with regard to our manufacturing industries, the word adequate production has no significance, because, with the exception of a few, they are in a fairly prosperous condition, and when such a condition obtains they evidently enjoy what the hon. leader of the opposition calls an adequate protective tariff.
*The hon. gentleman read an extract from an interview with certain miners, in which the miners contended that the duty on wheat of twelve cents, on oats of ten cents, on hay of $2 a ton, and on eggs, three cents a dozen, bore very heavily upon them. The hon. gentleman was not suggesting that the protection given the farmers was too high. On the contrary, he thought it was not high enough. He believed that on certain agricultural products the duty should be increased so that a country like Canada, possessing agricultural capabilities second to none in the w'orld, should not be obliged to import from the United States nearly $28,000,000 of agricultural products and produce of animals. But, if he had said that out of this $28,000,000 of imports from the United States, $22,000,000 consisted of bananas and oranges and other articles in which our farmers are not interested, he would have presented a truthful statement. In declaring, however, that our imports of agricultural products amounted to $28,000,000 and then proceeding to base the argument he did on that statement, he produced a false impression. In order to obtain an Mr. HEYD.
accurate idea of the facts, I have looked into the Trade and Navigation Returns and I find that our imports were as follows :
Animals	$1,064,000
Grain	 489,000
And so on down, giving them the benefit of free corn and every conceivable thing that could possibly come into competition with the products of our Canadian farmers. The total importation amounts as the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, to about $6,290,000. How does this compare with the total products of the Canadian farm ? It is estimated by the Bureau of Industries of Ontario that our agricultural products last year amounted to $214,000,000. It was estimated years ago by the Dominion statistician that the agricultural products of (lie Dominion amounted to over $500,000,000. I believe he was over the mark but now we have probably reached that stage. I put the question. If we raise $500,000,000 worth of agricultural products, how can an importation of only $5,000,000 worth affect our market-an importation of only about one per cent of our whole product ? To say that such a small percentage of imports could affect the prices of our gross production seems to me a patent absurdity.
Let me see how this thing works out when we apply the figures. The hon. gentleman says that we allowed wheat in subject to a duty of 12 cents per bushel, well, last year we imported $89,000 worth and this country raised $100,000,000 worth. How much benefit would accrue to the farmers by increasing the duty on wheat ? On oats the duty is 10 cents per bushel and the hon. gentleman wants that duty raised. But, I find that the total quantity of oats we imported was but $71,000 worth and that the province of Ontario alone raised $28,000,000 worth. What proportion does our importation of oats bear to the quantity we raise ? It is almost infinitesimal and microscopic. We might almost call it a specimen of bacteria which we are called on to consider in connection with this question. On hay, the duty is $2 per ton, and we imported $121,000 worth, the bulk of which I presume went into British Columbia or some of those distant territories which our Ontario farmers cannot reach. Our production of hay in Ontario alone last year amounted to $37,000,000, and we are asked to believe that this importation of $121,000 worth of hay comes into competition with the entire production of hay of this Dominion, and that to keep it out of this country would be a great service to our agriculturists. Then take potatoes, we imported last year $102,000 worth. But Ontario alone raised $7,000,000 worth, and included in that importation of $102,000 worth are sweet potatoes and yams. Are we to believe that by raising the duty from 15 to 45 cents a bushel, our people would be enabled to raise

sweet potatoes and yams, and that we would thereby introduce a new industry into Canada ? My hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, even spoke of the advantage which increased protection would give our milk and cheese. Well, we imported milk to the extent of $55,000 worth, and cheese to the extent of $42,000 worth, and we are asked seriously to believe that this importation is a danger and a menace to the dairy industries of this country, which last year fed our own population of five and a half millions, and exported $19,000,000 worth of cheese and $6,000,000 worth of butter.
1 do not see anything in that resolution which throws out much encouragement to any of our industries. But I agree with the hon. the leader of the opposition on the importance of the home market to the people of Canada. I am of the opinion that that is a market which may be cultivated and developed, and which the government can cultivate and develop by-I will not call it a protective tariff for that term might be offensive to some of my friends-but by a tariffs for revenue. I believe that a tariff of revenue to a greater extent would be useful to the people of this country, and I shall try briefly to show by the trend of our trade during the past few years, that an absolute necessity for successful farming in Canada is the establishment of a home market. If we take the two great branches of the farming industry-agricultural products and animals-we will find that we have got two countries in the world to sell to and almost three to buy from. Of our entire exports, no less than 90 per cent goes to Great Britain and the United States; and of our entire imports we get 85 per cent from Great Britain and the United States. Germany supplies, of our imports, something over $10,000,000 and takes of our exports about $1,300,000. So, we cannot get hurt very much if they put a prohibitive tariff on our goods. We can eliminate the world in considering what the future lias in store for us. With only 15 per cent of our imports coming from countries other than Great Britain and the United States, and only 10 per cent of our exports going to the other countries, the proportion is so small as to have practically no effect. I have here a short summary showing some features of our export trade to Great Britain and to the United States in 1890 and 1902. I take these years because they are a little more convenient:



[Stage Direction]
Agricultural Products.
Great Britain. United States.
1896	$ 9,551,316	$3,232,7291902	
27,973,503	2,555,216$18,422,187*	$ 677,513f
* Increase, t Decrease.
Animals and Their Products.
Great Britain. United States.
1896	$32,523,070	$3,341,2751902	
52,687,998	5,139,262$20,164,928*	$l,797,987t
* Increase, t Increase.

[Stage Direction]
Great Britain. United States.
1896	$42,074,387	$6,573,0041902	
80,661,501	7,694,478$38,587,114*	$l,121,474t
* Increase, t Increase.
After seven years, we find that we have increased our exports to Great Britain by over $38,000,000, while our exports to the United States have increased only a little over $1,000,000. Now, let us look the facts in the case from the farmers standpoint, and consider, in view of the limited market in the world at large and in the United-States, what chance we have in the British market and in the market we can create for our own products among our own people. That is the proposition the farmers have to meet. It is no use for them to say to themselves :	We want to sell in the
dearest market and buy in the cheapest market. That would be an ideal condition, and may come when the millennium comes; but it is not here just now. The nations of the world simply say ; We. will not buy from you. That is what the United States tell us. It tells our farmers, with their surplus of $100,000,000 : We will only take five or six millions of certain qualities of your goods and the rest you can do what you like with. The question naturally arises, a question of considerable importance -is the market of Great Britain an unlimited market; can we continue for all time to send our export products to Great Britain ? Is there a time likely to come in the near future when we shall reach the limit of the demand for consumption in that country ? With the United States markets closed against us, with Germany, France and all the nations of the world with highly protective tariffs, our outlook as farmers is simply the outlook upon the British market and the home market-and the local market is of even more importance than the British market. Now you will bear in mind that Canada, at the present time is an agricultural country. The proportion of farmers to the rest of the community is as three to two. It has been changing, and changing rapidly, during the past ten years. Owing to the influx that has taken place of people going to our North-west, the present condition of affairs may continue and we may remain; an agriculltutral (community. But it is changing in the United States. That has ceased to be an agricultural country and has become a manufacturing country,
[Stage Direction]
for the proportion of farmers to others there is ten to twenty-one. Now, we are in the peculiar position still of being an agricultural country, capable for years to come of supplying far in excess of our wants, with the markets of the world, except Great Britain, barred against us. Therefore I say the development of a home market is a matter of great importance to the people of Canada. And the only way it can be done is by the application of a tariff for revenue purposes. The productive power of our farms last year was $500,000,000. We exported $100,000,000 worth, leaving $400,000,000 worth at home, of which, I presume, the rural population consumed at least one-half. It must not be forgotten that during the past year the rural population in old Canada has decreased by 112,000, while the urban population has increased by 364,000. In the province of Ontario, the farmers have decreased by 48,000, while the inhabitants of the cities, towns and villages have increased by 110,000. How much of our prosperity must be attributed to this change of population it is hard to say. It is commonly said that our prosperity is due to our export of farm products. But then, we consume in old Canada twice as much as we export. There are two or three ways open to us to enlarge the home market. Hon. gentlemen on the other side would say :	If you
have a highly protective tariff, that will cause all the goods required in this country to be manufactured in the country, and so yon will increase the urban population to such an extent that the farmers will have a population for their surplus products. Is that likely to be the case ? The United States tariff of 50 per cent! meets us when we seek to enter their market. In relation to grain, there is an unlimited market for many years in Great Britain. The imports of grain and flour into Britian last year, was $150,000,000. We have a long time to develop even the North-west before we can overtake that market, so that my present remarks do not apply to Manitoba and the North-west. But the old Dominion of Canada has ceased to be an exporter of grain. We hardly raise more than we ourselves consume. So, we are compelled to build up a different system of production in order to have an export trade. We have developed in a wonderful degree during the past few years the cheese industry, the bacon industry and the cattle industry. These are the three largest. Are we likely to overtake the consuming capacity of the British market in these lines ? Of cheese last year we exported to Great Britain $20,0001000 worth. The lentjire import in|to Great Britain in that year was $31,000,000. We have reached 65 per cent of the cheese trade of the British market, and it is the opinion now of men engaged in this business that we are exporting as much cheese as we are likely to do, unless, by improving Mr. HEYD.
the quality of the cheese, we may improve the desire to consume our cheese by the English people, in which ease that increase wrill be held by the Canadian makers of cheese. Take bacon, the next in importance of our exports last year, amounting to $12,400,000, whereas the consuming capacity of hog products in Great Britain was represented by an importation of $68,000,000 last year. There appears to be a big margin between $12,000,000 and $68,000,000, and people assume that all we have to do.is to go in and capture that market. But that is a delusion. Mr. Flavelle, the head of the Davies Pork Packing Company, in an address that he recently made before the Pig Breeders' Association of Canada, says that that is an entirely erroneous impression ; that we have already reached the extent of our bacon producing capacity ; that while the English people import some $68,000,000 worth of hog products, a large proportion of that is of the heavy, coarse hogs in which we cannot compete with the people of the United States, who can sell that class of hogs cheaper than we can ; so in that market the United States is supreme. With Denmark, England and Ireland as competitors, we may hold our own, will hold our own, and may capture any further increase that may be developed for Wiltshire bacon. In cattle we exported $9,000,000 worth out of a possible $44,000,000 worth. I am not a cattle man, I do not know what prospects there are for further developing that trade. We have competitors in the United States who can produce cattle as good as we can, and a little cheaper, because their corn is cheaper. We have competitors in Argentina and other places, where food is cheap and labour is cheap, and I have grave doubts whether we can materially increase even our exports of cattle. Therefore, the question presents itself with force to the farming community. Are these things true, and if true, wherein is the remedy ?
Seymour Eugene Gourley: The hon. gentleman says that hogs cannot be raised in this country as cheaply as in the United States. Would he state the reason why ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Mr. Flavelle says that more than one-half of the entire imports of Great Britain are composed of heavy, fat meat that can be produced cheaper in the United States than we can produce it in Canada, and that we cannot hope to be competitors with them.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Does the hon. gentleman know the reason why they can be produced cheaper there ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I am not in the hog business ; but Mr. Flavelle, who is the manager of the Davies Pork Packing Company, the largest house in this country, and being himself the best informed man in this country on that question, says so, and I am willing to take his statement.
,1781 APRIL 24, 1903 1782


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Where can I get that Information ? Mr. HEYD. Any farmer in the House can tell you. I am not a farmer. Mr. GOURLEY. I can understand that they would have some advantage over us. Mr. HEYD. There are two or three theories, but I do not know. Now what .alternatives have our farmers got ? First, they have the important one of developing the home market. Every additional consumer in Canada is a benefit to the farming community. If, by a rearrangement of our tariff, our industries were injured so that the urban population that is now the principal consumers for our farmers were compelled to leave this country, at once the farming industry would be depressed. But if, by a judicious and wise system of tariff reduction, this urban population can be increased, the manufactured goods that we get abroad in many lines would be made in this country, and that would help to build up our home industries. The only other alternative is for the farmer not to produce his stuff. He has got to face one of two propositions, either our own people must buy more of his surplus products, which will be the case if we increase the consuming capacity of the home market, or he must stop growing those products. Now then the question for him to consider is, how much will it cost to secure that home market. The farmers recognize that the protective tariff now in force in this country is in their interest. We have no farmers' deputations down here asking for a reduction of the tariff. They are willing to submit to the present tariff in order to develop the. home market. But they have a right to ask themselves, recognizing the benefit of the home market: How much is it going to cost to secure immediately that home market ? That is the crux of this whole question. Now the opposition say : Put on a prohibitive tariff, that will do the business. It will also reduce the great revenue enjoyed by the government. They will no longer have occasion to quarrel with the Finance Minister if they introduce a prohibitory tariff as a remedy for our present ills. The Finance Minister will no longer be able to say that he has a surplus of $13,000,000. That evil, if it is one, will certainly be done away with. The present tariff, while it encourages the home market, also provides a revenue for the government and secures a paying market for home manufactures, and general prosperity for all. That is the stand taken by the government, and the farmers accept these conditions. Some manufacturers are content with the present conditions, while some want more protection than they now get. While I am not prepared to say which class is entitled to an increase in the tariff, I do believe	that there are industries in this country that are being injured by the preferential, that have been injured in the past from the want of a surtax on German goods ; and there are industries that are being injured by under-valuation from the United States. Those industries that are being made a slaughter market for American goods should be considered, and their welfare should be looked after by the government of this country. I believe that the government is now alive to the situation, and recognize that under-valuation has been taking place for a number of years. They are appointing more officials on the customs staff in order to prevent that evil, and they are getting the machinery into good working order. I know some industries that are likely to be closed up from this very evil of under-valuation. Still, we must admit that the manufacturers as a whole, with the exception of a few, are in a highly prosperous condition, there is no question of that. I believe that the government will be alert, and will be able to meet any changed conditions that present themselves. Ubelieve they will have to be on the alert for that slump which the manufacturers fear on the other side. We do not fear it in this country, because we have not got our money all invested in the business. But we have to realize the tremendous development that is taking place in manufacturing interests in the United States, the terrible trusts and combines that have been formed there, which are more powerful even than the Senate and House of Representatives. It behooves us to realize that one company controls $140,000,000 worth of capital ; that there are nearly two hundred trusts controlling over $3,500,000,000 of capital, and producing nearly $1,661,000,000 worth of goods ; that the manufacturers of the United States produce about $7.000.000,000 worth, nearly $8,000,000,000 worth of manufactured goods properly so-called, or $13,000,000,000 worth if you include the products of the hand trades and reduplications. If you take the hand trades alone they amount to $8,500,000,000, of which not 31 per cent, but 12 per cent, is exported to the markets of the world. We find that the product amounts now to $800,000,000 more than the people of the United States consume: They have agents the world over selling goods at less than it costs to produce them, recouping themselves in the highly protected markets at home in order that they may make sacrifices in the markets of the world. Our manufacturers say there is a danger. As soon as the consumption in the United States for these manufactured goods cease, the productive power, which will not cease, will go on producing, they must immediately find markets and the question which presents itself to their minds is this : Is the Canadian tariff high enough, under the conditions which are sure to obtain in a short period of time to preserve for us what we

have spent years in accumulating and in developing-the manufactories over which we have control ? No wonder that they are asking for an increase in the tariff. If I were a manufacturer and had the same interests at stake, I think I, myself, would shout for higher protection, louder than I am doing to-day, but, I have faith that the government that in 1896 assumed the helm of affairs and directed the ship of state to the haven of prosperity, are still able and willing when the conditions change, once more to listen to the voice of reason and to continue to guide that ship in the future as in the past along prosperous lines.
Now, there is one industry iu particular that we ought to feel thankful the government have done something for, though they have done very little for it. The binder twine industry is a peculiar industry, separate from all others and it bears a peculiar relation to the other industries of the country. It has to compete for trade in Canada alone against an organized body of twine manufacturers, which controls 90 per cent of the entire output of the United States. The International Harvester Company is the octopus that they have to fight against and against their onslaught they are absolutely powerless. Many people have been induced to go into the manufacture of binder twine. The hon. Minister of Finance stated the other day that many have gone into it, but they have gone into it under a false impression. They were under the impression that because the Brantford Binder Twine Company in three years earned dividends amounting to 200 per cent, all they had to do was to get a company of farmers to put their money into -the binder twine business and -they would likewise be able to declare dividends of 40 per cent, O') pe<- cent and 100 per cent. It is not always that we have manilla wars. It is not always that raw manilla jumps from 34, cents a pound to 13 cents a pound. A company has to have on hand a large quantity of raw material in order to enable it to make a profit of nearly $150,000 on the increase in the value of its raw material alone. That accounts for the 200 per cent dividends declared by the Brantford Binder Twine Company, but last year, in the face of a first class consuming demand in the North-west Territories it made 8 per cent, the Ontario Farmers Company made 5 per cent, the Consumers Cordage Company, which did not happen to have on hand $150,000 worth of raw product, has made 21 per cent-, per annum during the last seven years. The Chatham Binder Twine factory is closed up, and the Richelieu Cordage Company has closed its factory. Nearly all the binder twine factories in this country are owned by farmers who have gone into the business to prevent monopoly and that is the reason why the Farmers Binder Twine Company of Brantford was started. It has been successful because some 8,000 farmers be-Mr. HEYD.
came the agents and distributing centres for the institution. It costs the company nothing to sell its goods and it is able to keep on making binder twine. But the others are in dread. They do not know where they stand to-day. The United States market is closed against them by a duty of 45 per cent upon all binder twine of which manilla is a component part. With an octopus there controlling 90 per cent of the entire output, with the ability to begin in Texas and follow the markets up and when they reach the latter part of the season with a remnant of their supplies on hand, Canada is the dumping ground. The menace is not to the binder twine companies alone, but it is to the farmers of this country. The independent binder twine companies which we have in Canada are absolutely at the mercy of this foreign corporation which can charge what they like and when they like. The farmers of Canada are absolutely at their mercy if they have a glut of grain, as they are likely to have this year, that may reach to the producing power of the binder twine companies, and when they come to take the crop from -the golden wheat fields they may find themselves left in the lurch for want of binder twine. The binder twine manufacturers met members of the government. They said :	If you will give
us a protection of 124 per cent on binder twine we will undertake to produce all the people of Canada want. We have producing power sufficient to meet the requirements of the Canadian consumers. We will agree to fix our price at the price quoted by the International Harvester Company to the people of the* United States and if we exceed their price you shall have the power by Order in Council to wipe out the duty so as to prevent us from getting a monopoly or extorting money from the consumers of the country. A proposition of that kind may be very difficult to deal with. Our farmer friends do not realize the importance of this question. We have the ability to make binder twine in Canada to-day. We have -the factories, we have the labour to make all this country demands and we will make it and sell it to the consuming public as cheaply as the International Harvester Company sell It to the people of the United States, if we have a certain amount of tariff for revenue applied to the binder twine industry. It is these industries which are being injured that I have the greatest solicitude for. It is not the establishments that are developing and increasing beyond all reason. It is -those that are being injured and which do not know what to do. They do not know what to do because the price of manilla had not until recently even been fixed. If it should turn out that they have too much binder twine in the United States there is nothing to prevent the International Harvester Company from saying that) the price in Canada shall be 12 cents per pound. Our price is 13 cents. The price

of pure raauilla is 13 cents. But, to suit their own purposes the price of the International Harvester Conqiany can he put down to 10 cents per pound for the purpose of wiping out every binder twine industry we have in this country. They are at the mercy of the trust. I would make it a little harder for the International Harvester Company to sell their goods in Canada. I would like binder twine to contribute by a revenue duty to the coffers of this country. Why should they have been singled out. If a revenue duty is the policy of the government it should apply to binder twine as well as to reapers and to mowers.
Now, Sir, I hear already that some industries that have been subjected to the preference; some that have been subjected to the slaughter, are being hard hit. I have letters from some which say that it may force them to close up. I have one letter from the Cutlery Company, who think they will not be able to wait until the government finds out whether Great Britain is going to give us a preference or the United States reciprocity. They cannot wait another year and fight against the present conditions. There are many industries in that position, and I do hope, and I hope with confidence, that the present condition will not last much longer; and that those people who have been hoping against hope as the binder twine people have been for five or six years, will be relieved from the tension to which they have been subjected, and at least put upon the plane that is occupied by the ordinary manufacturers of this country. I trust, Sir, that when this slump which is sure to come, manifests itself, the government will be on the alert, and if specific duties are needed or if anything else is needed to secure the manufacturers of this country from that invasion, they should be so secured. It is my opinion, Sir, that cheap goods to the consumer for a year or two, will never pay Canada for the loss of these magnificent manufacturing industries that have developed so wondrously during the last few years and are to-day the pride of this great Dominion of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear,


Mr. RICHARD BLAIN (Peel).: Mr. Speaker. I wish to join with the other members of the House in the expression of gratitude for the splendid prosperity that reigns throughout Canada at the present time. I will, however, have to differ from my hon. friends on the other side of the House, as to the cause of that prosperity, because I believe that a very large measure of our prosperity at the present day is due to the splendid national policy that was inaugurated by the Liberal-Conservative party in 1879.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Richard Blain: I listened to the lengthy speech of the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) and I was not surprised that the Speaker had to draw his attention to the fact that he was not keeping to the amendment before the House. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) said in answer to Mr. Speaker, that he had not read the amendment, but even that ignorance of the subject did not deter the hon. gentleman from criticising the leader of the opposition for promulgating a policy which he (Mr. Davis) had to admit he knew nothing about. Well, Sir, the policy of the Conservative party is adequate protection for home industries. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) told us that he could not understand the term ' adequate protection,' because it was not definite enough. As to that, it may liot be amiss for me to give him the authority of a gentleman of high standing in this House; a. gentleman whom he has supported for the last few years; a gentleman who stood so high in the estimation of the Reform party that he was selected by the l'riine Minister to take the most responsible portfolio in his government when he came to power in 1896.
I refer to the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). Let me in the first place read the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition. It is :
This House regarding the operation of the present tariff as unsatisfactory is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries as will at all times secure the Canadian market for Canadians ;
And that the financial policy of the government should include a measure for the thorough and judicious readjustment of the tariff at the present session
Now, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) does not understand that, let me read to him what the Hon. Mr. Tarte said about it the other evening, and perhaps that may illuminate the mind of the member for Saskatchewan. The Hon. Mr. Tarte said :
Let me compliment the hon. the leader of the opposition on the speech he has delivered:	On both sides of the House it is admitted to be one of the ablest utterances that have been made on the question of a tariff in this parliament. It is delightful to hear questions of that importance discussed in such an able manner. His motion has the right ring.
That illustrates the difference between the member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) and the member for St. Mary's, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte). Let me say further, Mr. Speaker, that there Is a demand from the people of the North-west for local self-government as we have it in the other provinces of the Dominion. Travelling through the territories last fall, I found that Liberals and Conservatives were agreed that the time had come when they should have local selfgovernment. And, is it not a surprise that a gentleman coming from the territories as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) does, should have addressed the House for two long hours and make no reference whatever to this all-

important question to the people of his constituency. On this subject let me quote what the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) said in 1893-not since the Liberals came into power but before they came into power, and that makes a great deal of difference with these gentlemen. Referring to the $277,000 that the Conservative government was voting in 1895 for the North-west Territories Mr. Charlton said :
We could save the whole of that expense by* allowing the North-west Territory people to manage their own concerns. Give them selfgovernment, do not lead them around as infants with a string, but let them manage their own business like free British subjects.
What does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) think about the condition of things now ? Does he think that because the member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) advocated free trade on agricultural implements and now favours a revenue tariff of 20 per cent on them, that this same hon. gentleman will give his adhesion to anything which the government proposes ?
I listened with some pleasure to the speech of the member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd), but I am unable yet to determine whether he is a protectionist or a free trader. I could not make out whether he was advocating a revenue tariff or protection; probably he was arguing for both. But for the information of the House let me quote something the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) said last year and which is to be found in ' Hansard,' page 299. He said :
I am in favour of increasing the protection on the woollen industry of this country.
Notwithstanding that he held this opinion last year, he is ready to stand up in the House to-day and to support the existing tariff, and to say that he is in favour of a revenue tariff, and to say further that the present tariff is all right. Why did he not tell his leader this year that he was in favour of increasing the protection of the woollen industries of this country. Again, he said last year :
I am willing to protect even to the extent of extreme protection.
What has changed his mind since. Further he said :
I am opposed to any kind of reciprocity with the people of the United States.
This is what he said last year, but to-dav he stood on the floor of the House to tell us, that he warned the government that the day is coming when the British market will in some measure be closed to us and that we will not be able to supply it to the extent that we are supplying it at the present moment. What does he ask ? He says the government is called upon to provide a home market for the farmers. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman, or the government themselves, how it is possible to have an increased home market without having increased Mr. BLAIN.
manufacturing establishments ? Every man knows that it is an utter impossibility.
The hon. Finance Minister, in his budget speech in the session of 1901, stated that he believed in a policy of stability of tariffs. The right hon. Prime Minister has made the same statement on several occasions. That is their policy as a government and a party. I think it is a very good text for the people of any country, so far as it can be lived up to. Would it not be well for us to look into this government's record to see if they have lived up to that splendid text ? The Liberal-Conservative party were defeated in 1890 ; the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power and formed his government ; and at the session of 1897 that government introduced what they called the Fielding tariff, and announced to the world : We present this to the people of Canada as a stable tariff ; stability of tariffs is our watchword. That tariff was adopted in 1897 ; but how long did these hon. gentlemen live up to their doctrine of stability of tariffs ? Not very long, for in the following session, that of 1S98, the hon. Finance Minister stood up in his place in the House and said to the manufacturing industries and to the people of Canada : We are going to alter the tariff and make a radical change. What was the change ? He announced a preferential reduction to British goods of 121 per cent; nay, it was supposed to be world-wide. How long did that last ? Not very long. In the next session, in 1899, the hon. Finance Minister again stood up in his place and announced another reduction. I suppose he said, discussing it in the Cabinet; This tariff is not satisfactory yet; we will have to forget that stable tariff doctrine, and put away the 12* per cent preference to goods coming to this country from England, and adopt a 25 per cent preference. And he announced that change in the House. Stability of tariff, do you say ? In the meantime, the manufacturers came to the government and said : We cannot continue our manufacturing if you continue this reduction of the tariff. Yet in the next session they came along with another sweeping change. They said : We will put away that 25 per cent preference and adopt a 331 per cent preference on goods coming from England. Would you call that a stable tariff ? Would it be called a stable tariff by men intending coming to this country to engage in agricultural or manufacturing pursuits ? Not a bit of it. In 1897 the government looked for something further. They said : There is to be a large development in the railways of Canada, and we will adopt some legislation to enable steel rails to be manufactured in this country. In November, 1900, just before the general election, the government sat down in Council and entered into a contract with the Clergue Company of Sault Ste. Marie, not by open Act of parliament, but by a special secret contract, given without competition,

to supply the government with 125,000 tons of steel rails. The contract was to extend over a period of five years. I heard the Finance Minister stand np in his place in the House and say : We are having a splendid steel rail industry established in the province from which X come, and it will soon be in operation. But that contract was not lived up to-why ? Because it was made in secret. Every man in this country should have had an opportunity of tendering for those steel rails. Speaking for myself, I am opposed to this kind of class legislation. Coming to the session of 1902 and keeping before our minds that promise to the people of Canada of a stable tariff, we had a discussion of the tariff in this House. The lion. ex-Mi'nister of Putoliq Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) the other evening, referring to the statement made by the lion. Minister of Finance on that occasion, said :
Last year my hon. friend the Minister o' Finance in his budget speech said that he would not revise the tariff that session, because there were reasons why he should not do so-the census returns of manufactures were not available, and the London conference was on ; but the words ot the hon. Minister of Finance, which I read in the House on another occasion, conveyed to the country the impression that the tariff would be revised this year. The business men of the country took those words as a pledge for a revision of the tariff at this present session. The words of the Finance Minister of last year were a great deal more definite on that point than his words of this year. Last year my hon. friend did not argue on principle against a revision of the tariff, hut we realize that conditions have arisen in the world that will make it necessary for us to revise the tariff at some future day. These words, I say, were understood to mean a revision this year. I can appeal to the business men of the country-they took the words of the hon. gentleman as a promise. I know that there are in Ontario and the province of Quebec several industries which cannot live under the present tariff, and there is one thing that surprises me. This Liberal side of the House is empty to-night. I would like to see it full. Bub what surprises me is that there are so many members of parliament on this side who have told us that they share my views, who have written me and told me repeatedly that they share my views, and who have not been able to impress their views on the Liberal party. I say it openly, I say it from the bottom of my heart, that I fully expected that the Liberal party, with which I have been connected during the last ten years, would carry out the policy it was understood in 1896 they would carry out. I am weighing my words. I know what arrangement, what understanding took place between some public men. I know what took place. I do not divulge any secrets. I know w'hat we did in the election of 1896 in Montreal. I see within the radius of my eye public men who, at our request, came to the city of Montreal, went to the manufacturers, with the knowledge of the leaders of their party, and told them not only would the tariff not be disturbed, but it would be changed in the right direction when the proper time came. There was no secret about that. I shall not give names. There are men who hear me-I
am sorry there are not more on those benches -who know' that I am perfectly right. I am out of office because I could not stay in office under the present circumstances.
What do hon. gentlemen think of that kind of a statement ? Is that a statement which should be made on behalf of a government that advocates stability of tariff ? What are we to think of hon. gentlemen, who advocate a policy of tariff stability, going secretly to the manufacturers, prior to the general elections, and saying to them : ' You need not be disturbed about our utterances. True, we have advocated reciprocity ; true we have promised free trade; but do not be alarmed, we tell you in secret-because we do many things in secret-that if the tariff be changed at all, it will be changed in the interest of the manufacturer.' Is it a matter for surprise that when we find a government, which pronounced itself in favour of stability of tariff, making important changes in that tariff every session, so that no one can tell exactly what may happen next, our capitalists and manufacturers should refuse to invest in manufacturing industries. This session the government have introduced a new feature into their so-called policy of tariff stability. They have inposed a surtax on goods from Germany. Well, Mr. Speaker, in my humble opinion such legislation is anything but wise and prudent statesmanship. I do not wish to be misunderstood. In saying this, I do not wish to be understood as being opposed to increased protection ? On the contrary, I am in favour of increasing protection to all our Canadian industries which require it. But at the same time, I do not think that it is wise or politic to single out any special country and say to that country: ' You shall not bring in your goods under the ordinary tariff, but you shall pay one-third more than the rates charged other countries.' If for no other such a policy is impolitic and inadvisable for this reason. We have in this country a large German settlement. We have particularly in the central part of Ontario-in Waterloo and in the surrounding district-many German settlers who are among the most prosperous and enterprising citizens to be found in this Dominion. We are inviting the surplus population of Germany to come in and settle on our unoccupied lands. We are holding out great inducements to good citizens from every part of the world to cast their lot in with us. But when a German immigrant takes up a location in bur Northwest, what will happen ? He may find beside him a Russian and along side the Russian a settler from some other foreign country, and when he takes up our tariff he will be confronted by this fact ; that goods from every foreign country in the world except Germany are admitted on the same basis, but on German goods a special tax is imposed, and that is a condition of affairs which will naturally excite his resentment and prejudice him against the

laws and institutions of his newly adopted country. That is why I am opposed to this policy of discrimination against the goods of any particular country. What I maintain is that the government should look carefully into the subject of imports from Germany, and if it came to the conclusion that the goods we import from that country could be and should be manufactured in Canada, then it would be perfectly justified, in the interests of this country, in making its tariff sufficiently high to keep out such imports and similar imports from every country in the world. But I do not think that it is wise to apply any special tariff to any one foreign country which is not equally applicable to every other.
My hon. friend from South Brant (Mr. Heyd) spoke a good deal about the farmers. He pleaded both for and against them. He argued that it was in the interests of the people that we should have protection, but he immediately proceeded to warn the people against too high protection. He at first said that our imports from the United States did not hurt us and then he dwelt on the necessity of our imposing a higher tariff on some American products, especially barb wire and binder twine. Bet me refer to that binder twine question. When we had a Liberal-Conservative government in power, that government put a duty of 124 per cent on binder twine imported into Canada, no matter from what country. The Reform party took issue with the Liberal-Conservatives in that tariff and claimed that, in the interests of the Canadian farmer, binder twine should be admitted free. If that were done, they said that our farmers would purchase their binder twine at cheaper rates. They applied the same argument to barbwire, which was protected by the Liberal-Conservative government. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Reform party came into power and took the duty off binder twine and barb-wire. This gave the Canadian people an opportunity to compare the results of the two policies. What has been the .result of taking off the duty ? Why, the result has been that every year since then we have had a large quantity of binder twine and barbwire manufactured by foreigners coming into this country and sold to our Canadian farmers at higher rates than formerly were the rule, when these two industries enjoyed the advantage of protection. And we have today that devoted Liberal, my hon. friend from South Brant (Mr. Heyd), lifting up his hand and appealing to have the tariff raised again because at this moment our binder twine factories are closed down.
Which of the two great parties, Mr. Speaker, are entitled to the support and confidence of the farmers of Canada ? Both sides are in accord on this point, that our farming community is the most important in this country. I am one of those who believe that the farmers of Canada can be protected.


Richard Blain: 


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Most of all. [DOT]


Richard Blain: Most of all, as my hon. friend says. Let me go back to 1878, when the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie was in power as First Minister of the Liberal administration. Taking up the tariff of the Reform government of that day, what do I find ? I find that wheat was admitted into this country free of duty. Let me give a list of the farm products admitted free of duty into this country under the Reform government. That list was composed of wheat, barley, peas, oats, rye, eggs, wheat flour, oatmeal and cornmeal. There was at that time a great political issue between the two great bodies contending for the mastery. The Liberal-Conservative opposition, headed by that distinguished statesman, the late Sir John Macdonald, said that if returned to power they would inaugurate a national policy, not for the benefit of the manufacturers alone, but for every class of people, including farmers. They were elected in 1S78, and in their tariff of 1879 they showed how they looked after the interests of the farmers. In that tariff the following duties were imposed on agricultural products :
Wheat	15	cents	per	bushel.Barley	15	"Peas	10	"	"Rye	10	"	"Eggs	
5	"	per	dozen.Wheat flour	
50	" per barrel.Rye flour	
50	"	"Oat meal	
4 a cent per pound.Corn meal	40 cents per bushel.
There were some changes made by the Liberal-Conservatives from 1879 down to the time they went out of office in 1896.
Some slight reductions were made in these duties, reductions that, speaking for myself, I do not approve of. If I may be permitted to say so, I think the Liberal-Conservative party made a mistake on that-question. The Liberal party came into power and found this tariff on farm products-a duty on everything the farmer sells, showing the belief on the part of the Liberal-Conservative party that all classes of people should have protection. And are those duties still in existence under this free trade government that used to declare that the farmers could not be protected ? That is what they told us in this House and what many of them still tell us in the country. They promised the country free trade. Why did they not carry out that promise and strike off this list of duties ? Why does not my hon. friend from South Brant (Mr. Heyd) or my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) advocate such a course ? Why does not the government, if it believes that protection does not protect the farmer, strike off these duties when revising the tariff ? This should be made a test question between the parties, so that the people of Canada may understand it.

I have a list here of farm and market-garden produce imported last year into this country, all of which, in my opinion should have been grown in Canada
Wheat	$7,217,137
Rye	 239,404
Pease	 20,748
Oats	 131,818
- Wheat flour	 155,544
Beans	 21,333
Tomatoes, fresh	 54,047
Apples	 90,307
Blackberries, gooseberries, raspberries and strawberries.. ..	94,192
Potatoes	   88,017
Horses	 570,651
A very large part of these goods came from the United States. And, if hon. gentlemen opposite would like to know my opinion of ' adequate protection ' and the opinion of my honoured leader and the Conservative party, I may tell him that 'adequate protection ' applied to that list would mean such protection as to cause these goods to be grown in this country. But, is there any difference now between the two parties on this question. There was a motion moved in this House last session by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Leonard), as follows :-
That it is greatly in the interest of the market gardeners and the farmers, that the duties on our Canadian garden products be so adjusted as to guarantee the Canadian farmer an effective protection against foreign competition.
That is ' adequate protection ' put into a resolution. And how did this resolution fare with this government and with this House ? Where were these hon. gentlemen who are now seeking for the farmers' votes ? I take up the list, and X find that the right hon. leader of the government himself, every member of the government and every supporter of it recorded his vote against it.


Mr. CLANCY.: How about the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) 1


Richard Blain: He voted with his party of course, and made a speech on the subject.
Mr. GOUItLEY. That must have been a mistake.


Richard Blain: Not at all. What the hon. gentleman said was :	Wait till you see us
next year. And this year the opportunity has gone by and nothing is done.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: What was the motion we voted on ?


Richard Blain: I read it; was the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) asleep ?


Archibald Campbell: -We did not vote against that motion.


Richard Blain: Oh, yes.


Archibald Campbell: No, we didn't.
Mr. BIjAIN. Here is the record :-
House divided on motion for adjournment-
And among those who voted was the hon. member for West York.


Archibald Campbell: That is a very different thing.


Richard Blain: Will the hon. gentleman stand up in this House and say that he did not vote against it ?


Archibald Campbell: Certainly.


Richard Blain: Of course he would. I could not expect anything different, for the hon. gentleman promised the electors of West York when he was seeking their votes, that he would represent them before this government and said he was the man to do it. He said :	What is the use of sending
an opposition supporter if you want protection on the farmers products ? They voted for him, and the first thing he did when he got to the House was to stand up and speak against this motion. And not only did he speak against it, but he voted against it.


Archibald Campbell: Read my speech, and you will find it in favour of the motion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman spoke one way and voted the other.


Archibald Campbell: Read my speech.


Richard Blain: What does the hon. gentleman say about it now ?


An hon. MEMBER.: He will tell you next year.


Richard Blain: As the hon. gentleman says ho spoke for it last year, would it be unreasonable to expect, if he is an honourable representative, that he would vote for it now ? But I will not pursue that further.


Archibald Campbell: Better not; you won't make anything out of it.


Richard Blain: Of course, I could not make anything out of the hon. member (Mr. Campbell).


Archibald Campbell: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) will have to reckon with the electors of Peel.


Richard Blain: I am not at all afraid of that reckoning. I will be able to invite my hon. friend (Mr. Campbell) over to give us a few speeches in favour of protection and vote for free trade, or in favour of free trade and vote for protection. No doubt he will be generally welcome, because he will be. a useful man on either side of the question. But I was speaking of the farm products imported into this country that should have been produced by our own farmers, and I read the resolution which shows the distinction between the two great political parties in this House. One thing at least will be plain-that the Liberal-Conservative party has spoken in favour of a protection and voted for it. Throughout the country, whether east or west, it stands for adequate



protection in every province. That is the record of our leader, and behind him he has an ardent following who, though few in numbers, are all in favour of adequate protection to the farmers of this country. Not quite so much can be said for hon. gentlemen on the other side. During last year they lost a member of the government who, on the floor of this House gave us his reasons for leaving that he could not concur with the government in their trade policy.
Now, I wish to give a list of certain articles and duties imposed under the Canadian tariff and under the American tariff, and to ask the House how they can expect that a people of five and a half millions can compete with a people of eighty millions, when there is such a tariff advantage in favour of the American farmer. Here are the figures of the Canadian tariff
Canadian. Tariff.-Butter, 4 cents a pound ; cheese, 3 cents a pound ; eggs, 3 cents a dozen; barley, 30 per cent equals 12 cents a bushel ; wheat, 12 cents a bushel ; oats, 10 cents a bushel : pease, 10 cents a bushel ; hay, $2 a ton ; potatoes, 15 cents a bushel.
American tariff.-Butter, 6 cents a pound ; cheese, 6 cents a pound ; eggs, 5 cents a pound; barley, 30 cents a bushel ; wheat, 25 cents a bushel ; oats, 15 cents a bushel ; hay, $4 a ton. potatoes, 25 cents a bushel.
Now then, I have another partial list which I wish to present to the House, showing the manufactured gcods that were imported into this country last year, every dollar's worth of which should have been manufactured in Canada :
Boots and shoes	$701,383
Barb wire	 826,846
Farm wagons	 95,512
Buggies	 71,192
Portland cement	 861,751
Wheel barrows, trucks and
hand carts	 44,894
Box and flat cars	 443,931
Harness and saddlery	 82,137
Furniture	  489,306
Gloves	-,. 653,234
Scales	 103,592
Now, Mr. Speaker, applying to this list of goods the resolution of the hon. the leader of the opposition, demanding adequate protection, every dollar's worth of these goods would be manufactured in this country by Canadian workingmen. That is the difference between the tariff policies of the two parties at the present time.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: What was the importation of agricultural implements that had adequate protection, according to the leader of the opposition ?


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman may deal with that himself when he comes to speak. But I would remind him that when he was in opposition he went up and down this country stating that agricultural implements ought to be admitted in this country free. Now he comes forward as one of the leading spirits in retaining a tariff of 20 Mr. BLAIN.
per cent on agricultural implements, the very tariff the Liberal-Conservative party put on when they were in power. If I were permitted a reference to his own business, I would ask him to look up the tariff and find out to what extent the business in which he is engaged is now protected, whether he is not enjoying protection as well.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that I advocated free agricultural implements ?


Richard Blain: I say that the hon. gentleman spoke to the farmers of Ontario condemning the Liberal-Conservative government for keeping a protective duty on agricultural implements. Does the hon. gentleman deny that ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Certainly.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend say that he did not support a party in the country and on the floor of this House which opposed the policy of the Liberal-Conservative party in imposing a duty on agricultural implements, as being against the interests of the farmers of this country ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Stick to what you said.


Richard Blain: Well, the hon. gentleman is a little worried, and I will leave him alone. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is stated by some supporters of the government that protection increases the price of agricultural implements to the farmers. That statement has been made in western Canada, and it is made on the floor of this House. Now, it would be fair to inquire from people in the United States, the highest protective country in the world, how the farmers fare in that country in that regard, whether they are paying more for their agricultural implements by reason of living under a highly protective tariff. I made it my business to write a few letters to [DOT] gentlemen, entire strangers to myself, inquiring the price of binders in the United States. Here is one of the letters that I received in answer, dated Milton, North Dakota, February 28, 1903 :
Richard Blain, Esq.,
Brampton, Ont.
Dear Sir,-At the request of Mr. John Mc-Cowan, we give you herewith the retail cash price of McCormick and Deering binders for 1902.
McCormick, 6-foot	$125
"	7-foot	 130
Deering, 6-foot	 123
" 7-foot	 130
I have another letter from Horton & Co., of Mayville, North Dakota, dated March 14, 1903 ;
Richard Blain, Esq.,
Brampton, Ont.
Dear Sir,-McCormick six-foot, right or left hand binders, were sold by us in 1901-2 for $115 ; seven-foot, $5 more or $130 cash.

That is what farmers are paying for their binders in the greatest protective country in the world. Contrary to statements that we have heard on the floor of this House, I affirm that farmers in the United States are paying as low a price for their binders as the farmers of any other country in the world. Now, what are they paying in Canada ? This morning I telephoned to the Massey-Harris Co., Ottawa, asking the manager the prices at which he sold his binders to the farmers in the vicinity of Ottawa in 1902, and this is his reply: Six-foot Massey-Harris binder, $120 cash ; seven-foot Massey-Harris binder, $125 cash. So you will see, Mr. Speaker, that there is very little difference in the prices of agricultural implements in Canada and in the highest protective country in the world. The farmers in both countries are buying their agricultural implements very cheap. I also wrote to Senator Jones, a well-known gentleman recently appointed to the Senate, asking him to name the three countries in which farmers could purchase their binders the cheapest. The first country he named was the United States, the most highly protected country in the world, in which farmers purchase agricultural implements cheaper than in any other country. In his letter he said there was very little difference between the two countries, that the farmers of the United States and the farmers of the Dominion of Canada purchased their binders at about the same price. So, I will submit that to the House, and I will submit Senator Jones' name who wrote me a letter saying that the farmers purchased their binders in the United States and Canada cheaper than in any other two countries in the world, both of these countries being under something of a protective tariff. Now, I wish to say just a word or two in conclusion. I am informed that the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) is to follow me, and I want to refer him to the matter about which I am now going to speak.


Mr. HOLMES.: I might inform the hon. member (Mr. Blain) that the arrangement has been changed, and that the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) will speak.


Richard Blain: The hon. member for West Huron will speak at some time, and when he does speak he will be good enough to answer this, I am quite "sure. I have a letter from the town where he lives addressed to the Hon. W. S. Fielding, M.P., Minister of Finance. It bears date Clinton, Ontario, 30th March, 1903, and it is written by Mr. John Hansford, of the firm of It. and J. Hansford, manufacturers and dealers in salt, Clinton, Ontario. I shall read just one or two paragraphs from this letter. He says :
The salt industry is a most important one. It gives employment to a large number of workmen, and is a direct benefit to the farming 574
class, in that large sums are paid annually for all barrel material.
Many works are shut down and capital unproductive owing to the present conditions of the tariff. There is ample capacity to supply the requirements of the Dominion if Canadian salt makers were permitted to have possession of their own rightful market.
The quality of salt produced in Canada compares favourably with the production of any other country
There is a duty on salt imported from the United States of 5 cents per 100 pounds in bulk and 74 cents per 100 pounds in packages.
There is a duty imposed on salt going into the United States of 8 cents per 100 pounds in bulk and 12 cents per 100 pounds in packages.
There is no duty on salt imported into this country from any other source than the United States.
The imports of salt from Mediterranean pons and Great Britain amount approximately to an average of 100,000 tons or 700,000 barrels per annum.
The annual consumption of salt in Canada may be calculated at 1,000,000 barrels or 150,000 tons.
Practically two-thirds of the market is therefore filled with foreign made salt admitted with the package entirely free of duty.
He says in conclusion :
In view of the foregoing it is asked that a duty similar to that existing in the United States be imposed on all salt coming into Canada, viz.: 8 cents per 100 pounds in bulk and 12 cents per 100 pounds in packages.
That illustrates the condition of a large number of manufacturing establishments in this country that are suffering under the present tariff. The woollen industry is suffering. My hon. friend from South Brant (Mr. Heyd) has stated that the binder twine industry is suffering. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the cotton industry is suffering. The farmers are suffering in many instances because there is not a higher protective tariff on their produce. I should like to make one further statement on the farming question. There were in 1879, duties placed on butter, cheese and eggs coming into this country. These items have been protected continuously whether the Liberal Conservative party were in office or the Keform party were in office. These three industries that are entirely farming industries have been protected ever since 1879, and I wish to say, and I make this statement on high authority, that there is no animal in this country considering its value, that produces so much profit for the farmers as the hen. The egg producing industry, the cheese industry and the butter industry that have been protected continuously by both political parties all these long years are in a prosperous condition. The farmers of Canada are supplying the butter that is used by the people of Canada. The fanners of Canada are supplying the cheese that is used by the people of Canada, and the farmers of Canada are supplying the eggs that are consumed by the people of Canada. Now, a considerable quantity of these commodities come in un-

der the present tariff, from the United States, and I submit that adequate protection should be applied to these articles, that in accordance with the principles enunciated in the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) the tariff should be placed sufficiently high so. that the United States farmers could not send to this country one dollar's worth of these goods in competition with the product of our own farmers. In conclusion I wish to say that I am in favour of the amendment submitted by the hon. leader of the opposition, that I believe in a higher protective tariff for the industries of this country, that I think the market gardeners and the farmers of Canada should have received better treatment at the hands of this government than a promise, that I am in favour of and will support legitimate and adequate protection for the farming industry, for the manufacturing industry, on every article that can be grown on Canadian farms and on every article that can be manufactured by the Canadian people. That is the policy I am prepared to support. I will support it if it comes from the Liberal side of the House, and I will support it if it comes from this side of the House. So soon as a resolution is introduced into this House adopting protection that will measure up to the standard I have laid down, I will stand up in my place and support that resolution, because I think it is in the best interests of the farmers of the county I have the honour to represent, and in the best interests of the people of Canada from one end of the country to the other.


Mr. PRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the discussion on the amendment, and on the budget propositions that have been presented. I would like to state my position in regard to the amendment by congratulating the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) on the fact that his budget, as presented, turned down fairly and squarely the insolent and absurd demand made a few days before the session opened by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association for the application of a prohibitive tariff to Canada. I may say when the campaign on behalf of this demand was in progress during the past year, the result was looked to with some degree of doubt. It may be said that those who doubted had not proper confidence in the minister, or in the ministry. But there are many sides to the question and when it is remembered that the minister has always been careful not to take an extreme position on the tariff ; that he has always held that the tariff is rather a compromise than a finality ; that it does not, as did the tariff of the preceding government, represent the acme of human wisdom ; and when besides and beyond that it is remembered that this Mr. BLAIN.
association was actively organized for the express purpose of forcing tariff concessions, backed as they claim by some $400,000,000 of capital, and being in a position to enforce their demand if such demands could be enforced, it was not wonderful if we should look for some changes and some effort to satisfy these gentlemen to a degree. I say, Sir, that it is with extreme satisfaction the country has heard that these demands have not been acceded to in any degree; and that the tariff stands,to-day, without concession, as it did a year ago. I do not claim, nor is it claimed by any one, that the tariff is perfect, that any tariff can be perfect; or that changed conditions do not necessitate from time to time changes in the tariff. We all agree to that, but when a' straight demand, a bulldozing demand was made upon the government for concessions which in my humble estimation at any rate, and I believe in the estimation of the large majority of the people of this country were absolutely unreasonable, it is a satisfaction that they simply were not acceded to in any part. It was the only answer that could properly be given ; it was the answer that was given, and the government is to be congratulated upon that answer. I believe that had there been any tampering with the general tariff at this session-I say this for the information of the government-I believe that had there been any tampering with the tariff at this session looking towards increases, it would have been taken by the country at large as a surrender on the part of the government to those demands of the manufacturing association, and that there would have been created a lack of confidence on the part of their friends towards the government that would have had serious if not actually disastrous results.
While we have to congratulate the minister upon the stand taken in regard to these demands, it appears to me, however, that throughout the course of this debate, there has been a lack of appreciation of the respective magnitude of the various interests involved. I do not know whether the government is in danger of being finally stampeded into a policy of protection by the continual outcry that is made from, not only the other side of the House but also from this side of the House. But it may not be out of order in any case for me at this stage of the debate to present in some degree the case for the Canadian consumer, who seems to have been entirely forgotten up to the present moment.
We have heard of this, and that, and the other industry which is suffering for more protection. Now, for my part. I am a protectionist ; I believe thoroughly in protection. I am no theoretical free trader. I believe that it is the business of the government of the country to take any means that may be necessary to advance the interests of the country whether it be by tariff adjustment or by any other means. The dif-

ference between myself and the gentlemen wTho have already . spoken here on this subject seems to. be, that they recognize a high tariff as the only method of protection, and they recognize the manufacturing industry as the only interest that is worthy of protection. I decline to accept the proposition that high tariff is the only method of protection, and I much more strongly deny the proposition that the manufacturing industry is the only one worthy of protective consideration. What proportion does the manufacturing industry of Canada bear to the other industries of Canada ? If we take the exports of Canada we find :	That the mines export
$10,000,000; the fisheries, $10,000,000; the forests, $21,000,000 ; agriculture, $93,000,000; and manufactures, $1S,000,000. We find that by the last census the population of Canada was in the neighbourhood of 5.000,000, and the number of people actually employed in what are generally considered to be manufactures, amounted to about 100,000. Now, as a large number of those who ore employed in manufactures are not adults, it would not be fair to give the usual count of five persons dependent upon each operative ; but allowing four, it would appear that there were about 400,000, people out of our population of 5,000,000 who are directly interested in manufactures, or practically one individual as compared with nine individuals interested in the other industries of the country. I say that any legislation which looks to the protection or the advantage of the interests in which only one-tenth of the people are concerned, ignoring the interests and advantage of the nine-tenths, is not properly a policy of protection. It will be conceded by all, that those industries of the country which are the exporting industries, the price of whose product is necessarily regulated by the export market are not susceptible of benefit from a protective tariff to anything like the same degree that is an industry whose prices are regulated by the home demand rather than by the export price. You can, by raising the duty, raise the price of a manufactured article, so long as that article depends chiefly on the home market for its consumption. You cannot raise the price by increasing the duty on an article whose price chiefly depends upon the export market. That is the position as it exists as between the manufacturing industry and those other creative industries of the country, and the policy which undertakes to advantage the one-tentli at the expense of the nine-tenths is a policy which cannot be recognized as a protective tariff, and which I do not think this country at this time and in its present condition will recognize as a protective policy. We have no quarrel with the manufacturers of Canada ; we have no wish other than they should prosper. Our objection is that the manufacturers of Canada desire to prosper by reason of tariff adjustment rather than by reason of
their own exertions, energy and ability. We who depend on agriculture are left to our own resources. We must necessarily maintain our position in the markets of the world, let those markets be high or low, and all we ask is that the manufacturing industries be left in the same position approximately. It was said by the preceding speaker that the agricultural industry is protected. I think the hon. leader of the opposition said the same thing. They both want it to be more protected, and they, argue that those who do not believe in a high tariff should declare for no tariff at all on agricultural products. Would they please remember that, in the first place, the tariff does not exist for the puprose of protecting any industry.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend will pardon me, I think he expressed himself on one occasion in favour of a duty on oats, saying that it had a good effect in protecting the western farmer. I remember seeing an article of that kind in the very able journal over which he presides.


Frank Oliver: I intend to come to that. These hon. gentlemen argue that as we are not in favour of a high tariff, we should therefore hold that there should be no tariff on agricultural products. Now, the tariff is imposed for the purpose of raising a revenue by customs taxes, and there is no reason why that revenue should not be raised by a tariff on agricultural products as well as on anything else. There is no reason why the farmers should not have the benefit of the incidental protection which results from! a revenue tariff. That is all the protection the farming industry has, and we certainly demand our share of that incidental protection. But while that is true as regards agricultural products in isolated cases, it1 does not apply to the general output of agriculture. On the great export products of wheat, cattle, butter, eggs and poultry, a protective tariff is practically of no use at all in the way of increasing prices. Do my hon. friends deny that ? Do they say that the agricultural duties do increase the general prices of these products to the farmers ?


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman permit me ? I think that may be answered by the course of the government in makiug a reduction in the duties on corn and wheat and corn meal.


Frank Oliver: I was not asking about the policy of the: government. I was asking the question of the opposition.


James Clancy: That answers the hon. gentleman.


Frank Oliver: I do not want that answer. I want the answer from the opposition, not from the government. If they could advance the prices of agricultural products by increasing the duties, why did they not, during the agricultural depression which existed

previous to 1890, increase those duties and thereby increase the prices of the fanners' products ? Either they were not able to increase the prices by increasing the duties, or they were not willing to. They can adopt which inference they like. If they were able to and did not, they were nut friends of the farmers; and if they were not able to, they should not stand before this House and claim that it is possible to increase the prices of agricultural products by increasing the duties.
Our position, then, as representing agriculture, is this :	We accept the position as
to raising the duties by means of a revenue tariff. Having accepted that position, we are entitled to such a measure of incidental protection as is afforded by a revenue tariff, and we demand that every other industry in the country shall be put on the same footing. That is where we take issue with our friends of the Manufacturers'Association.
Just what does the demand of this Manufacturers Association amount to ? There may be people who imagine that it is simply a demand to revert to the so-called national policy tariff of 1878. But there was all the difference in the world between the so-called national policy of 1878, and the demand of the Manufacturers' Association. The national policy of 1878 was placed before the country on the plea that the manufacturers needed assistance-that if they were given assistance, it would benefit the country at large, and that in the end the prices of manufactured goods would come down. The demand of the Manufacturers' Association is that the tariff shall be raised for the purpose of preventing goods from coming in. It is not the demand of an industry that wants assistance; it is the demand of an industry which, having grown and become strong, demands to be relieved from competition. In 1878 it was a request to help the manufacturers, in order that the country might be helped; but the demand of to-day is that the manufacturers shall be protected so that, no matter what happens to the country, they will be all right. That is the position put before the House by lion, gentlemen opposite during this debate. 1 think it was the hon. leader of the opposition who argued that, as we see hard times ahead of us, when; Canada may become a slaughter market for imported manufactured goods, we want a prohibitive tariff against those times. On what grounds of justice do the manufacturers make this demand ? When the hard times come, the purchasing power of the people is decreased. Are they then to be compelled, under stress of a" tariff law, to pay more for the goods they shall have to buy, in order that our friends the manufacturers shal be lifted above the general depression ? I hope not. I do not agree with any such contention. I think that of all the unreasonable demands that have been made on behalf of the manufacturers, that is the most unreasonable. We are willing that they should share with Mr. OLIVER.
us in the general prosperity, but we ask that they should also share with us in the general adversity when it conies. When we have only 50 cents to buy a dollars worth of the goods we require, we do not want them to be placed in a position to charge us a dollar for only 50 cents worth of goods.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
Mr.   R.@: LEMIEUX (Gaspe) moved that the House go into Committee on Bill (No. 28) respecting the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway Company (amended).
Mr. INGRAM, The bon. member for Jacques Cartier asked that that Bill do be allowed to stand over until next week.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I am sorry to say that I cannot allow it to stand over until next week, because the promoters of this railway are already hard at work in the interests of the company. There is a survey going on and the works will be started shortly during this session and besides I may inform my hon. friend that this afternoon I was told by the hon. member from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) who takes a deep interest in this Bill that he did not intend to make any objection to its being reported and read the third time.


Mr. C. MARCIL (Bonaventure).: I wish to explain why I do not raise any objection to this Bill as now framed. My instructions were first to oppose the Bill because the promoters intended constructing the road through the interior of Gaspe, some sixty or seventy miles from the shore, which would not suit the people of that country, who live almost exclusively along the shore. Both the Quebec and Dominion governments have expended a million and a half dollars to help in the construction of the Baie de Chaleurs railway, which extends 100 miles from Metapedia down to Paspe-biac. Public interest requires that this road should be completed before another road is undertaken through the interior of the peninsula, where as yet there is no population. It was my intention to oppose the Bill before the House if the company had not bound itself to build the shore line concurrently with their line in the interior. The Quebec legislature granted a charter two years ago and revived it this month, so that the company could proceed with its work, in the interior regardless of any legislation here. But in view of the fact that it is willing to build the shore line at the same time as the line through the interior, I have concluded that there

is no objection to the measure. The conditions are most reasonable. The company has to build ten miles of its road from the terminus of the Atlantic and the Lake Superior railway within one year, or else its charter will lapse for both the shore line and the line through the interior. It is a fair compromise in the interest of both Bonaventure and Gaspe counties. The peninsula has been sadly in need of railways for many years. The change in the policy of the government about 1SS4 prevented the people there having the railway which they might have had if the original Baie de Ohaleurs road had been constructed as part and parcel of the Intercolonial Railway instead of being handed over to a private railway company, and we would have been spared the long series of scandals connected with the Baie de Cha-leurs road. At present the English bondholders are in possession of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway, the company having transferred to them the road on account of its inability to pay the interest on the bonds. Had the trustees of that company come forward with a reasonable proposition and undertaken to continue the Shore line, L would have given them the preference. But, in the absence of any such proposition, and in view of the fact that there are 8300,000 owing by the company to the farmers and labourers in the county of Bonaventure, the only option left me was to give the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway Company a fair chance.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I concur in the remarks of my hon. friend from Bonaventure. If the promoters of this company had agreed to build only the line through the interior,
I myself, as representing the county of Gaspe, would not have supported the Bill. But I induced the company to add to its Bill a clause in the nature of a compromise, by which the company is obliged to extend its railway from Gaspe Basin at the extremity of the peninsula as far as the terminus of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Company. This company has given further evidence of its bona fides. During the last two months it has made a complete survey of the interior and the reports so far are most favourable. The survey of the interior line is now completed and Mr. O'Sullivan, a well known surveyor from the province of Quebec is now en route to survey the coast line from Gaspe Basin to Paspebiac. I am pleased to say that within one year from the sanction of this Act we will have at least ten miles and perhaps more, constructed along the shores -of Gaspd and the county of Bonaventure. This Bill, has given rise to some discussion in the press and I am sorry to say that those who wrote in the newspapers were far from being well informed. This Bill represents public opinion in the county of Gaspe and Bonaventure and I shall not attempt to inflict on the House a reading of the numerous petitions
which I hold in my hand. But, I may say that, with the amendment suggested by my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Mareil), to which I have agreed, and which I seconded with pleasure in the Railway Committee, a new era has dawned on the county of Gaspf: and the county of Bonaventure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee on the Bill.
On section 3,
Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would shut out all other claims. As I understand it, as a matter of law, when you specify some claims, the others are excluded. There may or may not be other claims, but, if there are, this would prejudice them.


Charles Marcil: I may explain that this principle was adopted by the House last year on the Bill for the. GaspS and Western Railway. This section is to cover the claims of labourers, boarding house keepers, those who supplied material, and local merchants. Of course, the bondholders are guaranteed by the possession of the road and the bonds, and those having judgments are guaranteed by their judgments.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Of course, the bondholders can take care of themselves.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This section is put in only in case this company should buy or lease the other railway, which they do not intend to do. It is only a measure of precaution which my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Mareil) deems it proper to take.


Mr. HENDERSON.: It seems to me that these are unusual proceedings. Judging from what you have read, Mr. Chairman, so much has been added to the Bill, or so many changes have been made, that, in all fairness to the House, the Bill should have been reprinted, so that we might have an opportunity of studying the changes proposed. I presume there are very few members, perhaps not more than two or three, who really have any intelligent knowledge of the character of this legislation. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) who, no doubt, has more special knowledge on this subject than the rest of us on this side of the House, has made a request that the Bill should lie over. I think it is only reasonable that that request should be acceded to in order that we may have some person to speak for us with respect to these changes. I would not raise any objection to hurrying this Bill through the House were it not for the fact that no person is here to represent the government in this matter. I regard it as the duty of the Minister of Railways to be in his place when private Bills of this character are being passed through tlieir various stages, so that we may appeal to him and ascertain whether lie has pronounced upon the Bills and whether. in the opinion of his department they ought to pass. The minister is absent, and

there is no one here to represent him or to represent the Department of Railways and Canals. We are in utter ignorance as to the character of this legislation, and this is especially true since the Bill has been altered to such a very large extent as would appear from the amendments you have read. I think that, in the absence of the bon. member for Jacques Cartier, we are entitled to express the desire that the Bill should be laid over. The delay will be very slight and no inconvenience, so far as I can see, will result. I understand the measure would come up again ou Monday. I think it is only fair that this request should be acceded to that we may have an opportunity of studying the proposed amendments and dealing with the Bill on its merits. Otherwise we may regret that the Bill was allowed to go through in this hasty way. There may be wonderful revelations. We have heard a great deal about this railway. The old Baie des Chaleurs Railway once created a great sensation in this House. In fact we look with a great deal of suspicion on anything^ connected with railways down in Gaspe. I think it was well that the members of the House should have every opportunity of informing themselves before this legislation is allowed to go through. I again ask the leader of the House to consent to granting the request of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I want to say that the Minister of Railways and Canals has an urgent engagement for to-night, and in speaking to me concerning these Bills, he said that each one of them had been fully considered and dealt with in the Railway Committee, and there was no objection to any of them, otherwise he would have cancelled his engagement and would have been present tonight. But in view of the thorough discussion these matters had in the Railway Committee, he said they might go through, and he accepted his engagement. But it is only fair to him that I should make this statement on his behalf. I was not present at the meeting of the Railway Committee, though I am a member of it, and I have no personal knowledge of the matter. But I am quite willing to accept the assurance of the Minister of Railways and Canals that the matter was fully discussed in the committee, and I understand that the particular amendment to which the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) refers was drafted by the Minister of Railways and Canals himself. Therefore, I think the House may reasonably accept the conclusion that [DOT] the judgment of the Railway Committee was deliberately reached, and that we will probably make no mistake if we follow that opinion.
Mr. SPROU r.E. In view of the exceptional nature of the amendment that has been proposed. and of the fact that if there were other claimants, as there very often are. this Mr. HENDERSON.
would shut them out in the event of that railway being sold, and in view also of the fact that the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) expressed a desire to be present when this Bill was considered, I think it would be only right to let it stand over. It would not in the end delay the passage of the Bill, nor jeopai'dize its passage in any way. There is no doubt that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier had some strong reason for making his request. It may be that lie is representing some other interest, and his absence here to-night is a reason for asking for delay, not that we desire to interfere with the passing of the Bill, but for the purpose of enabling him to express his views on it. I think the hon. member who has this Bill in charge would consult his own interest by allowing it to stand until the member for Jacques Cartier is present.


Charles Marcil: The member for Jacques Cartier attended the Railway Committee meeting, and merely pleaded for delay in the absence of the member for .Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain). The member for Jacques Cartier admitted himself that he was not conversant with the matters dealt with in these Bills. The Minister of Railways and Canals declared that he had taken up the Bill and found no objection to it, that the principal of the payment of these claims had been recognized last year. In Bill (No. 102) concerning the Gaspe and Western Railway, in subsection 4 of section 9, the same principle is to be found, that is, the payment for labour, board and material. A vote was taken in the Railway Committee, and this present Bill was passed by a majority of 30 to 9. Now, when we come to the House we are met with the same objection, that the member for Jacques Cartier is absent. The member for Montmorency was here to-day and left at four o'clock, knowing that this Bill was on the Order paper. So far as the amendment is concerned, the Minister of Railways and Canals drafted it himself.


Mr. INGRAM.: One of the objections that the member for Jacques Cartier took in committee was that he wanted a certain senator to be present as well as the member for Montmorency. The senator was not present.
Mr. IjEMIEUX. Yes, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier alluded to Senator Casgrain in the Railway Committee, and to the member for Montmorency. if the hon. gentleman will take my word, I saw Senator Casgrain this afternoon in the lobby, and the member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) saw me, and I understood from them that the Bill would pass this evening.
On section 7,


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: This section is amended in the second line by inserting after the words ' telephone lines ' the words 'upon and.' It will then read : 'The company may construct and operate telegraph and telephone lines upon and along.'


David Henderson: It seems to me that in bygone years we have taken strong exception to that provision permitting a union or connection with other telegraph lines. Practically we are giving authority to a new telegraph company to do business from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean. That will be the effect of it, because this company will have power to connect with lines of any other telegraph or telephone company. By such connection they can form a through system of telegraphing and telephoning across the continent. Exception was taken to words like these some two years ago, and several Bills were altered for that reason, so as to restrict the broad sense in which power is taken in this Bill. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this whole Bill requires a good deal of consideration yet. This clause which has been incorporated in the Bill, if I recollect aright, was disapproved of by the House some few years ago, and was altered in order to prevent a company from getting the extreme power that was not contemplated at all under the operation of a special charter. I think we had better let the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. I was glad to hear the Minister of Finance make the explanation he did with reference to the absence of the Minister of Railways and Canals. No doubt he had sufficient reason for being absent, and I think we may also make the same plea on behalf of the member for Jacques Cartier, that he also has sufficient reason for being absent. If we allow the consideration in one case we should allow it in the other. I hope the promoters of the Bill will not press it further, but will wait until it can be discussed fully by the only gentleman on this side of the House whom we think has any knowledge of the facts.
On section 9,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the length of this line ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The line in the interior from Causapscal to GaspS basin is 140 miles long, and from GaspS basin to Paspebiac 80 miles.
On section 11,


Peter Macdonald: Section 11 ;s amended by striking out the word ' five ' ii; the third line and inserting the word ' seven.'


David Henderson: Is it usual to say that ' one or more of whom may be paid directors ? ' We might as well say that all should be paid directors.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have no objection.


Peter Macdonald: Shall the committee rise and report the Bill ?


David Henderson: I would suggest that before this Bill comes before the House for the third reading it should be reprinted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would be better to have it reprinted.


David Henderson: It seems to me that about one-third has been added and two-thirds expunged and there is almost nothing of the original Bill left. I hope the House will consent to the reprinting of the Bill so that it will come before the House in an intelligible form.
Bill reported.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Mr. Macdonald from the Committee of the Whole reports that they have considered Bill (No. 28) respecting the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway Company and have ordered him to report the same without any amendment. When shall this Bill be read the third time ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We do not want it read the third time now. It can be left to the next sitting of the House.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Now ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) insists upon the third reading of the Bill now, all I can say is that we do not propose to allow it to go in that way. We have been very moderate^ in our requests and very reasonable and if it is going to be forced through in that way we will have to raise the objections that we think are necessary to the Bill and endeavour to have it delayed until we can have some better consideration of it than we can have to-night. The request made by the hon. member for Haltou (Mr. Henderson) was a very reasonable and fair one. A large portion of this Bill is new matter that has never been considered by many non. members of this House. The request to have the Bill reprinted before it is read the third time is something that should be generally conceded. Why is it not allowed in this case ? It is not going to interfere with the passage of the Bill and therefore I say it should be conceded at once. But, the disposition which lion, gentlemen have shown to force the Bill through against the will and the wishes of every person is rather strong presumptive evidence that there is something behind it unknown to the House and which the House ought to know before the Bill is pushed through in that way. I hope the hon. gentleman will allow the Bill to remain and let its third reading take place at another sitting of the House and in the meantime allow the Bill to be reprinted.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Speaker, in case an lion, gentleman takes exception to the third reading of a Bill is that objection not well taken V


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It is a question for the House to decide whether the Bill shall be put on the Order paper for the third reading now or at the next sitting of the House.

When a Bill is reported without amendment, a si in this case, from the Committee of the Whole it is a question for the House to decide whether the Bill should be put on the Order paper to be read the third time now or at the next sitting of the House.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do you hold, Mr. Speaker, that there have been no amendments to this Bill ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: No amendments in Committee of the Whole.


David Henderson: Well, it is only a quarter to nine now and-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I do think in view of, what has been stated the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill had better not press It now. Any hon. member can prevent it getting through and probably the Bill will make just as much progress if we let it stand until the next sitting of the House instead of attempting to press it to the third reading now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Quite as much.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: At the next sitting of the House.
Order allowed to stand.


NIAGARA GRAND ISLAND BRIDGE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 57) respecting the Niagara Grand Island Bridge Company.-Mr. German.
On section 1,
Peter Macdonald: In line 23 the word ' three ' is inserted in the blank so that it reads :
Provided, however, that if such consent is not obtained within three years after the passing of this Act, &e.


Mr. THOMPSON (Haldimand and Monck).: Mr. Chairman, I beg to move by way of amendment that the word ' three ' which you have just read be struck out and that the word ' five ' be inserted in lieu thereof. This matter came up before the Railway Committee the other day and the word 'three' was suggested and put in. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) in whose name the Bill stands was not present and the facts were not thoroughly well known, but I would call the; attention of the committee to the fact that in three similar Bills which we passed last session, all of them dealing with the cases of International bridges, the term was made five years instead of three and it is merely desired to put them on an equality in that respect. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals was seen since the Railway! Committee reported and lie has no objection to making the change.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Chairman, I beg to verify the statement of the hon. member for Mr. SPEAKER.
Haldimand and Monck (Mr. Thompson) that in these Bills the term was made five years so that we have a precedent.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported; read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. COWAN moved second reading of Bill (No. 102) respecting the Red Deer Valley Railway and Coal Company.
David Henderson: This Bill looks like an old familiar friend that we disposed of twelve months ago, and has been resurrected again. I do not know whether the statements made by the Minister of Finance with reference to' what the Minister of Railways had said about those Bills apply to this one as well as to the others. I would like to know whether the minister has taken into consideration the fact that this Bill carried with it a very large land grant. This Bill proposes to revive a charter that lapsed about the first of July, 1902, and before we accept the principle of the Bill it is important for us to consider whether or not we are going to adopt the principle of subsidizing railways by large land grants. If we revive this charter we adopt the principle of giving to this railway what has been refused to others, namely, a very large subsidy to a line through a section of the country where there ought to be very little trouble in constructing a railway. Possibly the Minister of Finance may be able to say that the Minister of Railways has had his special attention drawn to the fact that this land grant is associated with this Bill. If this charter is revived under this Bill, will the land grant also be revived ? If the land grant is not revived, I will offer no objection to the second reading, but if the Bill carries with it this large land grant which it is alleged would construct two railways, the House should be very careful indeed before accepting the principle of the Bill. I hope the Minister of Finance will be able to give us some information on that point.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The remarks I made on the part of the Minister of Railways had reference to Bills which had already been before the Railway Committee and had there been fully considered. This Bill is standing for its second reading; it has not yet been before the Railway Committee. and of course, the remarks which my hon. friend alluded to cannot have any reference to it. It is not usual to affirm any principle on the second reading of a private Bill. The almost invariable practice is to allow these Bills to pass their second reading and to go to the committee. I am informed that this Bill does not carry the land grant spoken of by my hon. friend.

However, that point can be considered in the committee, and I do not think we shall be prejudicing the public interest by allowing it to go to the committee.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the Order in Council
expired ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I could not say.


Andrew B. Ingram: Last year the lion. Minister of Railways stated that the Conservative government were responsible for the land grant to this company. We would like to know whether this government intend to assume the responsibility of extending that principle ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That will come up in due course, when we shall be prepared to answer.


Frank Oliver: The Bill in question relates to a railway project in the constituency I represent, and while I have no intention of opposing it at this stage, I feel bound to say that the opposition which I felt compelled to give to the Bill last year I still feel compelled to give, and for the same reason. It is the avowed policy of the government in the North-west that no more land grants shall be given to railways. I understand that this Bill involves a large land grant to a railway, and I as a supporter of the government policy in the North-west cannot support it. I would mention one fact further, that the latest report whicli I have received from the North-west is that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have increased the price of their lands to $6 per acre.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In this particular instance I have a distinct recollection that there is a very large interest involved. I do not know whether the second reading of this Bill involves an assent to the principle of the land grant; but if it does, I for one, am distinctly opposed to it.


Mr. COWAN.: You supported it before.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not, and the hon. gentleman has no right to make that statement. I say most distinctly that I did not support the land grant connected witli this railway. I opposed it, and for the same reason' I am opposed to it to-day. It includes not only an ordinary land grant, but one of the important coal mines of the North-west, which is within a reasonable distance of Calgary, and it is for the purpose of getting control of that coal mine that this company are desirous of reviving this Bill, because if they did, they would get control of something twice or three times as valuable as the whole railway. It was got at a time when there was not the same value put on coal or on land in that country that there is at the present time. When an effort was made last year to revive this Bill, it was opposed, and strongly
opposed, and the Committee was not disposed to grant it. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) and other members from the North-west, strongly opposed it, and I opposed it as well. I take the same position to-night. If it in any way involves an assent to the principle of land grants to railways in the future, I am opposed to it.
I think we have reached a time in the history of Canada when we should stop giving land grants to railways. In every portion of that country I found that where there was a demand for a railway, it was where a considerable settlement existed. The need of a railway was great because the produce to be handled was great, and therefore the earning powers of the railway ought to be sufficient to make it pay. When that is the case, there is no reason' why we should give a land grant.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Having made the statement that I did make when the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) was addressing his few imperfect remarks to the House, I must just say that I made the statement that the land grant provided for in the charter was supported by the hon. member for East Grey.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Last year.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I did not say last year. I reiterate that statement here and now. I say that not only was the charter supported by the hon. member for East Grey, but I would be very much surprised if the land grant and the charter were not both supported by his vote and his voice; because, so far as observation can be a teacher, I think hardly anything has ever passed in this House in which the voice of the hon. member for East Grey has not sounded loud and long. Last year this company asked for a renewal of the charter; but when the hon. member for East Grey sat on this side of the House, when the government which he supported was in power-and I may say that among its supporters he was a bright and shining ornament-lie voted for that charter and he voted for that land grant. It was only last year a.nd not before that the voice of the hon. member for East Grey was heard against it. I have not anything to say at this particular juncture with regard to this matter. It seems to me to be a little out of the ordinary. It is a question that ought to go to the Railway Committee I have no doubt the voice of the hon. member for East Grey will be heard in the Railway Committee on this question, as it is heard on everything, relevant and irrelevant, and if he has anything to say against the land' grant or the charter, let him say it there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have a right to rise to an explanation. When I made the denial

I made it emphatically. When the Bill was before the committee last year-


Mahlon K. Cowan: The hon. gentleman did not say that last year.
Mr. SPItOTJLE. I said that when this Bill was up before, that was last year, I opposed it, I referred to the fact that the hon. member for Alberta opposed it and I said I opposed it as well-


Mahlon K. Cowan: What about the time when it was first granted ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And I deny the statement made by the bleached Ethiopian that I supported it.


Mr. MORIN.: Mr. Speaker, this Bill cannot pass its second reading to-night, because it is not printed in French.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Mr. Speaker, in that case, I will not move the second reading, because I would like the hon. member for East Grey to have another opportunity to make a speech.
Order allowed to stand.-


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 37) respecting the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company^-Mr. Champagne.
Bill (No. 50) respecting the British Columbia Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 41) respecting the Kootenay Central Railway Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 75) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Thompson.
Bill (No. GO) respecting the Huron and Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Ross (Ontario).
Bill (No. 84) respecting the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company.-Mr. Belcourt.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 101) to incorporate the London Loan Company of Canada.-Mr. McGugan.
Bill (No. 107) to incorporate the Empire Accident and Surety Company.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 108) respecting the Ottawa Electric Railway Company.-Mr. Belcourt.
Bill (No. 110) respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. Ill) respecting the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 112) to incorporate the Canada Industrials Corporation, Limited. - Mr. Thompson.
Bill (No. 113) to incorporate the Sault Ste. Louis Light and Power Company.-Mr. Biekerdike.
Bill (No. 114) respecting the Nipissing and James Bay Railway Company.-Mr. McCool.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Bill (No. 115) to incorporate the Richmond and Drummond Fire Insurance Company.- Mr. Tobin.
Bill (No. 116) respecting the Restigouche Boom Company, and to change its name to ' The Restigouche Boom and Log Driving Company.'-Mr. Logan.
Bill (No. 117) to incorporate the Hudson's Bay and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Haggart.
Bill (No. 118) respecting the Canada Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Belcourt.



[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.
Frank Oliver: When tlie House rose at six o'clock, I was making a comparison between the requests made in 1878 and the demand made in 1903 by the manufacturers of Canada. That which was in 1878 a request, became in 1903 a demand. The plea that was then made for assistance to a struggling industry has now become a threat on behalf of a self styled dominant interest. What was asked in'the general interest in 1878 is demanded in a special interest in 1903. The difference between the request of 1878 and the demand of 1903 is just as wide as the difference between the conditions prevailing then and now. And it is just as well that we should recognize the difference in those conditions, so that we may appreciate the injustice of the present demand. The promises that were made to justify the request for increased protection were the retaining of our population at home, the increase of our general wealth and prosperity, and the lowering of the price of manufactured products. At the end of eighteen years' experience of that policy, carried out by those who had every opportunity to put it to the test in its entirety, what has been the result ? Although during those eighteen years we had a national expenditure of six and a half million dollars per year over the national revenue, although we had the building up of a number of millionaires in the country, at the end of that period we found ourselves in a condition of commercial and industrial stagnation. Contrast that with our present position. To-day, after an experience of some seven years of a change of policy and a change of tariff, we have a prosperity in trade, commerce and finance such as this country never before .dreamed of. In 1878 we were asked to give protection to the manufacturers because they and the country were not prosperous. Now these manufacturers ai-e demanding more pro-

tection because they and the country are prosperous. In 1S78 they asked for protection because they needed it. Now they demand protection because the country is rich enough to stand it. The moral of this is that the manufacturers have thriven because the country has prospered-that the manufacturers depend on the farmers, and not the farmers on the manufacturers. We had eighteen year^ of effort to make the country prosperous by protecting the manufacturers, and that experiment resulted in dismal failure. We have had since then seven years' endeavour to make the country prosperous by increasing the facilities for agriculture and trade generally, and we find both the country and manufacturers prosperous to a degree they never were before. All of which shows that the policy of restriction produced the result that should naturally have been expected. In 1878 we voted for restriction of trade. During eighteen years we carried out that policy, and at the end of the eighteen years we had the natural result. In 1896 we voted for expansion of trade, and, for seven years we have had an increase of commerce, an increase of industry and prosperity. And to-day we are asked, practically, as it appears to me, to commit commercial, industrial and financial suicide, by reverting to the conaitlons which failed in the period from 1878 to 1896, and which, I believe, will fail again if the attempt is made to revert to them. It is the highest tribute that can be paid to the policy of protection to manufacturer's at the expense of the community, to the policy of building up tariff walls and restricting trade, to say that it was in the highest degree successful and that trade was restricted. The fact that the country was not prosperous was entirely another matter, and did not affect the theory or the success of the experiment. Just as with the surgeon who performs a very difficult operation, is able to announce that it was very successful; adding, as a mere detail that the patient died.
Now, as to the policy of a prohibitive tariff, there can be only one opinion from the standpoint of those who have to bear the burden of that tariff. I suppose there is only one opinion from the standpoint of those who get the benefit of it-that we take for granted. Among those who have to bear the burden of it there certainly should be, and reasonably can be, only one opinion. As those who are to have the benefit constitute only one-tenth of the community, and those who are to bear the burden constitute nine-tenths, it seems to me only one answer is to be given to such the demand for such a tariff from the standpoint of the welfare of the nation. The fact that the demand comes from both sides of the House, to a certain degree does not affect the condition at all. I would like to say to the Minister of Finance that, however, desirable it may be to
please everybody, that is beyond the limit of success ; but that the effort to please everybody generally results in pleasing nobody. If I understand what liberalism means, it stands for progress, but it stands for principle as much as it does for progress. Liberalism stands for principle, or it stands for nothing, and if it shall ever be that the impression goes abroad that Liberalism has become mere opportunism, then, no more can the Liberal party expect, and no more will it receive, the confidence of an intelligent and progressive country. I give all credit to the government for having withstood these demands, these united demands of the Manufacturers' Association -these dangerous demands, demands which, if acceded to, mean, as I contend, commercial and financial ruin to this country. And as these demands have not been acceded to, I take it for granted that the government must face the absolute, unquestioning and determined hostility of that same Manufacturers' Association and of every interest which they can bring to bear in their support. I take it for granted that the fight is on, as a matter of fact, between the present government and those interests which stand for a high tariff, whether they are in one province or the other and whether they call themselves Liberals or Conservatives. I, therefore, give the government all credit for the stand they have taken and for liav-iug accepted the challenge which was thrown down. But, for fear that there might be any misunderstanding with those of us who represent portions of the country the industries of which are not susceptible of successful and profitable protection, I will go a little further and will challenge some of the propositions laid down in the budget speech.
I said a while ago that I was a protectionist. Beyond that, I believe in retaliation. But, I believe in retaliation only as a measure of self-defence, and when you are sure of hurting the other fellow more than you hurt yourself. Now, I am not so sure, on looking into the matter a little carefully, that our proposed retaliation against Germany is altogether favourable to ourselves. I notice that that policy rvas applauded on both sides of the House, and particularly on the other side. Perhaps if we look into the matter a little carefully, Ave shall not see quite so much reason for applause. Looking over the Trade and Navigation iteturns, to-day I found that Ave imported last year 371,000.000 pounds of sugar, at a value of about 87,500,000, upon which the duty would amount to about 82,750,000. The duty on the low grade sugar is 621 cents per hundred pounds, and on the high grade it is 81.25 per hundred pounds. I found that we imported from Germany about 183,500,000 pounds of sugar, about half of our total import, of the value of about 835.000.000. the duty on which was about 81.750,000. If we import an equal

1S20
amount of sugar from Germany next year under that retaliatory system which was so strongly applauded on both sides, but particularly on the other side, we shall pay into our treasury an additional amount of $445,000 over the amount paid in last ; year. This, perhaps, will change a little our satisfaction with the idea of retaliation. Let me repeat that X do not object to retaliation -not at all ; I quite approve of it; but I do not like retaliation which costs us half a million of dollars a year in taxation on an article the taxation on which almost more than the taxation of any other article lays the burden chiefly upon the people least able to bear it. A tax on sugar is essentially a tax on the poor. A family of moderate income will use probably, about as much sugar in the year as will the family of a millionaire. This means that the family of small income will pay more towards the national revenue in proportion to their ability to pay than will the family of the millionaire. The same is true of the taxes on all articles which enter into general consumption. A tax on sugar when it goes beyond a reasonable point is essentially objectionable from the point of view of the agricultural and of the general population of the country, not excluding those who are employed in manufacturing industries.
I take the liberty of saying that if it was desirable to retaliate against Germany- and I agree that under the circumstances it was desirable-I do not think it was desirable to retaliate by hitting ourselves to the amount of half a million dollars a year. It seems to me that if the cost of our sugar is likely to be increased by the amount of half a million dollars a year by the retaliatory duty against Germany, it would have been fair and right to follow the example that was instituted in the case of the preferential tariff, and to have reduced the general tax on sugar so as to even up to consumers generally the increased cost that results from this surtax upon German imports. At this time when we have a swelling revenue and a large surplus, we might very well have a reduction of the duty on sugar rather than an increase, for that is really what the German retaliation amounts to in respect to sugar.
In regard to the proposed duty upon steel rails, I also take issue with the proposition laid own. Of course that duty does not take effect immediately. It may never take effect. Possibly it was never intended to take effect. But if not intended to take effect, it should not appear upon the statute-book, because it commits the House to the principle of protection for protection's sake. Now, if there is one thing that is more necessary than another in the development of this great country of magnificent distances, it is railways, and the great part of their cost, at any rate on the prairies, is the rails, and a duty which increases the cost of rails in this country is to that extent a bar to Mr. OLIVER. -
development. I have read in the papers that we have an estimated consumption of 150,000 tons of steel rails per year, the duty upon which, at $7 per ton, would amount to $1,050,000. That is really a hindrance to the -extent of $1,050,000 to the construction of railways at a time when we are voting from year to year millions of dollars of subsidies to aid in the construction of railways. Now, I am aware that the steel rail industry has its rights the same as any other industry ; but I claim that in this case, as in some other cases that I will mention, the general interest overrides the special interest. I believe that where the interest of this country from one ocean to the other is so largely bound up in railway construction, it is in the general interest that the steel rail industry should be sacrificed for the general interest of the country. I do not know any way yet to give everybody everything that they want, and it is not possible in all cases to do so. We have frequently to give in order to get, in fact, I think that is a rule of life. If we want cheap railways we have to buy rails at the lowest price that the world's market will afford. I would be glad to see the iron industries of Canada developed. At present we are paying considerable bonuses on the production of iron in order to aid in that development. It is, I believe, under the circumstances, a proper policy, a fair policy. For my own part, and speaking as I believe, for the people I represent, we have no objection to that. When we pay bonuses we know how much we are paying, what we are paying them for, and what we are getting for what we are paying. But in the case of a duty we do not know how much we are paying, and we do not know what we are getting for what we are paying. There is all the difference in the world between the two cases. Now, I think that in having bonused the iron industry to the extent that it has been bonused, we have gone quite far enough in that direction. One of the greatest reasons for the revival of manufactures under the present tariff has been that the protective duties on raw Iron which prevailed up to 189G have been reduced or abolished. Now I think it is universally admitted that these iron duties practically strangled Canadian manufactures which used iron. I would be sorry to see that policy reverted to in any degree, and particularly I would be sorry to see it reverted to in the case of such an actual necessity as steel rails.
I believe in giving all industries such incidental protection as a fair revenue tariff will afford them. I have no objection to the protection which is afforded to many of these industries, but there is one which belongs to the class of universal necessities, and which means a special tax on the poorer people and on the industrial classes which, under the tariff as it stands to-day, is anything but a revenue tariff. It stands there

absolutely as a protective tariff quite as mucli as the duty on steel rails-I allude to the duty on coal oil. That duty at the present time fs 5 cents per gallon, which I think amounts to about 75 per cent protection. I claim that is absolutely an unreasonable duty. No industry in this country has a right to such a measure of protection. I would be willing to concede to the coal oil industry a fair measure of protection, a 2c. per gallon duty, if you like ; although I consider that in the case of an article which enters so generally into consumption as coal oil, it should be under an absolutely minimum tariff instead of under a maximum. At a duty of 5 cents per gallon we are paying $50,000 in duty on every million gallons of oil that we import. I presume I am safe in saying that we are paying just as much in the extra price on every million gallons of oil produced in Canada. So that the trade returns do not show the amount of taxation that we are paying on coal oil, by any means. Admitting that 2 cents a gallon of a specific duty on coal oil would be a fair revenue tariff, the difference between what we are paying and what we would be paying under a revenue tariff, amounts to about $30,000 a year on every million gallons of oil consumed in this country. I say that is too much, it is not reasonable. It does not come under the lines of a revenue tariff, it is a burden laid especially upon the agricultural classes of this country, and it is one that I for my part shall vote against on every opportunity that I get.
I will take the liberty of alluding to another protective measure that has been accorded under the present tariff, a protection which can be justified on the grounds I have already mentioned. It was of special advantage to the agricultural industry that binder twine, barbed wire and cream separators were placed upon the free list. That is a measure of protection, I admit, to the agricultural industry. It is justifiable on the ground that that which is the farmer's raw material, a necessity of his occupation and calling, which enters so largely into his every day work, should be subjected to the least possible tax. It is only natural and right that the duties upon such articles should be reduced -to the lowest possible point. In the case of binder twine and barbed wire, industries representing rather raw material than labour, in which the value of the material which goes into their production is so much greater than the amount of labour, the actual labour of the country is not seriously injured by the duty being taken off, it was an eminently proper thing that these articles should be made free of duty. The removal of the duties on these articles has been of special advantage to the agricultural classes, an advantage which they appreciate and one in which in all fairness they are entitled to, because, on many of the articles which they have to buy,* for which they are the principal customers, they are paying, even yet, under this present tariff, the maximum duty of 35 per cent. If -the farmer lias to pay 35 per cent on what he has to buy, when, he lias only a protection of 20 per cent tariff on what he has to sell, it is only fair that he should have these great and recurring necessities absolutely free of duty.
I have said that there were points in the tariff propositions of the hon. Minister of Finance to which I took exception and to which I think the agricultural interests at any rate do take exception. They take exception to the increase in the duties on sugar, to the excessive duty on coal oil and to the proposed duty on steel rails. Now, there is only one way to make the dissatisfaction of a member against the government feit and that is by voting against the government ; and if it were possible on this present occasion to 'express my disapprobation of those points of the policy of the government by my vote on the resolutions before the House I would have great pleasure -no, I would not have great pleasure, but I would feel that I was under the necessity of casting my vote in that way. But, unfortunately, this is not the case. We are here confronted with the proposition of the hon. Minister of Finance to consider his budget as brought down and with the appeal of the hon. leader of the opposition to support his amendment. The amendment offers no satisfactory alternative. Rather, if there is anything contained in the budget proposition of the hon. Minister of Finance which is objectionable to the agricultural interests, that objection is intensified tenfold by the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition. In the remarks that have been made from the other side of the House one note has run through them all and that is that the agricultural and other duties are not high enough. The * protection on steel rails is not high enough, the retaliation against Germany was-not begun soon enough. There is apparently a sentiment behind the amendment that even the demands of the Manufacturers' Association are not too much to be conceded. It will not answer for our hon. friends on the other side of the House to sneer at us who support the government, to some extent, under protest. It will not do for them to say to us : Vote with us because the government does not do as you wish, for if we voted with them we would be travelling much farther afield from the position which we desire to see maintained. They say :	' The government is a protectionist government, and has chastised you of the agricultural classes with whips ; put us in power and we will chastise you with scorpions.'
We are in a somewhat unfortunate position in that we cannot approve in all particulars of the proposition of the government and at the same time we cannot approve in any particular of the proposals of the op-

1S21
position. There is, it seems to me, something lacking in both the propositions of tlie lion. Minister of Finance and of the hon. leader of the opposition. There is a new condition of affairs arising in this country in finance, in transportation, in commerce, and in manufactures, a condition which is not recognized, of which no note has been taken by either one or the other. I allude to the rise of combines in every line of life. There was a time when we thought that the abolition of duties would prevent the formation of combines. Unfortunately, that is not the fact. On the other hand we are fully of the opinion that the levying of an improper duty certainly tends to the formation of combines. I believe that what this country wants in the way of xiro-tection is protection against combines-combines of capital, combines of industry, combines of transportation, and the policy which is brought forward and which will deal successfully; with these combines is the policy which this country needs and which tbi's country calls for. It is not sufficient simply not to recognize that this condition of affairs exists. It is not sufficient that it did not exist ten years ago or twenty years ago; the fact is that it exists to-day and we are feeling the effects of it. To-day, as was said before, in the North-west Territories, we are paying $9 per thousand more for lumber than we were paying fourteen months ago! as a result of the existence of a combine in lumber. That means $9,000 on each million feet of dressed lumber used in that country. It means an exorbitant tax upon the new settlers in the country, it means a check to immigration, it means a check to prosperity, it means that this government is in duty bound to take measures to "break up that combine, and to bring things to their natural condition. The combines are not confined to lumber. A year ago the paper trade combine was tried in.court and convicted and a reduction in the duty on paper followed. But that is not a sufficient remedy. The evil still exists. I am not able to say what the remedy is, but I say that a remedy Is necessary against these combines in the interest of the people. The first step towards helping combines is a high tariff, and the first step towards breaking them up is a low tariff, or the removal of the duty altogether where a combine is proven to exist.
I wish to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, in reference to the British preference. I have noticed that this preference is an object of serious attack from the other side of the House on nearly all cccasio'ns. Although sometimes it is covert, yet it is continuously made. I regretted very much to hear from the Finance Minister that there was a possibility if not even a probability, that the British preference would be abolished or reduced. Since tlie budget speech was made circumstances have altered so that the conditions which then existed do not exist Mr. OLIVER.
now. The duties on grain imported into Britain have been abolished, and we have not now the same claim upon preferential treatment in their market a's we had a few days ago. But I am not looking at the British preference from the standpoint of retaliation on Britain, or from the British standpoint at all. I am looking at it strictly from the standpoint of a Canadian consumer. I find that the most important imports from Great Britain are cottons and woollens, which are the wear of the masses of the people ; and that which increases the cost of cotton and woollens to the masses of the people is an injury to the people ; that which cheapens the cost of these articles is a benefit to the people. We imported last year $7,000,000 worth of cottons and $10,000,000 worth of woollens from Great Britain. Taking the average duties at 25 per cent, and that is rather below the mark, we find that the saving to the Canadian consumer by the preference on the goods actually imported from Great Britain, amounts to $580,000 on cottons, and $S30.000 on woollens, or a total of $1,410,000 by reason of the British preference on these goods actually imported in one year. I say, Sir, that this is an advantage to the Canadian consumer which no government can afford to ignore. We cannot afford to tax our industrial classes to the extent that is demanded by the cotton and woollen manufacturers of Canada. We are benefiting nine-tenths of the people by the reduced duty on cottons and woollens imported from Great Britain, and if you like to put it in that way, we are injuring the cotton and woollen manufacturers in Canada. But what do these industries amount to. The last census shows that there were 4,000 woollen mill operatives and 0,000 cotton mill operatives in Canada. We are not interested so much in the capital invested in these mills, as we are interested in the operatives in these mills. Put the case in its worst light, and say if you wish that the continuation of the British preference will shut up every cotton and woollen mill in Canada, and even then I will say that Canada cannot afford to carry on the mills at the price demanded by the cotton and woollen manufacturers. But, Sir, this price which they demand is not founded on fact. The truth is that the cotton mills of Canada were never as prosperous as they are to-day, and never were turning out as much goods as they do to-day. As a matter of fact the mills at Valleyfield have doubled their capacity since this government came into power and the British preference was put in force. The cotton industry is one of the strongest evidences of the advantage resulting to manufacturers by reason of the increase in the general prosperity of the country. They have been hardest hit by the lowering of the tariff under the British preference. and still they have achieved that measure of prosperity.

In considering the demands made by these special interests, I would desire to impress upon the government now and henceforth that there are national interests, that there are universal interests to be considered which are entirely paramount to these special interests of the manufacturing concerns. We do not grudge the manufacturing industries all the protection that is coming to them under a fair revenue tariff. They are more than heartily welcome to it ; we wish them all prosperity, hut when they are singled out for special protection and advantage ; when they are put in a position whereby they are to be protected from the stress of commercial depression, while every one else must in the nature of things suffer that to its extreme degree, then it is something that we cannot agree to and that we cannot support any government in agreeing to. It may be possible that on account of the widespread territory covered by agriculture, by the lumbering, by the mining and by the fishing interests, that it is impossible to secure that concentration of pressure which we see exercised in the case of the manufacturing industries. But it will be well for the government to remember that it is there, and that so long as right is right, so long the public interest should be maintained against the demand of any special interest no matter how strongly that demand may he worded or how strongly it is backed up by pressure. It should be remembered that the manufacturing industry has the ear of the press of the country. The manufacturers are in a position to make their voice heard all over the country as the voice of the farmers cannot be heard. They are organized, as the farmers and fishermen are not, but it will be a mistake for this Liberal government to forget the principles upon which they have obtained power and upon which they have been supported in power by yielding in any degree to the demands made upon them by special industries for special protection. If Liberalism means anything, it means that general interests shall prevail against special interests ; it means the masses against the classes, and we look to the present government to maintain Liberalism in this sense.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the House is loosing interest in the budget debate. When Mr. Blain spoke this afternoon I counted just fifteen members on the government side of the House, and when Mr. Oliver rose to speak there were only sixteen. It seems to me that all interest is being lost in the debate, .and that an adjournment would perhaps be in order. However, I understand there are a number of gentlemen who wish to speak and I would like to say a few words myself on the question. It is quite possible that I may not throw much light upon the subject. and that I will have to differ from the hon. members who have spoken before me.
However, they cannot blame me if I do not thoroughly agree with them.
In the first place, I must congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance on his excellent showing in his budget speech. I am sure every man in Canada will be pleased that the government though not instrumental in bringing about the present prosperity, have been at the head of affairs while the country has been progressing so favourably. His showing is certainly a much better one than that of last year. Last year several millions of dollars were added to the national debt, while this year it seems that about 813,000,000 will go to pay off the national debt. Now, Sir, I wish to say a few words from a non-partisan point of view, neither Grit nor Tory, neither Liberal nor Conservative, but from an independent farmer's standpoint. We will try to hew to the line, let the chips fall where they may. I have always held the opinion that trade between all nations and all classes of people should be as free as possible, and with as little restriction as possible. Nearly all nations resort to the system of tariff, or duties on goods to raise the revenue required to support the government and to meet the expenditure of the country. Adequate protection we have had pretty well defined by nearly every hon. gentleman who has spoken. I understand it to mean a higher protective duty than we have at the present time, and that all classes and conditions of the people of Canada are to have a share of protection measured otit to them. Now, Sir, I am at a loss to know how my hon. friend the mover of that amendment is going to protect the farmer. That is what I am here to learn. A high protective duty on such commodities as the people require, gives a few individuals an opportunity to tax the community without giving anything in return either to the government or to help the consumer. For many years past [DOT] Hansard ' has been loaded down with this question. We have heard the same ideas and about the same language that has been used iu this debate, and the country has profited but little from the discussion. Meu invest their capital to manufacture such things as the people want, and then expect the government to allow them to tax the people at their sweet will.


Mahlon K. Cowan: While the lamp holds out to burn.


Jabel Robinson: The hon. gentleman will have an opportunity ; lie is aching for it. For one, I do not object to the government giving a measure of protection when we have the facilities for the production of the raw material in our country ; and when our friends and neighbours are anxious to work that raw material into manufactured goods, I think they should have an opportunity to try to produce the things we require. Therefore I think the



government would be justified in lending assistance to our infant industries.


Mahlon K. Cowan: What particular industry is infant ?	v


Jabel Robinson: You will have an opportunity, my friend.


Mahlon K. Cowan: I know, but I would like to have your idea as to what industry is infantile ?


Jabel Robinson: We want to put them well upon their feet, but after they are well upon their feet, they ought to be able to stand alone.


Mahlon K. Cowan: Is eighteen years long enough ?


Jabel Robinson: That chap is not very well ; you had better give him a job down cellar. The farmers and the working people are willing to pay their fair share of the taxation of this country, but they are not anxious to make millionaires of a few at the expense of all the rest. Canadian manufacturers are able to take care of themselves, and I think I can show you that by bringing in the best evidence we have in this country. ' Industrial Canada,' in its April number says :
Slowly but surely, a Canadian export trade is being built up. Though confronted by many obstacles, the men who are establishing a demand for Canadian goods in foreign markets are gradually making headway amongst the competition of the world. Steamship lines are being acquired by Canadians. Other lines are being subsidized by the Dominion government. Agents are prospecting In distant lands, and manufacturers at home are directing their attention towards foreign conquests	
Many of our firms to-day are self-satisfied. Recent years have been so prosperous that the majority of our manufacturers have been kept
busy with Canadian orders	
We believe that a number of Canadian firms do not even take the trouble to answer inquiries from the foreign field. One instance which has recently come under our notice is that of a large firm in Birmingham whose representative was about to visit Canada, and previous to his departure addressed an inquiry to more than thirty Canadian firms asking them to address him at Toronto, advising him whether they were prepared to undertake export trade and to what extent. To these thirty inquiries only eight answers were received, the firms favoured with the opportunity not having shown even the courtesy of a reply. Such an attitude injures the whole prospect of Canadian trade and our firms would do well, even if they cannot undertake the execution of orders at the present time, to look ahead and retain always the confidence of foreign buyers.
That proves most conclusively that the manufacturers of all classes of goods have no reason to complain. It is useless to attempt to build up industries without natural advantages. We have the raw materials, we must have coal and electric power or water power, otherwise we cannot compete successfully in manufacturingI Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).
with other nations who have these advantages. But if we have these advantages and cheap food and money, our Canadian industries should be able to hold their own, even if not protected against foreign producers. Our farmers and other classes of Canada are willing to assist our manufacturers, but are not willing to pamper and pet them for ever. We are referred to the high protective system of the United States, and I might say that one half of the discussion on the present budget has been taken up with what has occurred in the United States. It seems to me that we have enough to do at home and would do better to confine our own attention to our own business and leave the United States alone. But since the United States are pointed to as an argument in favour of protection let me point out that the protective system in that country has been the means of making many millionaires and some multi-millionaires, but has not made the average people of that country any better off than the same people in other countries. It has certainly not done anything for the farmers because they are poor men. In Canada we do not want any tyrants, we do not want any one-man power, but we want wealth distributed fairly among all classes and conditions of men. A very large minority of the American people are opposed to a high protective tariff, and were it not for the fact that the United States enjoy free trade among fifty commonwealths, comprising 84,000,000 people, their system of high protection would have exploded long ago. The manufacturers of the United States and Canada are selling their goods cheaper abroad than to their own people. Take the manufacturers of machinery, in which every farmer is interested. Some time ago a number of binders were smashed up in a railway accident, and the manufacturers sued the railway company for damages. During the hearing, the evidence showed that the cost price of these binders was less than $40, and yet the retail price to the farmers was $110. If our manufacturers are making such immense profits, I do not think it reasonable for our government to entertain any proposition to raise the duties. When discussing this question with a friend of mine some time ago, I told him that every machine I had on my farm was made in Canada, I said that there was sufficient loyalty about me to buy everything in Canada. Well, he replied, I do not see where the loyalty comes in. Had you bought that machine in the United States, you would have had to pay $20 into the revenue of this country. Which is the most loyal-the man who pays $20 to the government, or the man who pays $20 to the manufacturers ? I leave that nut for my hon. friends around me to crack. We sometimes lay the flattering unction to our souls that we are very loyal, but when we hear the other side we begin to doubt whether our patriotism will stand washing.

We have heard considerable about this German treaty, and I felt rather pleased when the hon. Minister of Finance told us that he was about to retaliate on these people who had tried to injure us by refusing to give us the benefit of the favoured-nation clause. But when I come to think the whole matter over, it begins to dawn on me that I might be in the position in which I used to be when younger. I have read a good deal of Scripture and have tried to live up to it. One Scriptural advice is that when struck on the right cheek, we should turn the left. I have lived up to that as much as I could, but whenever I turned my left cheek and was struck on that, then my hand was ready to strike the aggressor down if possible. That is just the way I felt about this German treaty. But when we begin to question whether there is not tco much muscular force on the other side and that we might suffer in consequence, another aspect of the case presents itself. We have to think before we act. However, whether we have sufficient muscular force or not, it is worth our while to test it and teach the nations of the world that Canada dare say her soul is her own.
Another strong point made by the hon. Finance Minister was concerning the question of preferential trade. We held the whip hand over those Britishers, and if they would not give us preferential trade in grain we might at some time consider the advisability of abrogating the preferential clause in our tariff. What about us poor Canadians ? Ain't we in it ? I think we are. Take the case of a widow with a family of little children. She has to clothe them-that is as necessary in this country as feeding them. She goes to a merchant tailor for a suit for her five year old boy. The merchant understands the case. He shows two suits, both the same price, $5, and both fitting for the boy's wear. Here, says the merchant, is one suit, which was made in England. Here is another, at the same price, but it may not be quite so good a class of cloth. If you buy the English suit, you pay a dollar into the Dominion treasury-if you buy the other one, you pay the dollar just the same, but it goes into the manufacturer's pocket. There is patriotism again. The poor widow says : Surely, I don't have to pay a dollar into either. But the clothier answers: Madam, remember that if we had not the preferential trade that Mr. Fielding gave us, you would have to pay sixty cents more. Then it begins to dawn upon her that preferential trade is a good thing for her as a Canadian. I am not sure that I have made the case clear to some of the obtuse-minded gentlemen I see about me. Some fifteen years ago, I was in North Britain. I do not care to tell all the little incidents that have happened in my life; some of them might be against me. I was in Glasgow, and as my business was 58i
done for the day, I went with a friend to the extensive Coatbridge iron works. Every one who knows anything about that section knows of this great industry. It was wonderful to go through the works at night with the furnaces in full blast. The foreman was very kind-a canny Scot. He learned that I came from Canada, and that may have made him all the more courteous to me. Since that time, we have had the King's coronation, and more Canadians have been seen in Great Britain of late. But, at that time we were quite a novelty. The foreman said: You come from Canada ? What business brought you over? I told him that I had come with some cattle. Have you sold them ? Yes, sold them on Glasgow market. He said ; I was reading in the papers this morning that the Canadian government has raised the duty on bar iron-the stuff that they were rolling out there in immense quantities-to ?13 per ton. I said I was sorry for that, and if I had been in the Canadian parliament I would not have voted for that. That made him think I was somebody of importance, I suppose. He said : Now, my friend, you brought some cattle from Canada ; did you have to pay any duty to bring them here ? No, sir. You don't know how badly I felt to think that we placed a duty on the product on their industry, while they allowed my finished product to go into their country free. I told him I would do all I could to remedy that when I got back-and I have been a long time trying to do it. I would commend this illustration to those who are harping on the idea that Great Britain does not give us a preference. Why is she not giving us a preference all the time ? Has she a duty on anything coming from Canada except tobacco-and we don't have much of that to sell-and whisky ? It is true, they have the embargo on the cattle, but I believe that will be removed when we can show a clean bill of health.
Another thing that we have heard for the last twelve months is ' Canada for the Canadians.' It sounds splendid at first-ypu would think everybody would throw up his liat and hurrah for it. But when you examine it and think the matter over, you will find, as in fihe other case, there is nothing in it. Suppose that the British people who are our best customers, were to say that as we are crying Canada for Johnny Can-nuck, so they would cry Britain for John Bull, and were to turn their deer parks and pheasant preserves into grazing lands and raise their own stock. I tell you, to-morrow we would be begging those people to take our stock. What would be the value of our lands if we had not a market there for our cheese, beef, apples and all our surplus products ? It is our duty as Canadians to try to keep that British market open, and to see that no foe shuts us out from it. That is where we get our income from. That is

the goose that lays the golden egg, and we must see to it that she is not killed. Do you think that when you sell your stock or your cheese to Great Britain, they are going to pay you gold. You need not expect it; Great Britain will not send gold either in bullion or in dust. She wants to sell you her products, and, if she cannot do it, she will buy stuff from the nations that will buy from her. You are handicapped if you do not trade with the nations that trade with you, because the law of trade is not goods for gold but goods for goods. It is our duty to trade with our best customers. Our country is progressing by leaps and bounds, and the government must move with it. It is the duty of the government to use every means in its power to help all those who are trying to help themselves. And they say that the best way to do that is to leave the farmers alone and not put a duty on what they need to buy and reduce their purchasing power. By helping the farmers you are helping every other class. So, be very careful what you, do. Explore and exploit all our new domain where there is iron, pulpwood, nickel or anything else. Lend a helping hand to those who are willing to put money into these things. But do not pamper them for ever. Help them at the start, and they will soon be able to help themselves.
Now with regard to this steel rail question I feel somewhat like my bon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver). These railway companies that are asking for subsidies from this government will need to double their request if you put a duty on steel rails. They will have to pay 87 a ton more duty. For myself, I am opposed to giving subsidies to railways. I believe the time has come when capitalists have got sufficient money to build their own railways. If we give them money, we should see that we have security, we should take first mortgage on the road, and have a voice in its management, and make it carry our mails and do our work for the money that we grant it. Now, Sir, it is a question to my mind, when we give them $7 duty and $6 in bounty, whether $13 a ton would not be too much to give for the purpose of starting a steel rail industry. However, if it is decided by the wisest men in this country that that would be the best plan, I am not going to object; let us try it for a while.
The next point I will touch upou is the question of binder twine, in which all the farmers are interested. That also is their raw material. It takes 45 cents worth of binder twine to bind an acre of good wheat, so that on every acre we have to spend 45 cents, whether we get anything back or not. Now it is the manufacturers of binder twine who are asking for protection, I understand. I was pleased when the duty was taken off binder twine, because I believed that our Canadian manufacturers were able to compete with the United States manufacturers.


Jabel Robinson: But if it is true, as has been stated, that the Americans get a rebate on their raw material, that there is a monopoly of manilla in that country, and that our people cannot get the sisal used in the manufacture of binder twine, then it will be a matter for consideration as to whether we should give them a duty or not. But, if we do, we must see that the duty is not so high as to prevent the Americans selling our farmers twine so that our manufacturers may not have a monopoly. The binder twine people are no better than others, and they will form a combination if they are able, and make the farmers pay higher prices. I do not believe in bonuses, but there are times, perhaps, when they are necessary. Now, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to the House for having spoken so long, though the apology may not be so much needed, because there are so few here. But those who are absent will be sorry in the morning that they were not here.


Mr. A. E. VROOMAN (South Victoria, Ontario).: Of all the questions mentioned in the budget speech, perhaps the financial question is the most important to this country. All other questions treated in the budget speech are more or less affected by the financial position. When the revenues of the country are buoyant, when the treasury is overflowing, it gives an impulse to all the departments of the government, and the public machinery moves on easily. I have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that when times are good, people are satisfied, and are disinclined to a change, in fact they like to leave things as they are. There is a disinclination for experiments. I think this government have taken full advantage of these conditions, and have decided to leave things pretty much as they were before. In fact, when we look around and ask ourselves what they have done, we cannot find an answer ; especially are we puzzled to find out what they have done after having made such large expenditures. Perhaps, after all, judging from the little things they have done, it is better that they should have not attempted great things, because if they had, they would probably have injured the country. I was pleased to listen for the third time to the story the Finance Minister had to tell us about prosperity and good times. I was ready to make some allowance for the ring of exultation in his voice when he announced that wonderful surplus, the largest surplus we have ever had in the Dominion of Canada. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I contend that the Conservative surpluses, though not as large, were more creditable to the government under the circumstances in which they were gathered.
I have always thought, Mr. Speaker, that this government was in many respects very fortunate. They came into power contemporaneously with good times. That statement does not need any proof. If we look

up the statistics of those days, we will find plenty of evidence to show that before they came into power good times had begun to revive. We all remember the times of depression from 1892 to 1896. The world over there was financial depression and stagnation. Under those circumstances, we were fortunate in having at the head of our financial affairs a very able man, who succeeded in conducting the ship of state through financial storms, while on the other side of the line, many monetary institutions tottered or went to the wall. In Canada our banks and corporate institutions all weathered the storm, with, I think, only one exception, a little bank up in the city of Winnipeg. But what was the course of the opposition in those days ? The opposition thought it was a good time to make an onslaught on the government, they thought the time had come when they might possibly attain to power. They made various specious promises that I need not detail to this House They threw into the arena of public discussion, a very troublesome religious question, and owing to the discontent thus created, and the prevailing hard times, the Liberal party succeeded in attaining to power. But we have discovered, after looking back over the six years that they have been in power, that the Liberal party made a better opposition than they do a government. I do not say even then, very much for their opposition when they were on this side of the House. During their long occupation of seats on this side of the House they in-culated to perfection the science of criticism and of faultfinding. They arrived at a perfection in that regard that we on this side of the House do not hope to emulate. But since they have been occupying the treasury benches, we have not discovered in them any evidence of constructive statesmanship. Now, while the Liberal party were in opposition, and especially during those hard times, they were wonderfully alarmed about the financial condition of the country, and in a resolution adopted at the Liberal convention in 1893, in this city, they expressed their alarm in this way. Mr. Speaker, you will indulge me if I recall a little ancient history. Perhaps the House has never heard of this resolution before :
We cannot but view with alarm the large increase of the public debt and of the controllable annual expenditure of the Dominion, and the consequent undue taxation of the people under the governments that have been continuously in power since 1878 ; and we demand strict economy in the administration of the government of the country.
They really deserve our pity when we consider that during all these long years they lived in this constant state of alarm. As a practical professional man, I understand the wearing nature of that condition of the nervous svstem, that constant state of alarm. From 1S93 to 1896 we had that party constantly affirming that position, and
I will draw from ancient history the expressions of some of these lion, gentlemen. The present hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said :
I say that it is a disgrace and a shame to the government that have been entrusted with our affairs that they come down to us and ask for an expenditure of $38,300,000 a year for federal purposes. Sir, the thing is utterly unjustifiable.
The present Postmaster General (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock) said in 1895 :
There is nothing to warrant this enormous expenditure of nearly $38,000,000 except the fact that we are burdened down with debt and with office-holders, great and small.
I have not heard that these office holders have been dismissed, or if they have been dismissed, deserving followers have been put in their places. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) said :
The Liberal party, if in power, could at once reduce the public expenditure and effect other savings to the. extent of five million dollars per annum, without impairing the efficiency of the service.
The right hon. the present leader of the House (Et. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said :
If we get into power we will follow the example of Mr. Mackenzie ; and I say that, although we may not be able to bring the expenditures to what they were under him, we can reduce the amount two, yes, three millions of dollars per year.
Well, they came into power and in six vears we find an annual expenditure of $64,000,000 which is just $20,000,000 more than the expenditure when they came into power. We find that in the last six years of their rule they spent $101,417,000 more than was spent during the last six years of Conservative rule. This is an immense amount of money. We have been told that there have been great public works undertaken in this country. The hon. Minister of Finance said the other day that they had provided liberally for public works. I have been trying to think what has been done in this country with this large expenditure what great public works have they built, and I am not able to settle on anything of importance that has been done. They have a public debt of $271,000,000 as against a debt of $258,000,000 when they came into office. They levied taxes last year to the amount of $43,389,000, whereas, when they came into office they found taxation to the amount of $27,759,000. During six years of rule by these hon. gentlemen we do not find that they have manifested any particular alarm. The alarm subsided when these gentlemen achieved power and we now find that they have passed into a state of quiescence and rest. We do not hear any expressions from these hon. gentlemen now about the unjustifiable expenditure of the government; in fact, I sometimes think that members of the opposition are very lax in I applying the proper epithets to that kind of

thing. I do not wish to burden the House with statistics, because, in this debate, we have had a good many statistics. But, I would like for my own purpose to refer to the taxation imposed upon the people of the country. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), gave us the particulars of the taxation for the last six years of the administration of lion, gentlemen opposite and for the last six years of the administration of the previous government and he was answered in that regard by the kon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. If kon. gentlemen will look at the record of taxation from 1891 to 1896 they will find that taxation was not increased but that it was actually decreased. During the period from 1891 to 1896 there was a falling off in taxation, but from 1896 to 1902 we find taxation rapidly increasing. The present government found the taxation at $27,759,000 when they came into office, while in the last report, we find that the taxation imposed upon the people has been increased to $43,000,000. In the last six years the government have taken out of the people in taxation $44,000,000 more than the taxation imposed upon the people during the previous six years. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce undertook to explain that away and this is the way that he did it. He said :
That is the hon. leader of the opposition-*
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.
I have tried to understand what a revenue tariff was and what a protective tariff was, but I have never been right in my conclusion if the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce is an authority upon the subject. We have the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) saying this in his speech :
The tariff of this country is practically the same that was adopted in 1897.
Now the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce further said :
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. The people.under our tariff have the satisfaction at any rate of knowing that what is taken out of them goes into the treasury, and can be used for the benefit of the whole people.
The hon. ex-Minister of Public Works said :
The revision of the tariff of 1897 has placed it about 2 per cent less high than it was before. We did not do more than that ; and when iny hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce was this afternoon denouncing the former tariff, the tariff that I supported my-Mr. VROOMAN.
self, when he was telling us that the tariff enacted in 1879 and kept on the statute-book up to 1897 had simply allowed the manufacturers to pocket the money of the people, I was saying to myself, if it was so, I do not know what it is now, because there is not much difference in the two tariffs ; the present tariff is about the same thing. We even raised the tariff in 1897 as against the United States on many articles.
It seemed to me when I heard that sort of argument coming from the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce that it was a very fallacious argument. I could noti help but believe that the hon ex-Minister of Public Works was right in this matter and that, as is practically admitted by the government supporters, the tariff is the same as that which has been in force since 1879 with some few slight exceptions and the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works says that the government even raised the tariff against the United States in some particulars. What is the principal reason why taxation fell off in the last six years of Conservative rule ? Here is what the ex-Minister of f'inace (Mr. Foster) said in 1891 :
In 1891 we remitted taxation on sugar-it came into effect the latter part of that year- to the extent of $227,477, and we had a surplus of $155,977. In 1892, the remission of sugar taxation, calculated on an equal consumption, was $5,200,000, and still we had a surplus of $1,354,555. In 1893, calculated on the consumption, the remission of taxation on raw sugar and other sugar amounted to $4,000,000, and we had a deficit of $1,210,232. In 1894, the remission of sugar taxation was $4,821,000, and we had a deficit of $4,153,875. And in 1895, after which we placed again the duty on raw sugar, the remission of total taxation was $5,603,521, and the deficit had come down to $330,551. What is the summing of the matter ? It is that in that period there was taxation remitted to the tune of $19,800,000, but there was a net deficit of $4,184,227. So that consequently there was given back to the country, in the remission of taxation, over and above the deficit which had to be provided out of capital, the sum of $15,000,000.
That is the reason there was no increase in the taxation. But with all the large surpluses that this government has had we do not find that they remit any taxes to the people. On the contrary, they continue to take money out of the pockets of the people, and to take all that they decently can. Bast year the expenditure for all purposes was $63,970,000 against an expenditure of $44,000,000 in 1896, when the Conservatives were in power, or an increase of $19,874,000 under Liberal rule, and on the top of all that the national debt has been increased as well. It was unfair for the Finance Minister to compare eighteen years of Conservative rule as to expenditure with the six years of Liberal rule, because we all know that during the eighteen years the Conservatives were in power vast public works were undertaken and completed. I shall take the liberty of reading from the ' Monetary Times ' an article on the budget speech of last year, which applies equally

well to the conditions that prevail this year, and I assume that the ' Monetary Times ' is not a party paper. It says :
The Finance Minister has been most fortunate in taking up his story at the beginning ot a cycle of prosperity and expansion, which succeeded the world-wide depression of the previous five years, and drew to its close in 1895 ; and in having had five full and growing years for succeeding recitals. We may also say that he was fortunate in having had as his predecessors in the government, men who spent largely and builded wisely in preparing the ground, without which no such results as called forth his and our congratulations could have been possible.
The budget speech shows an almost dizzying progress to have been made in other respects than in trade, and throws into bold relief the striking change in faith and practice since 1896. Never in the history of Canada were such vast figures dealt with by a Finance Minister in point of revenue and expenditure. Receipts from taxes $38,743,000 in 1901, compared with $37,759,285 in 1896. Total revenues, -which of course all come out of the people's pockets, $52,500,000, as against $36,600,000. Total expenditure $57,900,000, compared -with $41,700,000, and a net public debt of $268,000,000, as compared with $258,000,000-mark the change in five years. For 1902 it is stated that the total to be gathered for the treasury will be $57,000,000, the total expenditure $65,000,000, and the addition to the debt will be $6,000,000.
This fairly takes away one's breath, the sums are so vast, and the increase so rapid. Yet it is not recorded that Sir Richard Cartwright either swooned or swore, or that any of the old advocates of economy and reduction did else than cheer the minister as he placidly made these announcements on the authority and with the sanction of a Liberal government. _ And yet, apart from the change of front indicated in the parts', these figures challenge the serion i attention of every thoughtful citizen. Granted that the country is prosperous, is it wise to set so rapid a pace, and raise to such a height the scale of expenditure, which once raised it will be found almost impossible to lower ? It is well to remember that as the prices of staples rise-and there have been marked advances in price in many lines of recent years-the amount recived from customs taxation rises, for it is largely ad valorem. Then, when prices fall, the amount of customs revenue falls. In prosperous times, with a buoyant revenue, is it prudent to spend it all and add so many millions besides to a debt already too large ? For $13 per head or $65 per family for one year's government is a tremendous charge. Giving all due force to the contention that we are a growing country, and must needs provide generously for the public service, this headlong rush torward in taxation and expenditure, seemingly unchecked by bit or bridle, invites reflection on the part of business men and thoughtful citizens. These piping times will not always continue, and the overdrain of to-day hastens the exhaustion of tomorrow. We cry a warning and a halt before the rush has become a rout in which moderation and prudence lose iheir meaning and their force. A! this rate wre know not where we shall end, for, though '.he minister hints at limits to the tide of prosperity, he apparently sets none to the volume of expenditure.
That article from this respectable journal speaks better than I can of the present
financial condition of the country. We are well aware that in a new country like this, expenditure must increase and the people of Canada are perfectly willing to meet that increased expenditure, but there is a limit to everything. When our expenditure increases by leaps and bounds as it has done in the past few years, we naturally want to know what it is expended for, and when we come to inquire into the details we find that there is a wholesale waste of public money. Take the expenditure for the census as an example. We have had four censuses since confederation. The census of 1871 cost $511,000; the census of 1881, $552,000 ; the census of 1891, $549,000, an average for each of the three censuses taken by the Conservative government of $540,000. But in 1901, under a Liberal government, the census has cost $1,121,513, up to date. The Minister of Agriculture told us last year that the reason for this was because they asked so many more questions and elicited so much more information from the people. That may be true, for we all remember that the government issued a circular to their enumerators, instructing them that they were to get the ages of all the young men who were about to become twenty-one years old, and likely to support the government, so as to have them ready to put on the voters' list for the coming election. I asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the cost of taking the census in my own constituency, and that is a fair sample of what has occurred everywhere else. The fact of the matter is that they have uselessly spent double the money that the Conservatives did. The Minister of Agriculture told me that the population of my riding in 1891 was 20,455 and in 1901 it was 19,953, or about 500 less. But there were seventeen enumerators in 1891 and 39 enumerators in 1901. In 1891 the expense of taking the census in my riding was $1,253, and in 1901 it was $2,663. The Minister of Agriculture further told us that in 1891 the enumerators were allowed nothing for transportation but in 1901 they received $1.50 a day for horse hire. The cost of taking the census in that small riding in 1901 was just double what it was in 1891, and that increase can easily be explained when we find that every sorehead of the Liberal party and every party heeler in the constituency was appointed as an enumerator at the expense of the country, in order to get him back into the traces before the election. That is an illustration of where the money goes under this Liberal government. The fact is that this government, and to some extent they are justified in it, have not been disturbing the trend of things since they came into power. Times have been good and the revenue bouyant, and they have been allowing things to float along, as it were. But there is one thing which they have been very active about, and that is in looking after the party inter-

1S40
ests and placing their friends In good safe positions. As to the general interest of the country they are doing nothing. As a competent authority for that, I will quote from the speech of the right hon. Prime Minister, delivered at the Toronto Fair banquet on the 27th of August, 1901. He was replying to the toast of the parliament of Canada, and he said :
At the present time the government was in the happy position of having little to do. It had been said, ' Happy the man who has no history,' and it might with equal truth be asserted, ' Happy the nation that has no history.' He was in the peculiar position of a reformer who had nothing to reform. There had been a time when he had wanted to reform everything, but nowadays, added Sir Wilfrid, ' I find that I am very much of a Conservative.'
This, though somewhat of a confession, was part of the common history of mankind ; the young man is ardent for change and thinks the world is out of joint ; but as a man advances in life he feels as do the majority of men in parliament, that this is a good world to live in after all, and things run on very well if they are let alone.
So, Mr. Speaker, I bad just occasion for saying wbat I did about this matter. The sentiments expressed there are quite praiseworthy ; I do not take any exception to them, though I doubt very much about his being a Conservative, and have they been lived up to ?
Now, looking at the Trade and Navigation Returns, we see that our total imports for home consumption last year amounted to $202,701,595, and our total exports to $211,640,280, which I take to include coin and bullion. As we analyse these figures, keeping in mind the preferential features of the tariff, they are somewhat interesting. We find that we imported from Great Britain $49,206,062 and from the United States $120,814,750. The lion. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) says these large imports from the United States are due to geography. I am ready to admit that geography has a good deal to do with them. We import a great deal from the United States that we would not perhaps import if the two countries were not in such close proximity ; hut that fact does not account for the whole difference. We have this broad fact, that while a preference has been given to English goods in our market, we imported only $49,000,000 from Great Britain, while we imported $120,000,000 from the United States. We get a better idea when we consider the increases. Since 1S98, the increase in the imports from England [DOT]was $16,705,145, while the increase in the imports from the United States was $42.109,160. The history of the British preference must be a source of great humiliation to hon. members on the government side of the House. When that preference was granted to English goods in our market in 1898, we remember with what a blowing of horns and heating of drums it was ushered in. We could not hear the last of it;


Adam Edward Vrooman: we would not hare tliese blockades that we have to-day. When blockades of freight take place I think the government should approach that great corporation and urge them to improve their equipment. Now this transportation question is to a great extent an agricultural question, because it is the agricultural products that have forced this question to the front. These products are increasing, and' the farmers are becoming greatly interested in this question of transportation. But the farmer does not care very much how his goods get to market, whether they go through this route or that, so long as he gets them to market in good season, and gets good returns. A good deal of fault has been found with the Grand Trunk for making its terminus at Portland. We have the ex-Minister of Public Works declaring that there is no patriotism in money or business. He said he did not blame the Grand Trunk for making its terminus at Portland, because Portland was its natural port. The shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway have a right to expect the best possible dividends, and Portland being the natural port, the Grand Trunk carry a large quantity of grain to that port. It is the same with the farmer. He does not care which way his grain gets to the market so long as it gets there by the cheapest and safest route. His chief desire is to get his goods on the market in the best condition.
Another important question I wish to discuss is that of assisting the construction of railways by subsidies. Up to this time there has been an immense sum of money spent on the construction of railways. This country has spent $230,000,000 in money subsidies to railways, besides land grants and freedom from taxation. According to the last Statistical Year-book, we have now 18,140 miles of railway. The Dominion government has contributed toward their construction at the rate of $9,083 per mile; the provincial governments have contributed $1,771 per mile, and the municipalities have contributed $892 per mile. So our railways in Canada have been subsidized at the rate of $11,740 per mile. I think, Mr. Speaker, the day has arrived when this expenditure is becoming unnecessary. We certainly have reached a state of development when railway corporations should build their own roads. But as long as it remains the policy of this government to give subsidies, just so long will private enterprises refuse to put money into them. It seems inconsistent that we should talk about railway subsidies aim freight blockades in the same breath. U ith freight waiting to be carried such as ^ e hear about and we know to be the case surely those ventures ought to pay It ought to be considered a great concession to secure a charter to build a road in this country, and the government ought not to be asked to contribute. What is the history of railway building in the United States ?


Adam Edward Vrooman: The people there have had to meet much the same conditions as those existing in Canada, and it is natural to inquire as to the policy they have pursued in reference to this question. So far as the United States government is concerned, it has never given a single cash bonus; all the aid it has ever given has been confined to assistance to transcontinental lines. The moneys advanced to them were secured by mortgage bonds which, with few exceptions, have been paid off, so that it has received back in interest and principal far more than the original amount advanced. In addition, the United States government has made large grants in public lands. The Western States, though, had a different policy, and gave so largely that several of them became practically bankrupt; but to-day no railway bonuses are given in the United States. In the Eastern States no bonuses in money or land were ever given. At the present time the railways constructed in Canada, with scarcely an exception, have been subsidized by the Dominion government to the extent of $3,200 per mile, but latterly the Dominion subsidy has been increased, so that if a road costs over $15,000 per mile it receives an additional subsidy of 50 per cent of the excess of the cost until the total Dominion subsidy reaches $6,400 per mile. The usual subsidy given by the provinces is $3,000 per mile, and is in addition to the Dominion subsidy.
The difference in the Canadian policy regarding railway construction and the United States policy, is well illustrated in the bridge built at or near the town of Cornwall, Ont. That part of the bridge lying in Canadian territory received subsidies from the Dominion and provincial governments to the extent of $125,000, and is practically free from taxes; while that part lying in American territory received no subsidy and contributes a substantial tax to the State of New York. The New York and Ottawa Railway was bonused on this side of the St. Lawrence, but received no bonus in the United States. Yet over the subsidized line in Ontario the fare is three cents per mile. And over its entire length on the other side the fare is two cents per mile. The passenger rate in New York is two cents per mile, and in the State of Michigan two cents. The Grand Trunk Railway has given a two-cent rate over all its lines in Michigan. If the subsidies that we give to railways had the effect of reducing rates, there might be a good deal to be said for them, for we would then receive back in the form of cheap rates at least a part of the outlay. But unfortunately the subsidies that we pay are not applied to any such purpose. They are realized on at once by those who receive them, and the road which is built is mortgaged and stocked to its limit.
Now, I would like to quote from a speech delivered by Mr. W. D. Gregory to the farm-

1S50
ers of North York, as reported in the ' Farmers Sun ':
Let me quote you some of the rates which prevailed last year between the Western States and the seaboard, and between Ontario points and the seaboard, and the prices -which at the same time the Ontario farmer and the farmer in the United States received. In May last year the Grand Trunk Railway carried grain arriving by lake at the town of Midland, from Midland to Montreal for 4i cents per bushel, including terminal charges. At the same time it charged 8 4-10 cents per bushel for carrying from Midland to Montreal grain raised in the county of Simcoe and loaded on the cars from the local elevators. In October last, the rate on grain from Duluth to Montreal via the Canada Atlantic Railroad was 8J cents per hundredweight, and the rate from Fort William to Montreal via the Midland Railroad 10 cents per hundred-weight.
At the same time the rate from Markdale, Ontario, to Montreal, was 161 cents per hundred-weight, or almost double the rate charged for the carriage of grain from Duluth to Montreal over a road heavily subsidized by you. At the same time the rate from Buffalo to Liverpool via New York was 111 cents per hundredweight, and the rate from Toronto to Liverpool 171 cents per hundred-weight. Is it, therefore, surprising to find that at this time No. 2 red winter wheat was selling at Chicago for 691 cents per bushel, and at Milwaukee from G8 to 69 cents per bushel, while in Western Ontario the price was from 65 cents to 651 cents per bushel, and at Toronto 66 cents per bushel, the latter price being the highest then paid in the province ?
It has often been wondered why wheat sells at a little higher price at Chicago than at Toronto, but the freight rates do the whole thing. It is explained easily in that way :
Another aggravating feature of the situation from the farmers standpoint is the frequent difficulty of securing sufficient cars for the local shipments. We all know the Midland railway ; yet at one time not very long ago local grain buyers had to wait for weeks before getting a car to ship the produce of Ontario, while train load after train load of cars loaded with American grain rolled by the local station on their way to the seaboard. A large portion of this American grain had been accepted by the railroad subject to the condition that it should be delivered at the seaboard at a certain time, and in order that it might be delivered, Canadian shippers were deprived of the cars they might otherwise have received. The scheme of diverting American grain to Canadian routes did not work to your advantage on that occasion.
In my opinion it is not in the interests of the country that we should subsidize railways any more unless for colonization purposes and then there should be a lien taken on the road. I just want to give the answer to a question asked by the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) the other day which was given by the hon. Postmaster General. The hon. member for West Elgin asked :
Has the government made any efforts to induce any of the immigrants coming to Canada to settle in Ontario ?
I think the hon. Postmaster General made rather a curt reply to that hon. gentleman, and I do not consider that he gave a proper reply at all. This is the answer that he gave :


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock).: The government in promoting immigration into Canada leaves it to the immigrants themselves to select the places in the Dominion where they desire to settle.
These poor immigrants are in the hands of an agent. If the agent were instructed by the hon. Minister of Agriculture as to the necessities of Ontario it would be an easy matter for him to switch off a number of these people and direct them to locate in Ontario. I want to bring this matter to the attention of the hon. acting Minister of Agriculture, because the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) is not here.
I regret he is not. I hope he may be at work where he is for the advantage of Canada. I understand he is cultivating very friendly relations with the Japanese. I am told that he is rapidly assuming the manner and even the appearance of these people and that he would be very easily mistaken for one of that nationality now. I hope the government will not risk losing permanently the services of that valuable minister. We have been spending half a million of dollars on immigration agents abroad, and we have coming into this country to-day an immense number of immigrants. It seems like the irony of fate that the government hardly know what to do with the immigrants now coming into this country when only a few years ago these hon. gentlemen were declaring that the Canadian Pacific Railway would not pay for the axle grease. I think under the circumstances that the money spent ou agents in Europe might be brought home and used in providing accommodation for these immigrants here. I believe that the tide of immigration which has set in will continue and that the expenditure in foreign fields may be reduced, or that it may be brought to this country and used in looking after the comfort of these immigrants. I do not know that I would advocate the reduction of the expenditure, but there is no occasion for increasing it. The hon. Minister of Agriculture must know that this is an important question in the province of Ontario. It is becoming a matter of concern to the farmers in that province. The tenant farmers and labourers have gone to the west and a farmer cannot rent his farm, he cannot sell it and he cannot work it for want of labour. I have heard farmers in the province of Ontario make that statement again and again. They say : Are we to turn our farms into commons and allow the cattle to run over them ! This condition is brought about by the fact that there is no labour to be had in the province of Ontario. I think it would be very easy for the immigration agents . to

divert some of the stream of immigration into the province of Ontario. We have had deputations of farmers from the province waiting upon the local government and asking them to do something. There has been a promise made, hut, owing to fortuitous circumstances, the government at Toronto has not had time to do anything. This is a matter that I desire to impress upon the attention of the government. This is the condition of affairs in the province of Ontario and I want to bring it before the government in the interest of the farming community because I represent a farming constituency and I am a farmer myself. I think I am a practical farmer because I was born on the farm, and in fact, I have lived off the proceeds of the farm all my life.
Now, I want to say something for the benefit of the hon. Postmaster General. I do not want to discuss that vexed question of his surplus at all. It seems clear that the reports are all askew in regard to this matter. They will not agree. The Auditor General's Report says one thing, the Public Accounts say another thing and the Postmaster General's Report, which would be expected to put the most favourable light upon it says another thing. There is one thing that I want to call to the attention of the House and it is the inferior postal service that is given in the province of Ontario. I know men engaged in mail carrying who are not getting as much as they should; yet, the hon. Postmaster General is supposed to look after the wages that labouring men get. There is another point that I want the hon. Postmaster General to take a note of. If this were not going down in ' Hansard ' I might as well be talking to a vacuum, or to vacancy, because


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: Hear, hear.


Adam Edward Vrooman: I hope the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Ross) is enjoying himself. I did not know he so considered himself.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Surely yon would not call ' Hansard ' a vacuum.


Adam Edward Vrooman: In Ontario the question of free mail delivery has become a real live issue. The farmers are asking for the free delivery of mails at their own homes. When you come to investigate this question yon will find that it is a very important one. We know that farm life in Ontario, as elsewhere, is a hard life. I have no doubt there are many farmers who are well to do, who make a considerable amount of money and who have a good time, but the average farmer is not in that position. He works hard and his life Is a monotonous one, so much so, that the boys and the girls leave home. The farmer, when his sons leave home cannot get help and anything that will make farm life more comfortable and enjoyable is going to do a great deal to im-Mr. VROOMAN.
prove the condition of the farmer. What I want to see is the adoption of a system of free mail delivery that will bring the farmer in contact with the outside world every day, so that, the boys insteads- of going down to the village to hear the latest dirty stories and other trash in the evening he will have some inducement to remain al) home. I want every farmer in Ontario who can afford it to have a telephone. That telephone question is coming to the front and I was glad to hear it discussed the other day at the Railway Committee. If the farm home has the telephone in it, if the farm home has the daily paper in it, then, the boys, when they come in from their work will be perfectly willing to stay there and if we can get them these comforts and other modern facilities such as the electric cai-, I am sure hon. gentlemen will agree) with me when I say that the attractiveness of home life on the farm will be much enhanced.
There Is no use arraying class against class as the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Davis) did. We are enjoying prosperity and peace and plenty in Canada to-day, and what we want to do is to make the home happy. This is an agricultural country above all and it is my opinion that the interests of the farmers are kept too much in the back ground. It is true that the tariff is an important question, but the Minister of Finance told us that he was going to take the tariff out of politics and it occurred to me that if his supporters didn't talk tariff in this House they would have not much else to talk about. I know something of the condition of the farmer in Ontario and I take it that in other provinces his condition is about the same. I blame the educational system in Ontario that many of our young men are leaving the rural districts and seeking the cities, in many cases to their great loss. They are told too much about the advantages of professional life, and the advantages of agricultural life are neglected and ignored. Let us spend more money on agricultural colleges and experimental farms and send our boys and girls there to learn scientific farming and modern methods so that they can make farming pay. Sir, it seems strange that there should be such a discrepancy in the reports concerning the Postmaster General's account-the Postmaster General's Report, the Public Accounts and the Auditor General's Report all differ on this matter. I believe, Sir, that in the minister's endeavour to secure a surplus the service in some of its branches is being starved-the letter carriers and the mail carriers are in many instances not half paid. These cases have come under my own observation, and when we are in the estimates I intend to draw the minister's attention to it-I think this is a satire on the Minister of Labour. But, Sir, I wish to say that the farmers of this country are expecting an expression of opinion from the Post-

master General on the question of free mail delivery. This is a question that is growing in favour, and the people, the agriculturists, will soon demand it as a right. I believe, Sir, that the day is near at hand when we shall see the farmer have the daily paper delivered, when the farm house shall have its telephone, and when the electric car will be within easy reach-then home life on the farm will be enjoyable, the boys and the girls will not be discontented and want to go to the city; it will tend to make farm life more attractive, a thing much needed to-day.
This government has been fortunate in many respects but there is one thing left for them to be fortunate in and that is that the people of Canada should turn them out of power before the bad times set in.
Mr. SUTHERLAND (Essex) moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.
HOUSE 03? COMMONS.
Monday, April 27, 1903.