1903-04-30

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 12S) for the relief of William Francis Schooley.-Mr. Boyd.
Bill (No. 134) to incorporate the Erie Ontario Power Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 135) to incorporate the Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia Railway Company.-Mr. Logan.
Bill (No. 130) to amend the Steamboat Inspection Act.-Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 138) to amend the Pilotage Act.- Hon. Mr. Prefontaine.

Mr.   W.@: SCOTT (West Assiniboia) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 137) to regulate the sale and provide for the inspection of textile fabrics. He said: The object is to prevent the sale of shoddy as pure wool. Provision is made that all shoddy shall be accurately marked or labelled and penalties will be levied for the infringement of this provision. The Bill is of considerable importance to the woollen manufacturers and wool-raisers, and on a second reading there will be ample opportunity for full discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Have any and what applications been made to the government for an appropriation of public money for the following purposes :-(a) the widening of the government wharf at the Port of Digby to such a width that a second railway track may be laid down thereon ; (h) the erection of an ell or extension of the said wharf, at the outer side thereof, of at least 250 feet in length ; (c) the dredging of the harbour at the said Port of Digby at the sides and ends of the said wharf, to a depth of at least 25 feet ?
2.	By whom and when have such applications been made ?
3.	Has there been any correspondence between the town council, or the mayor, of the town of Digby, or any member of the said town council, and the government, or any member thereof, in relation to the above matters, or any of them, or between Albert J. S. Copp, M.P., and the government, or any member thereof, with respect to an appropriation of public money for the above purposes, or any of them, during the year 1902, or the year 1903 ?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to make any grant, or ask for any vote, during the present session, toward wharf and harbour improvements at the said Port of Digby, N.S. ? If so, to what extent ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: In reply to questions 1 and 2, I beg to say that an application was made for improved facilities at the port of Digby, in a letter to the chief engineer of the Public Works Department by Mr. Copp, M.P. In reply to the third, there is no other correspondence. In reply to the fourth, the sum of $2,000 is already included in the main estimates for 1903-4 now before parliament for repairs only to this wharf.


RAILWAY LAND GRANTS.
Mr. SCOTT asked :: 1.	What are the names of all railway companies to which grants of land have been voted by parliament, and the area voted to each ?
2.	What is the railway mileage so aided by land grants, constructed by each company (a)
in Manitoba, (b) North-west Territories, (c) in other portions of Canada ?
3. What area has been earned by each company ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hou. Sir William Mulock).: In reply to the hon. gentleman I beg to submit the following statement :
(l.)	,
Area voted.
Name of Railway.	Acres.
Alberta Railway and Coal Company (formerly North-west Coal and Navigation Company)	
Alberta and Athabasca Railway Com-
1,498,36$
1,920,000
pany	 *
Brandon and South-western Railway
Company	 [DOT][DOT]
Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company	
Canadian Northern Railway Company (railway from point on C.P.R. to
Hudson's Bay)	
Canadian Northern Railway Company (formerly Lake Manitoba Railway
and Canal Company)	
Canadian Pacific Railway (main line).
Canadian Pacific Railway, Souris
branch	
Canadian Pacific Railway, Pipestone
extension of Souris branch	
Great North-west Central Railway Company (formerly North-west Central Railway Company)..
Lac Seul Railway Company	
Medicine Hat Railway and Coal Company	
Manitoba and North-western Railway Company	
Manitoba South-western Colonization
Railway Company	
Manitoba and South-eastern Railway
Company	
North-western Railway Company of
Canada	
Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railroad and Steamboat Company	
Red Deer Valley Railway and Coal
Company	 352,000
Rocky Mountain Railway and Coal
Company	
Saskatchewan and Western Railway
Company	
Wood Mountain and Qu'Appelle Railway Company	 1,536,000
108,800
2,176,000
6,880,000
900,400
25,000,000
1,408,704
200,320
2,880,000
115,200
51,200
2,918,400
1,396,S00
704,000
3,350,000
2,208,000
384,000
98.SS0
Total
56,087,072
(2.)


IN MANITOBA.
[Stage Direction]
Miles.
Canadian Northern Railway.. .'	 249.75
Canadian Pacific Railway	 229.00
Canadian Pacific Railway, Souris branch. 144.00 Canadian Pacific Railway, Pipestone
extension of Souris branch	
Great North-west Central Railway.. .. Manitoba and South-eastern Railway .. Manitoba and North-western Railway
Company of Canada	
Manitoba and South-western Coloniza- _
lion Railway	218.25
Saskatchewan and Western Railway..
31.30
50.00
98.00
182.00
15.45
Total	1.217/

[Stage Direction]
Miles.
Alberta Railway and Coal Company.. .. 174.12
Calgary and Edmonton Railway	 295.07
Canadian Pacific Railway	 755.00
Canadian Pacific Railway, Souris branch. 76.11 Manitoba and North-western Railway
Company of Canada	 52.59
Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railroad and Steamboat Company. 253.96
2- How much of this amount was due to the additional duty imposed in the session of 1897?
The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier) :: 1.	Four million four hundred and forty-two thousand two hundred and thirty-two dollars and fifteen cents.
2.	One million three hundred and thirty-five thousand seven hundred and twenty-three dollars and eighty-seven cents.
Total
1.606.S5
IN ONTARIO. Canadian Pacific Railway.
IN BRITISH COLUMBIA. Canadian Pacific Railway	
Miles.
630.00
Milos.
268.00
(3.)
Name of Railway.
Land Grant Earned. Acres.
Alberta Railway and Coal Company.... 1,114,368
Calgary and Edmonton Railway		1,888,448
Canadian Northern Railway	 1,598,400
(Lake Manitoba and Canal Company, 798,400 acres.)
(Winnipeg Great Northern Railway,
800,000 acres.)
Canadian Pacific Railway	 18,206,986
Canadian Pacific Railway, Souris
branch	 1,408,704
Canadian Pacific Railway, Pipestone
extension of Souris branch	 200.320
Great North-western Railway	 320,000
Manitoba and South-eastern Railway. 627,200 Manitoba and North-western Railway
Company of Canada	 1,501,376
Manitoba South-western Colonization
Railway	 1,396,800
Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railroad and Steamboat Company	 1,625,344
Saskatchewan and Western Railway. 98,880
Total area earned.
	 29,986,826


OFFENSIVE CARTOON.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria)-by Mr. Fowler-asked :
1.	Is the organ of the Canadian army, the ' Military Gazette ' and ' Canadian Gentlemen's Magazine,' an official publication of the Canadian government ?
2.	Does the government endorse the spirit of
the offensive cartoon on page eleven of the issue of April 7, 1903, in which the citizens of Canada (of North of Ireland origin) are insulted ?	'
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden).: In answer to both questions, I have to say that the government has nothing whatever to do with the publication of the ' Military Gazette ' and ' Canadian Gentlemen's Magazine.'


TOBACCO DUTIES.
Mr. HENDERSON asked :: 1. What was the total amount of duty collected on tobacco for the year ending 30th June, 1902 ?


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: 


NEGLECT OF PARLIAMENTARY GROUNDS.
Mr. G. TAYLOR (South Leeds).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to call the attention of the House and particularly of the Minister of Public Works, to what I think every lion, member will consider a grievance. I am not going to say anything with reference to the city of Ottawa-I leave it for the electors of the city to deal with the corporation at the proper time. I understand that this government is paying a large sum annually to the city of Ottawa for the purpose of carrying on some permanent improvements, and in return, they are to receive all the water required for the use of the parliament buildings and grounds, together with other considerations that may not amount to much. What I would like to ask is why the government are not making better use of the water by having the grounds sprinkled. To-day it is only at the risk of a man's life almost, that he goes from this House to the main gate of the grounds. As I passed down just before dinner, some of the new loam which has been put on the roads, but which is now turned into dust, came in a cloud and practically blinded me. If the government are entitled to use all the water they require, there are certainly men enough around the departments idle who could use that water to sprinkle the roads and lay the dust. I know that it is only necessary to draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) to this matter and he will see that the necessary steps are taken.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: All will admit that we have a dust nuisance on the grounds at this time. Moreover, I should be glad to take any action I could to remove the dust from the eyes of my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) for he needs light very badly. But, seriously speaking, I know that, for many sessions, we have suffered here owing to die conditions of the grounds in this respect. Not only is it very disagreeable, but it does great harm in the House, and in the government offices, as well as injuring the beautiful grounds.


Mr. CLARKE.: Can the hon. minister give us any temporary relief in the meantime ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As soon as I noticed the condition of the

grounds, the water carts were put on, and they are at work this afternoon. I think it would he better if we had an appropriation and could provide some better cover for the roads immediately around the building, in place of the sand and dust wo have there. Even the sprinkling that is now going on seems hardly to afford relief. I will bring the matter to the attention of the proper officials and have the difficulty remedied, I hope.


MARITIME PROVINCES AND DISTINGUISHED VISITORS.
Hon.   W@: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to ask the attention of the government to a matter which seems to me of importance. We see it stated in the press that in August nest, there is to be an excursion party of seventy-five members of the imperial parliament and twenty-five Peers who will arrive in Quebec and work their way westward through Canada. I would like very much if these public men could be notified that there is a section of Canada which we know as the maritime provinces, and if some of our visitors could be led to turn their faces eastward as well as westward. I am well aware, that the government cannot control the movements of these distinguished visitors. Still, certain influences might be used which would lead to some of them finding their way to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward'Island. If things go on as they are going at present, the public mind will be so exclusively directed to the west that people will forget that this Dominion has an eastern portion at all. I hope the government will succeed in using such influences as will induce some of these distinguished personages to. visit the maritime provinces.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: With regard to the question put by the hon. member for Victoria, N.S. (Hon. Mr. Ross) that the party composed of members of the British parliament, Cords and Commoners, who are to visit Canada in the month of August next, should not forego a visit to the maritime provinces, I would suppose that the maritime provinces required no advertisement. I should presume that they jvould not visit Canada without going to the maritime provinces also. The government, as my bon. friend knows, has nothing at all to do either officially or unofficially with this visit. But if by any word of mine or of my colleagues, we can further the end of my hon. friend, I would be glad to do so.


THE DISASTER AT FRANK.
Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire to draw the attention of the government to
the very remarkable rumours that have been in circulation during the last twenty-four hours as to earthquakes and volcanoes in the vicinity of the town of Frank, in the district of Alberta. Apparently, these rumours of disturbances of that nature are absolutely unfounded, as also the reports of the immense destruction of life and property. I take the liberty of putting the matter before the government and the House in this way, because the circulation of such unfounded reports disturbing the public mind and causing anguish to relatives as well as doubts as to the values of property is a crime which should be punished. I would suggest to the government that, if it is possible to fix the responsibility for the circulation of such reports, measures should be taken to fix that responsibility and mete out the proper punishment. I would like further to draw attention to the fact that, although the reports were so greatly and unpardonably exaggerated, there still has been a serious loss of life arising from such a cause and under such circumstances, as, it appears to me, would very well warrant thorough investigation. Apparently, according to the latest reports, a landslide occurred which had the effect of displacing the drifts in the mine in actual operation. Before the mine should properly be put in operation again, it seems to me, means should be taken to satisfy all concerned that another slide of like nature or worse is not likely to occur. That is to say, I would respectfully suggest that an investigation should be held on the ground, as to the cause of the trouble which did take place, as to its results, and as to the probability of further trouble occurring.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The information which the government has received on this subject is of such a character, unfortunately, as to convey to us the fact that the disturbance which has taken place at Frank, though not as bad as at first reported, still, is very serious, and has had very serious consequences. My attention was first drawn to the matter by a telegram that I received yesterday, as follows :
Frank, N.W.T., April 29, 1903. Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
Ottawa, Ont.
Terrible catastrophe here. Eruption, Turtle Mountain devastated miles of territory. One hundred killed. Must have government aid quick to clear passage for river which is dammed hundreds feet high, and danger to life and property from flood most imminent. Not over one day distant at most. Answer quick.
(Signed) S. W. CHALMERS, MARK DRUMM,
President and Secretary, Board of Trade.
Upon the receipt of this telegram, we gave orders at once to the Mounted Police and the Department of the Interior to send such relief as it was possible to' send, and

we exchanged the following telegrams with our officers in the west:
Ottawa, April 29, 1903.
3.30	p.m.


Major A.   B.@: Perry,
Regina, N.W.T.
Serious disaster reported eruption, Turtle Mountain, near Frank, Crow's Nest Railway. Number people killed and river blocked by matter thrown from mountain. Instruct officer commanding McLeod to proceed there at once with all men he can take and arrange for up to strength of twenty-five drawn from most convenient detachments to follow with extra tents and facilities for rendering assistance. Further instructions later. There will likely be a special train from Calgary to McLeod by which police from there would travel. Instruct Sanders to communicate with Mr. Pearce.
(Signed.) FRED WHITE.
Mr. Pearce is the inspector of surveys in the North-west.
Regina, N.W.T., April 29, 1903.
Received 7.30 p.m.
To Comptroller,
North-west Mounted Police,
Ottawa.
Instructions re accident at Frank being carried out.
(Sgd.) A. B. PERRY.
Ottawa, April 29, 1903.
8.30	p.m.


Major A.   B.@: Perry,
Regina, N.W.T.
Conditions at Frank much more serious than at first reported. Mr. Pearce goes to Calgary to take charge of government relief work. Keep yourself in touch with requirements and render every possible police assistance.
(Sgd.) FRED WHITE.
At the time, Mr. Smart, the deputy minister of the Interior put himself in communication with the Canadian Pacific authorities.	This morning, the following
communications were placed in my hands : Frank, N.W.T., April 30, 1903. James A. Smart.
Ottawa.
Eighty-three killed, of which about fifteen women and fifteen children. It i3 thought there will be no trouble from damming of river. Rock slide about 4,000 feet long extending to highest point of Turtle Mountain westerly; end of slide thirty-three feet west of mouth of tunnel extending across the valley, and up opposite bank for one and one-quarter miles from front of Turtle Mountain, and spread out fan shape so that at extreme end slide it was nearly two miles wide. No trace of river for one mile, but water now going through rock as fast as coming down. Place very orderly this morning. Not probable there will be further slide of any consequence. Twelve police and two officers here, plenty to maintain peace and order, necessary purposes. No earthquake or volcano, all working in mine except two escaped.
(Sgd.) WM. PEARCE.
Then Mr. Smart received from Mr. Mc-Nicoll, of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the following telephone :
The trouble on the Crow's Nest branch at Frank was caused by a huge rock slide. There Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
was no explosion, but the slide was of such large dimensions that the cloud of dust was taken for smoke. Minor slides coming down were taken for inside explosions. The whole east end of the mountain extending from the mouth of the French mine has slidden into the valley. The mountain was 4,400 feet high, and the slide blocked the entire valley, about three quarters of a mile wide and a mile and a-half long.
A waterway is being cut so as to avoid flooding. The loss of life not yet estimated. Thirty miners said to be in the mine but every reason to think that they are alive. Party now trying to remove rock from the mouth of the mine. About ten houses in the east end of the village destroyed, some entire families. One of them were Mr. Leech's, three of his children escaped, parents and four children killed. The youngest child was thrown out of the house in some miraculous way and not injured. All passengers too and from the Kootenay are being forwarded by the old route via main line and Revelstoke.
Sir Thomas Shaughnessy also received the following telegram which he placed in my hand :
Report from Frank is that there is a huga slide, no explosion. Was of such large dimensions that cloud of dust taken for smoke and minor slides coming down taken for explosions. Whole eastern end of mountain extending from mouth of mine has gone out. It was 4,400 feet high and slid across entire valley blocking our track to the Frank mine track which is forty feet higher than our track. The slide extends from a point 200 feet east of Frank station, one and one-half miles and is three-fourths of a mile wide. The track is covered with rock of all sizes up to that of a double deck boarding car. Out of question to transfer trains at present. Loss of life not yet estimated. There are 30 miners still in mine and every reason to think they are alive.
Parties trying to remove the rock from the mouth. Ten houses in east end of town destroyed, some entire families. Taylor reports no reason why more o? the slide of the mountain west towards Blairmore should not come down. Many new slides coming down. Only place now where line could be run quickly is from mouth of mine down the creek, but so many new slides coming down there men will not go near it. Taking passengers back to Macleod and Nelson to work via Revelstoke. McHenry and Dennis will be there this forenoon to report fully.
(Sgd.) D. McNICOLL.
It appears from these telegrams that they have explained the rumour which was spread yesterday that there was an explosion. No doubt the rumour was spread in good faith, with no malicious intent. With regard to the advisability of having a further investigation upon this subject, perhaps it is premature to give any opinion. We have some very able men on the scene of action. Mr. Pearce is a very able man, as those who are acquainted with him will testify. Major Perry of the Mounted Police is also a very able man, and so is the agent at MacLoed a man of superior ability. It is probable that when these men have cleared away the debris and performed the duties with which they are now entrusted, they will give such a report as may make it unnecessary to have

any further investigation. Then we will he -able to decide whether it would be advisable to follow the suggestion made by the member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver).


INQUIRY FOR RETURN.
Mr. T. CHASE CASGRAIN (Montmorency).: I wish to call the attention of the government to the incompleteness of the return made some days since of the papers in connection with the establishment of the Ross factory at Quebec. The return laid before the House does not contain a petition by some of the prominent citizens of Quebec against the granting of the site. I would like that petition to be included in the return.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I will look into that.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Minister of Finance :
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to he granted to His Majesty ; and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
["(Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I would be failing in my duty, as a representative in this House of the French minority, were I not to say a few words before the question is put. For the last fortnight I have followed with much interest the discussion which has taken place in connection with the budget. Barring the speech, or financial statement, made by the hon. the Minister of Finance, barring also the able criticism of that statement offered by the leader of the opposition and two or three other addresses on either side of the House, very little remains of the debate which has been going on. It is not, therefore, my intention to take up the time of the House for any length of time.\nWe listened with interest this evening to the speech of the hon. the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson). He dealt for about an hour with tomatoes, onions and other truck. Truly, one would have been led to believe that the cabinet was made up of market gardeners.\nThe hon. member for Gasp6 (Mr. Le-mieux) also spoke briefly. He dwelt at some length on by-elections, giving, even, a full list of them. I shall not follow him on that ground, but shall refer only to the one which took place in Maskinongg. Previous to that election there was one man in this House with only one arm. Likely the government envied the opposition on that account, and they chose as their candidate a man in the same predicament. I was so pleased at this that I managed to have him elected by acclamation.\nThe hon. member for Gaspe referred also to Mr. Foster. He stated that the hon. gentleman had gone up for election, but had been defeated. The member for Gasp6 did not say what had brought about Mr. Foster's defeat. Well, I shall tell you. Mr. Foster was not returned because he had opposed the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company; and the same thing will happen to you should you obstruct the company's Bill. You will be defeated at the", "next election. You may think I am joking, but I am in earnest.\nI shall not deal with the tariff; enough has been said on that matter. At this late hour, I prefer cutting my speech short, and allowing the question to be put. No doubt, you will be pleased; on seeing me rise, you said to yourselves : Ball will take up our time for a whole hour. I am going to disappoint you.\nHouse divided on amendment of Mr. Borden (Halifax).\nYEAS :\nMessieurs\nAlcorn,\tIngram,\nAvery,\tJohnston (Cardwell),\nBall.\tKaulbach,\nBarker,\tKemp,\nBell,\tKidd.\nBennett,\tLancaster\nBirkett,\tLaRividre,\nBlain,\tLavell.\nBorden (Halifax),\tLeonard,\nBoyd,\tMaclaren (Perth),\nBrock,\tMcIntosh,\nBroder.\tMonk,\nBruce,\tMorin,\nCargill,\tPope,\nCarscallen,\tReid (Grenville),\nCasgrain,\tRichardson,\nClancy,\tRoche (Marquette),\nOlare,\tRosamond,\nClarke,\tSherritt.\nCochrane,\tSmith (Wentworth),\nCulbert,\tSproule.\nEarle.\tTarte,\nFowler,\tThomson (Grey),\nGilmour,\tTolton,\nHackett.\tVrooman.\nHaggart,\tWilmot,\nHalliday,\tWilson.-54.\n NAYS : Messieurs\nArchambault,\tLewis.\nBazinet,\tLovell,\nBeland,\tLoy,\nBelcourt,\tMacdonald,\nBernier,\tMackle,\nBlckerdike,\tMacKinnon,\nBorden (Sir Frederick), MacLaren (Huntingdon),\t\nBourassa,\tMacpherson,\nBourbonnals,\tMcCarthy,\nBrown,\tMcCool.\nBruneau,\tMcCreary,\nBureau,\tMcEwen,\nCampbell,\tMcGugan,\nCarbonneau,\tMclsaac,\nCarroll,\tMcLennan,\nChampagne,\tMadore,\nChristie,\tMalouin,\nCostigan,\tMarcil (Bagot),\nDavis,\tMarcil (Bonaventure),\nDelisle,\tMartineau,\nDemers (Ldvis),\tMatheson,\nDemers (St. John),\tMayrand,\nDesjardins,\tMeigs,\nDouglas,\tMignault,\nDugas,\tMulock,\nEmmerson,\t(Sir William),\nErb,\tMurray,\nEthier.\tOliver,\nFielding,\tParmelee,\nFitzpatrick,\tPaterson,\nFortier, Mr. BALL.\tPower,\nFraser,\tPrefontaine,\nGallery,\tProulx,\nGalliher,\tPuttee.\nGauvreau,\tReid (Restigouche),\nGeoffrion,\tRiley,\nGirard,\tRobinson (Elgin),\nGould,\tRoche (Halifax),\nGrant,\tRoss (Rimouski),\nHarty,\tRoss (Victoria, N.S.),\nHarwood,\tRousseau,\nHeyd,\tRussell,\nHolmes,\tSchell,\nHughes (King's, P.E.I.),Scott,\t\nHyman,\tSmith (Vancouver),\nJohnston (Cape Breton),Stephens,\t\nKendall,\tStewart,\nLang,\tSutherland (Oxford),\nLaurier (Sir Wilfrid),\tTalbot,\nLaurier (L'Assomption), Tobin.\t\nLavergne,\tTolmie,\nLaw,\tTucker,\nLeBlanc,\tTurgeon,\nLemieux,\tWallace-107.\nPAIRS:\t\nOpposition.\tMinisterial.\nMessieurs\t\nCalvert,\tTaylor,\nLogan,\tLefurgey,\nCartwright,\tTupper,\n(Sir Richard),\t(Sir Charles Hibbert)\nJohnston (Lambton),\tSimmons,\nCharlton,\tTisdale,\nMorrison,\tGourley,\nRoss (Ontario),\tHughes (Victoria),\nThompson (Haldimand),Henderson.\t\nGuthrie,\tPorter,\nGibson.\tKendry,\nCowan,\tPringle,\nBlair,\tOsier,\nMcColl,\tWard.\nSutherland (Essex),\tNorthrup,\nDyment,\tMcCormick,\nBeith,\tMaclean,\nFisher,\tCalvin,\nCopp,\tHale,\nRoss (Yukon),\tRoddick,\nFarquharson,\tRobinson\n\t(Northumberland),\nMonet,\tGanong,\nTurcot.\tSeagram,\nAngers,\tMcGowan,\nGerman,\tLennox.\nAmendment negatived, and House went into Committee of Ways and Means.\nCommittee rose and reported progress.\nOn motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 2.40 a.m. Friday.", 'Friday, May 1, 1903.']
Mr. GEORGE D. GRANT (North Ontario).: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the House at this stage of the budget debate, I do not expect to say anything of a very novel character. But I desire to present to the House what I believe to be the opinions and feelings of my constituents on the subject of the tariff and such other matters as are properly the subject of observation. Having recently emerged from an election contest, which perhaps was not wholly unsatisfactory to the gentlemen who are seated around me on this side of the House, I may perhaps he permitted to voice the verdict of my constituents in this place. This Dominion is to be congratulated heartily on the splendid showing which our Finance Minister made in bis annual financial statement. Never before has our material prosperity been so great. I think the country is to be congratulated, not only on! the splendid prosperity which has attended our efforts commercially and otherwise during the past year, but it is to be congratulated on the fact that the government has evinced its determination to adhere to that sound economic policy which I believe lies at the foundation of our commercial success. Let me assure the members of the government that the determination they have announced, (which we never for a moment doubted), meets with the fullest approbation of the people of this country. There is no blinking the fact that during the past year or year and a half there has been a formidable agitation on foot in this country for the increase of our customs tariff, and practically for a return to high protection. That the administration has expressed its
refusal to accede to: the extraordinary, and I may say, selfish demand of a small section of the community, js a matter of satisfaction to the country at large. To my mind, the present was an especially inopportune time for starting an agitation for a return to high protection. This campaign has not only been quite formidable and aggressive, but it has attracted a good deal of newspaper attention. But, Sir, the endeavour to persuade our people that they can enrich themselves by taxing themselves I think will altogether fail. Whilst the great majority of our factories are employed, whilst they have more orders than they can fill, and are paying on an average higher wages than have ever been paid at any time in Canada, whilst our producing powers are enormously increased, whilst our purchasing power too is growing at a tremendous rate, surely I am right in saying that this is an inopportune time to change our fiscal policy. If I may be permitted to refer to the town in which I reside, I may say that there is in that town one of the largest carriage factories in this Dominion. I am told by those who manage that concern that never before in their business history have they had so many orders and never before has such success attended the management of that business. In addition to that, in the same town, there are building at the present time two or three large factories. I have never heard that the gentlemen who are interested in promoting these industries are appealing to the government for further protection for them, nor have I heard that they have embarked upon these undertakings with the idea that higher protection will be granted. I, perhaps, am right in saying that this agitation has been begun and fostered by a small section of the community. Let me express the hope, and I am sure that in this I am voicing the opinion, broadly, of the agricultural interests in this country, that no disturbance shall take place at the present time. Now, Sir, I would depreciate any antagonism between the agricultural and manufacturing interests. I do not know that there is any occasion for antagonism of that sort. These interests are so interdependent, that, broadly speaking, what injures one injures the other and what benefits one benefits the other. I subscribe to that opinion, and yet, who can impute blame to our agriculturists if they strongly express their opinion on trade and tariff matters, when they are face to face with these well organized and financially well equipped gentlemen strongly urging the adoption of higher customs duties* Now, in the recent by-election in North Ontario which, Mr. Speaker, you will perhaps allow me to refer to without being open to the charge of being vain-glorious or boastful, the fight was forced on this very tariff issue. My hon. opponent made that point strongly at one of his first meetings in liis campaign at Uxbridge and these were bis words :


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, bear.


George Davidson Grant: And strange to say, the advocacy of retaliation comes very largely from those who are constantly holding the United States up to us as the model upon which we should form our fiscal policy. It is patent to every reasonable man, Sir, that a fair analogy cannot be drawn between Canada and the United States in regard to the tariff question. We know that the American union is an aggregation of populous and resourceful states, embracing at once both tropical and temperate regions. We are not similarly situated to them. Anyway, if we were looking for instruction or guidance in fiscal or in constitutional matters generally, I for one would prefer to look across the Atlantic to the motherland for sound teaching in fiscal policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Davidson Grant: I was amused Mr. Speaker, at the elaborate effort made by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) in his endeavour to convince the fanners of Canada that protection would be a splendid policy for them. I fear that the hon. gentleman will fail in his mission. I feel confident that he cannot convince the farmers of this Dominion; aye, nor even the farmers of his own historic county of Halton, that his views are sound in that regard. The United States has perhaps the most highly protective tariff of any country in the world, and yet if we compare the condition of the American farmer with the condition of the Canadian farmer, I think the comparison will show that the Canadian farmer stands in a much better position.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Davidson Grant: I shall not weary the House by quoting statistics at any length, but I have a few figures here which show conclusively that high protection has not been of material assistance to the farmer of the United States, and arguing by analogy, if high protection has not been of assistance to the United States farmer, it cannot be of assistance to the Canadian farmer. In the twelfth census of the United States I find that there were in 1880, 4,008,000 farmers in the United States ; of these 2,984,000 were owners of the soil they tilled and 1,024,601 were tenants of the land they occupied. Twenty years after that, in 1900, there were engaged in agriculture in the United States 5,739,000 farmers and of these 3,713,000 were owners and 2,026,000 were tenants. The logical conclusion from this is, that the proportionate decrease of freeholders and the increase of tenant farmers is indicative of tile fact that agriculture is not prosperous in the United States; else, the increase would be in 67
the opposite direction and there would be comparatively more freeholders and fewer tenant farmers. In 1880 for every one thousand male persons at work on farms there were 422 of them owners, and in 1900 out of every one thousand male persons at work on the farms there were but 423 owners. In 1880 for every 1,000 farmers there were 145 tenant farmers and in 1900 that proportion had grown until there were 231 tenant farmers in every 1,000. In other words, the farm owners remain stationary and the number of tenants increased by about sixty per cent. Sir, that should be an object lesson to the Canadian farmer not to be gulled by the specious arguments of the high protectionist. In 1900 there were engaged altogether in the United States in agricultural pursuits 8,771,000, persons as against 7,075,000 in 1880; this was a remarkable small increase when compared with the enormous increase in the general population of the United States which took place in the two decades between 1880 and 1900.
Now, Sir, let us look for a moment at the position of the American farmer from another point of view. Let us look at the capital he has invested in his industry, and let us compare his return from his investment with the return which the manufacturer of the United States gets from his investment. I find from the census of the United States recently published that the capital invested in agriculture, including lands, buildings, improvements and live stock, amounts to about $20,514,000,000. The income returned to the farmers of the United States on the amount of the capital invested vas $3,764,000,000. The manufacturers had an invested capital amounting to only $9,874,000,000, and from that amount, after having the full benefit of $4,800,000,000 of cash and stock on hand, their returns were $8,370,000,000. Let us deduct $2,000,000,000 of disbursements for labour, working expenses, &c., which the compiler of these statistics, says is a reasonable amount, and we have a let return to the manufacturers of the United States of $6,370,000,000 from an investment of scarcely ten thousand millions of money. Compare the revenue from their investment with the revenue earned by the agriculturists of the United States and I do not think any candid man will contend that in a highly protected country such as the United States, the farmer has an even show with the manufacturer.
I have been unable to obtain complete figures for Canada as a whole, but I have taken those relating to the province of Ontario as giving a fair indication of conditions in all parts of the Dominion. I find, according to a recent bulletin issued by the department of Agriculture in Toronto, that the amount of capital invested in Ontario farms is $975,000,000, which yielded a return in 1900 of $160,000,000, not including what was fed to stock, which amounts to $60,000,000 more. So that hon. gentlemen

*will see that the revenue of the farmers of Ontario has been higher than that of the United States farmers considering the capital invested.
Now, I find that the average income of the United States farmer is $288 a year. I am quite willing and anxious to say that that is not a fair indication of his condition, nor would it be a fair figure to set in comparison with the income of an Ontario farmer, because it includes many small holdings of negroes and involves other conditions unfavourable to such a comparison. But let us take some of the states along our own borders, which are not only adjacent to us, but which are very similar as to soil, climate and other conditions. In the state of Ohio according to these statistics, which bear every evidence of care in their preparation, the average income of the farmer-in Ohio- is $312, in Illinois $425, in Michigan $239, in Minnesota $465, in North Dakota $755, and in South Dakota $605. I think a comparison may fairly be drawn between Ohio, Illinois and Michigan on the one hand, and the province of Ontario on the other. In the year 1900 the Ontario farmers raised $160,000,000 worth of products, and we have in that province in round numbers from 175,000 to 200,000 men engaged in the industry of agriculture. Take the larger figure, 200,000, and by the simple process of dividing that number into the $160,000,000 produced by our farmers, we find that it nets to the Ontario farmer an average of $800 per annum. I think that is a fair statement, I think it is logical, and I think it must lead us to the conclusion that the Ontario farmers, and I doubt not the farmers of Canada generally, are getting a greater return from their labour and their capital invested than their fellow-husbandmen to the south of the international boundary, who are not thriving, but groaning, under the load of taxation which a high tariff imposes. I think hon. gentlemen opposite have a task of great magnitude in attempting to convince the agriculturists of this Dominion that a high protective tariff or adequate protection, term it what you will, is a policy which is conducive to their best interests.
The agricultural community of this Dominion are lacking in one respect, and it is natural that it should be so. They are not well organized. They have not the benefit of combination, which other interests possess, and therefore are unable to make known to the government and those in authority what their views on these matters are. They are only able every five years, or it may be in a by-election occasionally, to express their ideas on what should be the policy of this country. I feel, Sir, that it is only natural that there should be an anxiety on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to convince the farmers and the other primary producing classes of Canada that they are as much interested in high pro-


George Davidson Grant: tection as those industries which at the present moment are chiefly clamouring for such protection. Stripped of all pretense, Sir, the real purpose of protection is to lessen competition and thereby increase prices. I was considerably interested in the very elaborate attempt which one of the hon. gentlemen opposite made-I think it was the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson)- to prove that the price of the farmers' produce will be enhanced by the policy which he advocates. I followed the hon. gentleman very closely, but I must confess that I was totally unable to find that he followed up his argument in that respect to a successful conclusion. True it is that he was somewhat confused by the lead question, which unfortunately for him, was introduced into the debate, and he found the matter which he had in hand almost as heavy to handle as the lead issue, because he dropped it very suddenly after the interpellation of the hon. Minister of Finance.
I do not know of what value are the opinions of newspapers on matters of this kind; but if the farmers of Ontario have an organ which may be regarded as speaking their views on tariff matters, I suppose the ' Weekly Sun,' issued in the city of Toronto, may be so termed. I have here a small clipping from a recent issue of that newspaper with regard to the present agitation for high protection, which reads as follows :
One of the pocket pamphlets sent out by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association as a part of their protection campaign appeals to farmers to support a higher tariff on the sole ground that farmers have done so In the past. It cannot be denied that many farmers in the past have been sufficiently innocent to support a protective tariff in Canada, nor that many of them are still prepared to vote for the protection system. But this merely shows that they are not yet as keenly alive to their own interests as are the protected manufacturers. They have been deluded into playing into the hands of a favoured or privileged class. But they are gcining wisdom quite rapidly.
In this connection, the very absurd argument was advanced that the prices of farm produce would be increased by the adoption of a protective policy. But if increased duties will raise the prices of our farm produce, if increased protection will give our farmers a better return for what they have to sell, then I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite how is it that in the years 1891, 1892 and 1893, when their party was in power, grain and other agricultural products were sold at lower prices than at any other period in the history of this country. Will they . explain how it was that their policy was so utterly ineffectual during those years, not only in raising the prices of farm products but even in obtaining paying prices ?
The question of surpluses is one that seems to vex exceedingly hon. gentlemen opposite just as that same question has for many

years, in the province of Ontario troubled the opposition in the legislative assembly of that province. I am not aware that our hon. friends opjjosite can be accepted as very competent authorities on surpluses. I am not aware that surpluses ever graced their regime to an extent that would entitle them to talk very learnedly on the subject. However, as the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) has described this administration as the great tax gatherer, I would like to know what the result would have been, had the policy which he advocates been in force during the year .1902, for instance. Had the same degree of prosperity obtained- which is not at all likely-there would have been collected in duties or taxes, if you will, some $15,000,000 more than were actually paid into the treasury. If the resolution of his hon. leader (Mr. Borden) means anything, it means that hon. gentlemen opposite, had they been in power, would have extorted, to use a pet phrase of theirs, this much larger sum from the consuming public of this Dominion. My hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) was moved almost to tears the other night when he spoke of how this government wrung taxes out of the mass of the people. There was a wail in his voice, there were tears in his tones, which reminded one of the lamentation of Jeremiah. But when we come to compare the speeches of these hon. gentlemen with one another, we find most singular inconsistencies and contradictions in their comments on the budget. The hon. member for Both-well (Mr. Clancy) saw fit to criticise the expenditure of the Post Office Department. Did he criticise that expenditure on the ground that it was unwise ? Not at all, Sir. What he criticised the hon. Postmaster General for was because he did not spend sufficient money last year. He used these words, or words to this effect:
If the hon. minister had generously recognized the increased needs of this country for post office accommodation, his deficit would have been as large as the Conservative deficit was in 1896.
The expenditure of last year, 1902, was $3,8S3,000. If we add to this the $781,000 deficit of 1896, we have a total of $4,664,000, which is an increase of $999,000 over the expenditure of 1896. This would be an expenditure of aver 25 per cent in one department above the actual expenditure.
Now, in order to meet the needs of the country, there should have been an increase of expenditure in one department of 25 per cent, that same remark of the hon. gentleman would apply to all the departments. Twenty-five per cent on our total expenditure would be $12,500,000, or the total expenditure of this country, which the hon. gentleman implies would be warranted by its increased needs, would amount to $62,500,000. The hon. gentleman in fact replies to his own colleague from Leeds (Mr. Taylor), who criticised the expenditure 67*
of the government as injudicious, extravagant and altogether burdensome for the country.
In my opinion, the majority of our people are convinced that a protective tariff would prove wholly inadequate to enhance the prices of our agricultural products. Another objection which, I believe, the people of this country will take to the amendment of the leader of the opposition is that the policy he advocates will increase the cost of the necessaries of life. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), argued against the proposition last night. He said that if we would only impose a protective tariff, those whose business was protected would be so patriotic that they would not increase the price of their commodities. Well, Mr. Speaker, human nature is human nature wherever you find it, and in my opinion, if we gave the opportunity, by protection, to raise the prices of manufactured goods, there is not much doubt that an increase in prices would inevitably follow. To show that in expressing this opinion, I am not talking rank heresy, let me quote from the speech of an hon. gentleman, whose authority our hon. friends opposite will not question, especially on fiscal and trade matters. On the 27tii March, 1894, as reported on page 198 of 'Hansard' the Hon. Mr. Foster, the then Minister of Finance, used this language :
Another objection that has been made to the national policy and to the protective principle in it that the cost of many manufactured goods has been enhanced to the consumer on account of the rates imposed. Now, Sir, I grant that argument at once to a certain extent. I say that in the initial years of a national policy with a protective principle in it, it will have the effect of enhancing the cost of goods and that at the first the cost of goods will be very closely up to the measure of the protection which was given.
And he went on to make this remarkable statement, which, I think, fully answers the argument of the hon. member from Halton (Mr. Henderson) :
If it does not have that effect, why should it ever be adopted at all, and what is the good of it ?
That was his opinion on the effect of protection in enhancing the values of the commodities we use. I give the opinion for what it is worth. I am not speaking now to the supporters of the government, but I would ask hon. members opposite whether they do not accept the opinion I have just quoted as a very definite and authoritative one ?
Mr. Speaker, an hon. gentleman who spoke yesterday, whose name I do not know, but whose face is quite familiar to me, because,
I think, I saw him in the northern part of this province some weeks ago, said that the agricultural constitutencies of this province of Ontario would support the protective policy. In proof of this he stated that

these constituencies had returned a majority of those sympathizing with protection and supporting the opposition in this House. Speaking numerically, it is true that the elections of 1900 had this result as regards the province of Ontario. But since the general elections of 1900, there have been appeals to rural constituencies both in Ontario and in other provinces; and I find sitting around me on this side of the House gentlemen elected from rural constituencies since the general election of 1900, and those constituencies, I think, expressed their opinion on this question with no uncertain sound. I think the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Stewart) represents a rural constituency and has been elected very recently. So does the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Christie) and the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Law). And, speaking more particularly for the province of Ontario, I think that verdicts have been given on this subject1 by \such rural constituencies as West Durham, West York and Russell. An hon. friend reminds me that I must not omit the signal victories in Terrebonne, Two Mountains and Maskinonge. I believe I am quite within the mark in saying that the rural constituencies of Ontario and of the Dominion are unalterably opposed to the re-enactment of high protection, and 1 believe that they will be strongly re-enforced by their brethren in Manitoba, the North-west and British Columbia. To sum up, I conclude as I began, that it would be entirely a mistaken policy for us, at this moment, when prosperity is high within the Dominion, when our factories are working overtime, when our workmen are getting a better return than they ever did for their labour, when our finances, as disclosed by the annual statement are in such a magnificent position, to change our fiscal policy. And, for this reason I am constrained to vote against the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition. And I have this further reason, that, if this resolution means anything, it stands for an increase of duties all along the line, and for an increase therefore of the burdens the great consuming public-and to that I am opposed.


Mr. ANDREW BRODER (Dundas).: Mr. Speaker. No doubt any hon. member attempting to speak, on the budget at this stage of the debate will find it difficult to make his remarks interesting to the House. In the first place, I wish to congratulate the hon. gentleman (Mr. Grant) who has just taken his seat on his maiden effort; and I am sure all here will agree with me in saying that experience will do him good, as it has done most of us. The hon. gentleman made some reference to the condition of things in his own locality, and I will take the liberty of dealing with this briefly before I proceed to the general discussion of the question before the House. The hon. gentleman instanced the condition of a cer-


George Davidson Grant: tain carriage factory in the adjoining county to his own, at a place called Orillia. But he did not tell you that this very class of manufactures have had increased protection from his political friends. He did not tell you that the duty on cutters and sleighs had been increased by 5 per cent since the hon. gentlemen opposite came into power and that the duty is now 35 per cent on carriages as it was previous to the assumption of office by this government. He could not take great credit for the tariff under control of his friends, and that to admit, as everybody admits, that this class of goods does not come in under the boasted preference. The hon. gentleman also referred to the verdict of the people in sending him to this House. It may not be a very kind comparison to say that his presence here shows the mistakes the pepole often make ; when his constituency might have had a better man-there is no doubt about that. Now, in reference to the polling section in his own county that made the greatest change in its political complexion during the late contest, it is to be remembered that there is a certain company there making wood alcohol, who sell their product to the government for $1.40 per gallon when it can be bought in the open market for $1 per gallon. These parties had a protection from the old government of $2.25 per gallon, and they have had this increased by hon. gentlemen op-p site to $2.40 per gallon. Another feature of it is that this company had a five-year's contract which was about to expire at the time of this contest. These gentlemen naturally went into the contest with a great deal of vigour on behalf of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Grant), and, since the election they have been down to get their contract renewed. But the minister, under the circumstance, dare not renew it yet. The five year's contract they had they got without tender. The poll there, in the previous election gave a Conservative majority of five. This was changed to a Liberal majority of fifty-by alcohol. So much for the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Grant's) reference to his own locality. There is one other point which I must as well refer to, when dealing with the hon. gentleman's remarks. He referred to the flags around the room when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) whom I am glad to follow as my leader was banqueted. Well, there was nothing indefinite about those flags; everybody knew what they were and what they meant. But no man under heaven could tell what flags to put up if hon. gentlemen opposite were being banqueted. What about the legends of ten years ago ? Would that be around the fences and on the barns and on the big stones along the road, if hon. gentlemen opposite were appearing to the people to-day ? No. we hear no more of them.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: Oh, oh.


Andrew Broder: Canada takes seventy-five cents. And, Sir, this surtax is the outcome of the mistake the hon. gentlemen opposite made in putting that preference upon the statute-book. They cannot withdraw it now, because if they do it will be misunderstood in England, and will do a great deal of harm. Much better if it had never been put upon the statute-book.
Now I wish to say that the government have failed to study the conditions and requirements of this country. Anybody who looks out into the history and commerce of other commercial nations will see that whenever one country is in a position to take commercial advantage of another country it invariably does so. As the outcome of that principle, we find Germany invading the_ English market, the United States invading the English market. And what about the position of Canada ? Our conditions are such that we are left largely at the mercy of foreign countries. The government have failed to study our conditions, and to give to the people of this country that remedy which ought to be within the reach of any executive in this country.
Now, I wish to refer to another matter, and the strange thing about it is that not one of the members of this government has made any allusion to it. I refer to the statement made by the ex-Minister of Public Works, who charged certain men, with his knowledge and with his consent, and who were within the range of his eye in this House, with going behind the backs of the people to the manufacturers of Montreal, and making an agreement with them that their interests would not suffer, that they would be protected, if they would give them their support, and they did give them their support. Now, Sir, that statement is made of public men who go around the country preaching free trade as they did. and free trade as it is in England. I heard the right hon. gentleman who leads the government, in my own constituency, make the statement that the goal was free trade as it is in England, right in face of the fact that they had gone behind the backs of the people and made a direct bargain with the manufacturers of Montreal. Not one of their supporters on that side of the House condemned that sort of thing in a public man, not one minister has dared to get up and dispute that statement made in the House several days ago.
That is a condition of things that ought not to be possible at the hands of any government in Canada. That is why we have seen so much wabbling and swinging about on this tariff question. These hon. gentlemen are tied hand and foot to one set of men and they have promised the other set. We ought to have a stable tariff and a stable lot of men, not a set of men without a settled principle, or without any cohesion in their party, not men of the kind who get up and defend the policy that suits their own Mr. BRODER.
localities, men who get up and condemn protection and yet want it before they sit down. This government is all things to all men. This man and that man must be satisfied. They go back and tell their followers that it is all right that they made such and such a statement in the House and that the government did not dispute it. They will be able to go back and fool the people if possible, without any settled principle or policy, and Sir, if there is one thing more than another they want to get rid of it is their past history. I would if I belonged to them. If I had a past history like theirs there would not be anybody gladder to see the book closed than I. There will be no mile stone to mark the spot where it lies after the close of that book. The time ought to come in this country when public opinion Will not condone such treatment at the hands of any set of public men. I wish to refer to a matter which implements the question we have been discussing. There has been a great deal said about the farmers interests and about the manufacturers interests and it is a strange thing that hon. gentlemen opposite hold up these two classes of men as being distinct in their interests and in their endeavours to do some thing for the country. The man who stands up and says that the interests of these two classes are one is, as a Canadian, doing his country more good than the man who tries to create discord and strife between them. The interest of the farmer lies in the success of the man who by his enterprise provides a market for the consumption of the farmers product. The city of Toronto alone consumes more of the agricultural products of Canada than Canada ships to the United States. If you take the western and southwestern states you will find that where there are the largest centres of population, built up largely by the manufacturing interests, the farmers in the surrounding localities are more prosperous than in localities where there are not these centres of population. If we are to repeat in any sense the history of that country in opening up our west we must have a policy which will build up centres of population. I am quite willing to admit that the conditions are not exactly the same. They have factors in their make up in the United States which it is impossible for us to have. For instance, the great corn belt in the south western states never can be repeated in our own North-west but we have a soil the fertility of which has never been equalled in any country in the world. I refer to its capabilities, to its lasting qualities, not being exhausted by cropping, and while they have been able to build up the great business of the farmer of feeding his cattle and hogs and exporting them to the foreign markets of the world we ought to be in a position to largely repeat the experience of those people in our western country. I see no reason

wliy hon. gentlemen opposite, or some one wlio will take their places, should not have a policy to build up large centres of population in that country. The government are failing to see the importance of developing the great resources of that country and putting them solidly into national channels as they ought to do. What do you find when you go west of Lake Winnipeg ? Between Lake Winnipeg and the Pacific coast there are no less than eleven railways leading directly out to the United States. This question of transportation, a question which we should have some definite plan in order to carry out the development of this great country, ought to settled by the executive. It is impossible to overlook the fact that there is no settled policy in reference to the transportation of that country. Some hon. gentlemen may say, and some of them have said, that it makes very little difference in building up that country whether a railway runs through the United States or where it runs so long as it handles our business. That is not the proof of history. Take little Holland, for instance; the transit trade of Germany has made Holland what it is and if Germany were to divert that traffic Holland would be at her mercy. Little Holland cannot compare with our great west but this country ought to have a well defined plan in reference to transportation and this plan ought to lead to a general result in the interest of the people instead of a continuance of the practice of diverting trade to a foreign country. It is rather a strange thing but it is true that of every dollar earned by a railway seventy cents of that dollar goes back to the people in labour and material and thirty cents goes for other purposes. Will any one tell me that the carelessness of the government in allowing railways to have their outports in foreign countries is not injurious to Canada ? Most decidedly it is. Hon. gentlemen have no policy on that question nor have they any policy of the tariff except the Macawber like policy of waiting until something turns up.
There has been a great deal said about the cold storage business. The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) ought to be here now. It is rather significant that the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sif-ton) and the hon. Minister of Agriculture are out of their seats just now. The census business is not in a very satisfactory condition and the results of the cold storage system have not been so satisfactory as they might have been. If there is one thing more than another that should have been characterized by careful and judicious guidance it was the cold storage business. What ought to have been a great blessing to the farmers of this country may be easily made otherwise. To hear hon. gentlemen talk in the country you would imagine that every farmer in the whole Dominion had been made prosperous because there is cold storage controlled by the hon. Minister of Agriculture. They have frozen the poverty out of the poor fellows and they are all rich. I have taken the following figures from the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce. They show that the exports of poultry, dressed and undressed, were as follows ;-
1900		$210,822
1901		 145,158
1902		 238,047
We heard a great deal about what was going to be done with small fruits. Well, here is the result of the exports of small fruits
1900		$ 59,412
1901	 38,326
1902	 26,311
I venture to say there will be less this year. It has not been the success it should have been. The hon. Minister of Agriculture, as reported in ' Hansard,' said a year ago that the bulk of the cheese went by ordinary freight and not in cold storage. Now why? One reason is that freights are higher. Another reason-and underlying this reason is a most serious question for the farmers of this country, and I in all honesty call the attention of the government to it, for I do not think the Minister of Agriculture is able to grapple with it-another reason is that they take our cheese comparatively green, but a few days old, and the government propose to put it into cold storage. If they put cheese in cold storage while the process of curing is going on they check that process by the too low temperature, and instead of the cheese curing as it ought to cure, the acid permeates it and the cheese becomes bitter. The cheese business in this country is in a very precarious condition on account of the manner in which they propose to handle cheese in this cold storage outfit. Any reasonable man would say that cheese of that nature should not be put in a too low temperature, but that it should be put in a higher temperature in order that the process of curing may go on. When it is sufficiently cured, then it is possible to put it in a lower temperature. That is the reason why the shippers of cheese are not willing to risk cold storage. Butter, of course, is in a different position, because that process has not the same effeet on butter, but rather the contrary effect, because it stays the process of decomposition that takes place, and the butter is kept sweet. I want to call the attention of the government and of this House to the fact, that cold storage is not accomplishing what it ought to accomplish in the interests of this country. It is merely experimental. The government have no settled policy for instance as to what to do with apples or small fruits, or cheese, or butter ; and, Sir, the great increase in the revenue, and the great increase in the business of this country lies more at the door of the energy and dominant purpose of the business community of Canada than it does to the government.


Mr. FRASER.: Hear, liear-or any government.


Andrew Broder: Yes, or any government.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Hear, hear.


Andrew Broder: Particularly the government we have now.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew Broder: Let me refer to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) said some years ago. It is a matter of history but you cannot stop us from reading history whether you like it or not. The hon. gentleman said that the government were flies on the wheel, and they are flies on the wheel now.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I was quoting Sir John Macdonald's speech in Halifax.


Andrew Broder: You were in good company once in your life.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew Broder: We used to hear much about the exodus. The hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) himself used to talk about the exodus until you would think he belonged to the children of Israel.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew Broder: Yes, Sir, you would think he was Moses himself. Now let us see- that exodus is going on unfortunately. According to his own books last year there were $1,538,186 worth of settlers effects went out of this country. There were a good many times that came in, but if you turn to the returns, that was the case even when the minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) was saying that everybody was leaving the country. What are the facts V The facts are simply these : That the people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and Quebec largely go to the United States when they leave home instead of going to our North-west, and the population of Ontario, if it is depleted any has been depleted by the removal of the people from Ontario out to our western country. Now, the hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) used to take that as an argument against the policy of the government that he was opposing in these days. What has he got to say in .justification of the policy that his own government has adopted. If what he said then was true ; it is certainly true yet.
I want, Sir, to look this matter squarely in the face. What do we find ? We find that notwithstanding what we are told the Minister of Agriculture and the government are doing for the farmer, that when the boy grows up he leaves the farm. I would be the last man to propose to proscribe the boy's liberty in that respect, or to check his ambition, but I say this :	That if there
is one economic question for this country Mr. BRODER.
more important than another, it is the question of keeping the people on the soil. The policy of the present government has not had that effect. There are less men on the soil to-day in Canada than there were when they came into power. We know that when people go into the towns and cities, they become more restless ; more likely to leave the country or to change their position ; and what we want to do and what the government should do, is to try and grapple with this question. I throw out the hint that the Department of Agriculture should take up questions of this kind ; they should try to make the home of the farmer more attractive to the boys. Perhaps that more than anything else will cause the boy to stay at home on the farm if he finds there comforts suitable to his desires. The Minister of Agriculture should try and make the farmer's home more comfortable. I suppose the Minister of Agriculture does not know much about family affairs, but he ought to or he should not be a minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew Broder: It is serious to relate that enough people are scarcely staying upon the soil in Canada to attend to the ordinary avocation of agriculture. The tendency in this country is to send the boys to the professions. Perhaps the well to do farmer is anxious to have one or other of his boys in a profession, and having a little spare money, and that sort of thing, he wishes to educate his boy, and that leads to some extent to the present condition of things. But what I want to say is this :	That if
the Department of Agriculture takes up this question, and through an educational process makes the farm home more attractive, there will be less young men leaving the farm. We look too much at the farmer from the standpoint of whether everything pays or not. But there is this I will say on his behalf : There is no class of people who are as sure of employment for themselves and their families as are the farmers. That is the first great consideration. There is no other profession in which employment is so sure. And while our friend (Mr. Grant) yonder was talking about the farmer's income from his investment, and the manufacturer's income from his investment, he lost sight of this very significant fact: that when the balance of the account is made up the farmer has lived about the best of any man in the community. He and his family have lived well ; they have had the best butter and eggs and cheese and bread, and the best of everything-they sell you fellows the rest.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew Broder: That is a consideration that is too often lost sight of by our hon. friend and others. The farmer has had his living, and we cannot take that away from him. That is a very important matter, but

still we want to make the farmer's home more attractive. Encourage the boys to stay on the farm. The Department of Agriculture professes to instruct the farmer how to raise oats and wheat, and potatoes, and turnips, and cattle and all the rest of it, and when a farmer comes here and goes to the Experimental Farm he finds that our Experimental Farm looks just about as bad as the one he left at home. The drains are not much better, the cattle are not much better. The outcome of this is, that the old farmer begins to say :	What does this
mean ; the government at Ottawa do not know very much more about this business than I do. I say to the government: Don't send a man among the farmers who does not know his business. There is no class of people in Canada that will find out his weakness as quickly as the farmers will. That is a piece of advice I am giving especially to the premier.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew Broder: Now, I want to touch up our reciprocity friend a little. Last year he was after the Americans with a club in his hand; now he is after them with a feather. Last year it was retaliation, tariff against tariff, away up high ; now he is waiting for reciprocity. Does any man pretend to say that under the conditions described by the hon. gentleman who took his seat a few moments ago (Mr. Grant), with the farmer and everybody else worse off in the United States than in Canada, reciprocity with such a people would be of any advantage to this country ? You have to trade with somebody better off than yourself if you want to get any advantage. If there ever were conditions which would favour this country for reciprocity, they were those which prevailed under the reciprocity treaty from 1854 to 1866, because there was a war going on in the United States at that time, and enormous prices were obtained for agricultural products of all kinds. Yet what occurred ? During the twelve years of the reciprocity, under the most favourable conditions, we traded with the American people to the amount of $150,000,000 more than they traded with us.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) We would do so again.


Andrew Broder: Oh, I dare say jmu would make mistakes all your life.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: Come again.


Andrew Broder: In 1874, when there was a proposition made to bring about reciprocity with the United States, the late Hon. George Brown went to Washington, where he found American statesmen, no matter how prominent they might be, so ignorant of Canadian affairs that he undertook to give them some instruction, and he compiled a lot of figures from their own records, which were published in London, England,
and I have a copy of the document in my possession at home-showing that during those twelve years we traded with the1 Americans to the amount of $150,000,000 more than they did with us. And in the black days of 1857, when our commercial interests were bound up with the American people, when the crisis of the year came in the United States, this country suffered beyond measure; and we should never be put in that position again.
The hon. gentleman is talking reciprocity because he sees a break in the clouds; he is likely to go to Washington again and have a bit of a time with the Americans. Well, Sir, you will not make any bargain with them unless you give them the best of it. These hon. gentlemen went over there before, and they were like the boy whose father sent him off to do business and learn something. He was a good-looking, well-preserved boy, and his father was well off. I am an advocate of a boy making some of his mistakes while his father is with him. We let our boys grow up and leave them to make their mistakes after we are gone. I am afraid that is the way with our hon. friends. This gentleman sent his boy away to look after a bit of business, and gave him some money. The boy was gone for several days, and the old gentleman got very uneasy looking for his return. The boy came back at last, and the old gentleman said to him, ' Well, my son, what have you brought back ? '	' Nothing,' answered the boy, ' but I had a good time.' ' Well,' said the old gentleman, ' it costs a good deal of money, but if there is one thing I am glad of, it is that you did not do any business.' That is just the position of the Joint High Commission. The country had not entrusted them with any business before; it was the first business they had attempted to do. They went to Washington, where they were well cared for, and had a good time, and spent a good deal of money; and when they came back the people of Canada said, 'If there is one thing for which we are thankful, it is that you did not do any business.' Now, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) is blowing his horn-he wants them to come to dinner again.
It is time we left this American business alone. Canada for the Canadians in the fullest sense of the word. Instead of letting any of our boys leave this country to better their condition in the United States, as hundreds of our boys have done who have been brought up by poor parents fighting the battle of life as best they could, and who are better fitted for the climate and conditions of Canada, let us spend a few dollars in keeping our own boys in the country instead of bringing out Doukhobors. There are many families in the north country who have followed the lumber business over the rocks and the sand hills, whose wages are now gone, and who are unable to get

away from that part of the country. The j government had better help these men to go to the North-west and to create a Canadian sentiment which will aid in assimilating the masses of foreigners coming to our shores, and help to make this country what it should be, a country for Canadians to live and prosper in.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Perhaps it will not be inopportune for me on this occasion to say that, having listened to a number of the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite, it does strike me as rather extraordinary that, with the weakness of the present government, the state of feeling in the country which these hon. gentlemen describe, and the desire of the people at once to oust them from office, hon. gentlemen spend so much time discussing the ways and means of the present government. One would suppose, from what we have heard, that the country is now so instructed and so determined that when the time comes there can be only one result, the complete destruction of the government. Yet, day after day we have heard from these gentlemen, talking in dolorous tones, until the rather farcical effort of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Broder), who has just left the House- an attempt to give a backwoods, everyday election speech in the House of Commons, to provoke a laugh, when they could say nothing else.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Well, we heard something.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The hon. gentleman would laugh if there was not much to laugh at, if it was a party matter.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: That is why I am laughing at you.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I think it was rather unkind to the member who preceded him for him to say that North Ontario might have sent here a better man. I think a modest man would have said that he is a good man, at any rate. If I am not mistaken, the hon. member himself went to North Ontario to try to defeat the hon. gentleman and failed; and it is a commentary on the present state of the opposition that the ablest man in their ranks on financial questions, or if you believe them, on anything else-
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria)-was buncoed out of the election.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Was defeated, and was defeated largely because the hon. gentleman who has just spoken was there. I understand from good Conservatives that if he had not gone there, there would have been some chance for Mr. Foster. The fact remains that the ablest man they had, going into the constituency, with 518 in his favour and with all the power that was brought to assist him, including the leader of the opposition, and the mighty fighting colonel Mr. BRODER.
from Victoria, failed to break the vote of the electors. And I am sure that in the hon. member who has just spoken, the constituency of North Ontario has sent to this House a representative of whom it may well be proud. But the hon. gentleman mentions a particular district where he said the Conservatives had five majority at the previous election and now the Liberals have fifty. And this he charged to the account of alcohol. Are we to conclude from the hon. gentleman's statement that sixty Conservatives could be made to vote for the Liberal party by giving them rum ? It seems to me we have in that an exhibition of the moral condition among the supporters of the hon. gentlemen opposite which is not very much to their credit.
I would like to know from hon. gentlemen opposite whether the present tariff is, in their opinion, the same as the tariff of the Conservative policy. Will hon. gentlemen opposite say that it is ? I pause for a reply. Not one will venture to give an opinion. I want to know where we stand and where hon. gentlemen stand, because I want to be fair.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: You are on the floor.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: You are not an authority. Will hon. gentlemen opposite say that the present tariff of the Liberal party is the same as the tariff of the Conservative party when they were in power ?


An hon. MEMBER.: No.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Of course it is not. Is it higher or lower ? Again there is no reply! '* An attempt was made by the hon. gentleman , who has just spoken (Mr. Broder) to show that the present tariff is higher than the former one, but if it be, I cannot understand why he had anything to say against it. He also spoke of the surtax as being all wrong, and yet before he sat down, he wanted a high tax imposed against American goods, which after all would be only going on the same lines as the surtax. For my part, I think that the surtax is economically wrong but politically right. It was the only thing the government could do. A gentleman will fight with his fists, and no man who is a gentleman will fight any other way, but even a gentleman, :f ire finds his opponent throwing a stiletto or dirk or using a derringer, will take the first thing handy and knock him down. And in view of the action of Germany against Canada, we had no other resource than to act as we have done.
Another thing the hon. gentleman said was that the conditions in Canada put us at the mercy of the foreign manufacturers. It seems to me that the reverse is the case. The manufacturer in Europe has in many cases to import the raw material before he can manufacture it, then he has to face au average duty of 17 per cent and pay the freight and other charges, and if a foreigner can do all that and still have the advantage

over Canadians, it speaks very little for the enterprise and energy of the manhood of Canada. What does the hon. gentleman think of Canadians who cannot compete under these conditions ? Is it any wonder that before he closed, he should have suggested to the government, apparently in all seriousness, that one of the great duties of a government was to make the home attractive to the boys. How is the government to do this ? By showing the wife how to keep it clean. By showing the farmer how many lickings he should give the boy ? By showing the girls how they should dress in order to make themselves attractive to the neighbouring boys ? What can be thought of an hon. gentleman, who, speaking in the interests of the farmers, gets up and says that the business of the government is to make home attractive to the boys ? Is it any wonder that he should have followed this up by saying that you must trade with some one better off than yourself, if you want to make your business pay. Just fancy the absurdity of saying that before your trade can pay, you must trade with a man better off than yourself. A farmer, for instance, never can make farming pay unless he sells his products to some one richer than himself. And a merchant could not possibly make money, if he purchased from a farmer who was not as well off in this world's goods as himself. Why, Sir, trade knows no distinction. If it pays better to deal with a man who is worth .$10,000 than with another who is worth $100,000. do you think he would not give the preference to the poorer man ? The absurdity of these two propositions that the government should instruct the farmer how to keep his boy at home and that nobody should trade except with some one better off than himself, shows the depths to which a lack of knowledge of political economy will bring even a clever man like the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder).
I am sorry that the hon. leader of the opposition has gone because I wish to make a passing reference to him. This budget debate opened, so far as he is concerned, with a very funny incident. He spoke about certain ministers going to sleep while the Minister of Finance was speaking. That I thought was hardly a remark becoming the dignity of a leader of a great party. But swift judgment followed. Hardly had the hon. gentleman began his reply to the Minister of Finance, than that wide awake member of the opposition, the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), fell sound asleep, lulled into somnolence by the sound of the voice of his leader right beside him. But I must, in justice to the leader of the opposition, say that he did not retaliate, but remained awake while his colleague from East Grey had the floor.
What does the amendment mean ? First of all, the amendment declares the present tariff unsatisfactory. Why is it unsatisfactory ? Is it because the tariff is not high enough or because it is too high ? Why, Mr. Speaker, from one end of the Dominion to the other, during every .election since the present tariff lias been put into execution, we have been charged with stealing the clothes of the Conservatives. In this House, on the platform, in the newspapers, everywhere they say :	' You have
stolen our tariff; you have made no change; you said you would but you did not.' Well, if it be the same tariff and is unsatisfactory in the present conditions, how comes it that it was satisfactory- up to 1890, when our conditions were far worse ? Let them explain how that tariff, which at that time they considered the acme of perfection, and an image to be worshipped, a juggernaut at whose shrine they should lay everything precious, should be unsatisfactory to-day. I appeal to any hon. gentleman opposite who reasons, how he can explain the two things? The first statement is that there is an unsatisfactory condition. Does that condition arise from the tariff ? Hon. gentlemen opposite tell us that the tariff is unsatisfactory. I believe it is, and I am glad of it. It is unsatisfactory to some people who want to gain something for nothing at the expense of others. But, if the tariff is unsatisfactory, there is one point I would like some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to explain to me-is the tariff unsatisfactory as compared with the tariff in force under the Conservative government or1 is it unsatisfactory as compared with the tariff they would make if they were in power? There has been no explanation of this.


Mr. CLANCY.: Ask the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes).


Duncan Cameron Fraser: That hon. gentleman (Mr. Holmes) cannot tell me. I am asking hon. gentlemen opposite. I am asking the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) and it will not do for him to shoulder the question off upon some other person, because he finds himself in a dilemma. Reams of paper have been used in preparing . speeches for this debate, and volumes have been spoken in it. But no hon. gentlemen opposite has shown why the tariff was unsatisfactory. They are only able to say two things. The first is :	You made a promise that you have not fulfilled. And the second is : The prosperous condition of the country is due io the kindness of Providence. And when these two things fail them, tney do as they have invariably done ever since 1895-aye, ever since 1891, when 1 first came here-they fall back upon one expedient, which they use with enthusiasm, they abuse the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). Do not hon. gentlemen opposite see that they are but adding each year to the laurels of that distinguished statesman ? The only effect of attacks made by every

one of them ftom the highest to the lowest- in ability not in character-is to convince the people that they themselves feel that if by a chance arrow they can hit this target of the hon. minister's reputation, it would bring them distinction and glory.
Now, for my part I am not so particular about being consistent as I am about being right. It is much better for a man to be right than to be consistent. Hon. gentlemen when in power, declared that they were going to reform the tariff. Were they inconsistent in that ? I do not think they were; for, if they grew at all, I could well understand that they would grow wiser.
The second thing is that this is to be a declared policy. Well, dear me, is not everything declared that is said ? AVlio is to ' declare ' the policy ? And when is it to be ' declared ' ? Hon. gentlemen tell us that the protection must be adequate. Here, it seems to me, is the crux of the whole question. AVho is to say what is ' adequate ' protection-is it to be the manufacturers or is it to be the leader of the opposition and his friends ? I know very well that if it is left to the manufacturers, they will make it ' adequate ' according to their own opinion. Herein is the whole of the amendment which we are discussing. It is an amendment to deceive; it is an amendment intended to hold out to every manufacturer the hope that if lion, gentlemen opposite get into power, they will give him adequate protection. And every manufacturer says to himself :	' Adequate,' that is
just what I want. The manufacturer of cotton will say : * Adequate ' protection for me is so and so, and I am to have it, for here is the resolution; the party voted for it; and I have heard them say that they are the same yesterday, to-day and to-morrow-therefore, I am to have 'adequate' protection as I understand it. Will hon. gentlemen opposite tell us who is to be the judge of this adequacy ? My own opinion is that they thought that by using this word ' adequate ' they would gain the same end as their former leader Sir John A. Macdonald did in 1878 when he said that the change in the tariff that he proposed would not be an increase but a readjustment. That took. Surely, a lot of people who do not understand this phrase-* adequate protee-tection ' will be led to understand that it means- something in their interest. 1 said that hon. gentlemen opposite must believe that the present tariff is either the same as or different from the last tariff. I believe it is different; I know it is different; and, if hon. gentlemen opposite would utter their true thoughts, I think they would acknowledge that it was different. If it were not different, of course, every speech made on the other side would be a waste of time and energy. The only thing for hon. gentlemen opposite to do, if they think the present tariff is the same as the last, is to show that they were wrong in their last tariff and that the present government is Mr. FRASER.
wrong in the existing tariff and ought to have gone further, and that if they get the chance they will go further.


James Clancy: Oh, oh.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Surely that is as plain as -anything in the world can be. Rut let me repeat it for the sake of the hon. member for Bothwell. If hon. gentlemen opposite say that the tariff of the present government is the same as the previous tariff, then they must show that this 'adequate' protection means to go further than the late government went and further than the present government has gone. Because, if the protection given by the present government is not ' adequate ' and their tariff is the same as that of the late government, there must be something


James Clancy: Nobody said that.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Now, I have got my authority. So, this tariff is not the same as the tariff of the late government. Therefore, the present government has made a reduction. So, let us not hear anybody else say anything about our having stolen the clothes of the hon. gentlemen opposite. AAre have the hon. gentleman for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), for whom I have the highest respect, declaring that the tariff of the late government is not the same ns ours. If the tariff is to be changed, is it to be lower than that of, the present government, or is it to be as high or even higher than the tariff before 1896 ? AVe know pretty well that hon. gentlemen opposite do not propose to go back to the old tariff, for the manufacturers will not accept that, as they want more. Now, if this is a lower tariff than the former one, that matter is settled.
Mr. CLANCY'. But it is not settled that it is a lower one.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: AVell, I have heard of repudiation, but never of repudiation within so short a time. I never knew a man to repudiate himself within five minutes. I distinctly cited the hon. member for Bothwell as an authority. But now, when he sees the effect of his admission, he wants to go back on it. But 1 know he will not go back on it in quiet moments when he talks it over with me, but will feel as bad as any man can for the wretched position in which he finds himself. I wish to emphasize what the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant) says. AVe had a crusade inaugurated by the manufacturers and assisted by the ex-Minister of Public AVorks (Hon. Mr. Tarte). But I venture to say that never was there a movement more ill-timed. AVhy, you cannot talk to people now of changes in the tariff with any hope of gaining their attention. They know, and all the statistics show it, that they never received as good wages before. I want to make the statement distinctly, and any hon. gentleman who lives in a place where it is not true can say so far as his locality is

concerned, that never in the history of Canada was labour so difficult to obtain, and never in the history of Canada did labour receive, one man with another, as high a wage as it does to-day.
Now, how are you going to help them to do any better ? Is the labourer, or the farmer, or the fisherman, or the lumberman fool enough, when he knows he is better off than he ever was before in this world, to go and take the plunge that bon. gentlemen want him to take in order to find something better ? Men take a plunge when they are so bad off that they cannot be any worse ; but sensible men who know that they are in a better position than ever before will let well enough alone, and will say : We are not going to take the plunge, even though these distinguished statesmen run the risk of being found shivering, cold and naked on a foreign shore, as they were up to 1896. The time is all wrong for any such a change. I read a letter the other day from a Mr. Wilson, I think his first name is Thomas, who sent me, with the letter, a paper that was designed to teach the farmers of Canada. He also wanted to teach me, because he said : Here was a paper he was issuing to teach the farmer. They start out to instruct the farmers. Very well, North Ontario gave them the first answer. We also had an election down in Yarmouth, where one of the most tremendous majorities ever given in Nova Scotia gave them another answer. Do you think, Mr. Speaker and lion, gentlemen, that we are to Be taught the truth by men who believe in that which is not the truth universal ?
Now, protection may be a good thing for one man. It may be an admirable thing for me, if I am a manufacturer of hats, and if I can get the whole market for hats in Canada. That is only protection run mad. That is a good thing for me if I am making hats. But surely it is not a good thing for every man who has to buy a hat. The truth of the matter is that we are joined together in this country, as people are in every country, in such a manner that the interests of each must be respected and conserved, so that what I give to assist one man should be repaid to me from another man, or by any number of men that are assisted. That is equity. They never made a bigger mistake. They were going to give this information to the farmers, but the farmers were too busy at work, and laughed at them.
For myself, I want to say distinctly that the present policy must be maintained. It may require some changes. Taxation ought to be adjusted to suit all, and where one manufacturer has an advantage over another, or one consumer pays more than another, an equitable adjustment must be made. I care not whether we have a protective policy or a revenue tariff policy, no one manufacturer has a right to an advantage over another, and no purchaser has
a right to purchase to the disadvantage of another. We must move, but no advance should be made to give protection to one class over another. We must move in an opposite direction. Let each man start fair in the race for life. As much as any other man, I want to see our manufactures increased, I want to see improvement in the character of their goods, in the enlargement of their output, but it must not be by making others contribute to that end. I would as strongly oppose the farmers, the fishermen, the lumbermen or any others getting an advantage over the manufacturers. We are building up a mighty west. This year a population as large as four constituencies will be added to this great land ; and I commend the words of the Minister of Finance to our energetic friends the manufacturers in that connection. If they spent their time in improving their method-increasing their skill-enlarging their outlay and securing every available market, instead of paying for costly delegations, illogical speakers and ineffective attempts to teach farmers wiser than themselves, they would find a better disposition among all classes to assist them and more tolerance for their just claims. They have, by their unwise course in raising this issue at a most unreasonable time, done more to discredit themselves than they can repair in the near future. Those who tbll them, kindly but firmly, these truths, are their best friends, and have their and the country's interests at heart more than the men who seek to gain the impossible by loudly proclaiming that with the nearly 17 per cent advantage they have, they still must call on the country to implement, by subventions, what, if rightly utilized by energy and skill, would be able to meet every competition and overcome it. I am satisfied the crusade so loudly proclaimed had not the sympathy of a large number of our best manufacturers.
I know hundreds of these men who come up here thinking that this government could be imposed upon, and that their loud cries might be taken as representing the actual condition of things in the country. At the same time the largest manufacturers in the country were doing better than ever they did before, and saying as plainly as possible that this unwise method of attempting to rush protection at such a time as this would be fraught with the disaster that it met, and well met. Now, I am accused of being against the manufacturers because I firmly say what I believe is in their best interests. No such a thing. yVe have man) ufacturers in Nova Scotia and in all the pro-1 vinces, but if after all the protection that ! was said to be given by the hon. gentlemen opposite, after eighteen years of that protection, and from 1896 to the present-take it as you will, either the same system or a very small change made, some gentlemen say a certain percentage of one per cent- if after all that time they have not gained

the experience, as I believe the largest number of them have gained, to conduct their business with profit to themselves, I do not think a large majority of the people of this country should be compelled to contribute to increase their gains. Why, Mr. Speaker, I was talking to one of the greatest manufacturers of Canada who was asked to go to a meeting of the men engaged in the trade in which he was himself engaged. He laughed and he said : Why, there will be nothing given. I am a protectionist, but they cannot get anything ; and do you know I have come to the conclusion that we ought not to get anything, and I will tell you why. Each one got up at that meeting and said : We want such and such protection. Immediately another gentleman sprung up and said : What, would you kill my business ? For that would kill my business. Then a third got up and said something else. We were all engaged in the same business, or utilizing the same article in different directions. Now, that showed me that these men are not agreed among themselves. 1 know nothing of what these delegations said or wrote. But I have a little evidence myself of a man who joined a delegation to come here to get protection and who, when he went home, wrote a friend of mine, not in this House, saying that the very thing he had to ask for by coming with the others, to make them think he was with them, would be the very thing he did not want. Oh, for a sensible condition of things, under which we would cease this attempt to make it appear that a country 4,000 miles in extent, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and running close to our neighbour's for all this distance, is going to become a greater country by imposing more duties. If we must impose duties, let it be to pay for the benefits we receive. I object, Mr. Speaker, and I will object so long as I live, that the government shall be asked to give its sanction to any other man, excepting our regular tax-gatherer, who pays the money into the coffers of the government, levying taxes on the people of Canada. I will object that any man should have the authority to, in his own interests, take that which belongs to the people. The amount of it makes no difference. It is worse, of course, as it gets larger, but even if it is only a cent, it is wrong. I know that no human being can make a tariff that is uniform. I know there is no government in the world that can be perfectly equitable, but there are lines upon which we can go. Just fancy the farmers, who are at least from 65 to 70 per cent of the whole population of Canada, going to be made rich by feeding less than 15 per cent of the population, which represents the whole number of manufacturers who are engaged in manufacturing in Canada. Is that not a nice proposition ?
The hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson), a farmer of the farmers, spoke the other day. Fancy sixty-five such men Mr. FRASER.
as that-practical, gcod farmers-becoming wealthy by feeding fifteen manufacturers. There is one thing certain; either the sixty-five farmers are not good farmers or the fifteen manufacturers eat too much-that is all. One or other of these two things must be true. Now, the hon. member who spoke last said that he wanted all Canada joined together, and he did not want one class to be against the other. Did he not see that the very position he was taking of calling for more protection for the manufacturers had all the elements of setting class against class ? Do you think the farmers, the fishermen, the lumbermen and the miners are going to sit down quietly and permit the government to grant benefits to one class which they belive are going to be injurious to them ? No, the present tariff has worked well. Frankly, I think we might have gone further.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Just explain about the $7 per ton on steel rails.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Well, the explanation I give of that is this : If the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) had heard the last speaker he would have got his answer, when he said he never thought it was intended to be given. I do not say that. But the hon. gentleman has his answer from his own side of the House. It ought to be a more satisfactory answer than I could give. I happen to come from a country where the people are largely fishermen, farmers, miners and lumbermen. I do not want for them special advantages and they do not want them. They have never asked me either individually or altogether to see that they receive protection for lumber or that their fish should receive special protection, or that their farm products should receive special protection. The truth of the matter is that the farmers themselves are to blame. If I were inclined to set farmer against manufacturer I could easily do it. I could say, for example, that if the farmer will permit delegation after delegation to importune members of parliament on both sides of the House while he sits still this clamour may be more successful than he imagines. I do not say that the farmers should come here, and they do not come here, and ask that there should be largely increased duties imposed upon the articles which they produce, but they should see that they should at least be treated so as not to be made to contribute a dollar more thau they ought to in order to pay for carrying on the business of the country. The position of hon. gentlemen opposite is a marvellous one. Hon. gentlemen invariably say that the present tariff has nothing to do with the Liberal party's being in power and that the result is all due to Providence.
I believe that it is largely due to Providence. I believe, that, except and in so far as the government can make the conditions of life such that the products of labour shall

receive the greatest reward, by the least possible tax, the government cannot bring about the condition of things that makes a country prosperous. But, must we go into ancient history, as hon. gentlemen have done, I have heard hon. gentlemen opposite speak about the time of Mr. Mackenzie, and I have noticed that they have gone back to the time of confederation and waded through the whole of our history. What about the time when they invariably described everything good in this country as being due to the national policy. The national policy was the only thing that made this country what it was, and if the national policy were destroyed disaster would result. Is there an hon. gentleman in this House who has not heard an argument of that kind ? I have been a little on the political platform and I do not remember ever having met with a Conservative who has not used that argument. One of the principal sinners is the hon. member for Botli-well (Mr. Clancy), who took a leading part in that same direction. If it was not a good argument then it is not a good argument now, to say that the government does everything for the country and that everything in the country depends upon the government. I am down on that kind of paternalism, and I think we are weakening the respect for government by looking to it to do everything. Hon. gentlemen ought not to have said a word about the present condition of things, or they ought to have made a repentance worthy of the occasion. They should have said : We were wrong before and we are right now, or we were right before and we are wrong now. I care not which. If they say that the government has nothing to do with the large increase in the prosperity of the country they were wrong before and they should repent. I am glad that the government has withstood the movement for higher duties. Oh, the cheers that would have greeted us from the other side of the House if the government had capitulated and allowed itself to be stampeded into protection. Hon. gentlemen would have given us no assistance. If this is the same tariff that they had why should they be against the government ? What is the meaning of their opposition, of their attempt to defeat the government if the government has accepted their tariff and is carrying it out ? If hon. gentlemen opposite have settled the whole tariff and if the prosperity of the country is owing to their tariff why do they complain ? A more unsatisfactory state of things could never exist. If protection has been adopted by the Liberal party why should the Liberal party have their opposition ? Why not say : Now, you have been converted to our views,- let us all join together because we all think the same as to the policy of Canada ? Will hon. gentlemen opposite say that ? Do they not perceive that the country must see through them ? Do they not see that they
cannot impose upon the people by any artifice of that kind. One word more, before it is six o'clock. There was a good deal said about the surplus. Now, in a perfect condition of things, when there is no debt there should be no surplus, because if there is no debt and no interest to be paid, the people should not pay a dollar more than is required for the purposes of paying the expenses of the government. But a surplus in rich years such as we have had, when used by the government as it has been used, it is all right. Instead of borrowing six million dollars a year as the Conservatives did, this government is spending a great deal more money for the good of the country and they are using the surplus for that, so that we will not need to borrow that money and pay interest on it for all time. Another thing is that the government are paying off this year $5,000,000 of the debt and we will never have to pay it again.


James Clancy: Does that include the sinking fund ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The sinking fund goes on, but there is a difference. The present government put money in the sinking fund, but the late Conservative government was a sinking fund altogether, until they sank out of sight in 1896.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: At the risk of repeating myself, I wish to state distinctly again, in order that it may be answered by hon. gentlemen opposite, the difference between the present tariff and the tariff of the past. Is the present tariff the same as the tariff of the late government ? Is it less or is it more? If it is less, would the Conservatives bring it up to where they left it, or would they advance it further ? It is no use talking about what this man or that man on either side may have said ; it is the existing tariff that we are discussing now. Reference has been made to the United States, and surely if there is any country in the world which might indicate that prosperity can spring from a high tariff the United States would be that country. But here is a curious condition of things. What is the condition of things in the New England states, the home of manufacturing on this continent. I hold in my hand a monthly paper called the ' New England Illustrated,' published by George H. Chapin, of 257 Washington street, Boston. It gives a description of farms that are for sale in New England, the home of the highest protection that any country ever had. I will read this choice description of a farm which is ' No. 22,472 ' and the numbers go | up to 40,000. Hqre it is :

Quarter mile lake front ; 160 acres ; 1,000 cords wood ; cuts IS tons hay ; 150 apple trees; 25 varieties grapes ; pears ; plums ; cherries ; cranberries; aqueduct spring water ; good seven room house, newly painted and papered, piazza ; barn 40 x 40 cellar ; open and box stalls, double boarded ; carriage house ; blacksmith shop with bellows, anvil and tools ; good repair ; high location ; 400 sugar trees ; salmon and trout fishing ; could sell lake front cottage lots.
What do you think all that cost in the chosen home of protection ? Why $900 part cash. If there is any country in the world where you would expect farms to sell well, it is in New England, but the heading on this list is ' Abandoned Farms.' Where is the home market ? I may be told that the growth of the western part of the United States has made it impossible for New England farms to keep up, and there may he some truth in that, hut in the older provinces of Canada the same rule would apply, for we are now being fed from the west. But do you think you can get a farm like that in any part of Canada for $900. Now what is the condition of the labourers in the United States ? John Burns, who is the highest authority on the question of labour iu Great Britain, has recently described the industrial conditions in the United States as ' hell with the lid off.' Is that where the hon. gentlemen opposite want to go ? John Burns knows more about the labour question in Great Britain, and I think in the world, than any other man, and that is his idea of the industrial conditions in the United States. Every one knows who has read about the strikes, and the industrial wars and the trusts that there exist conditions in the United States which have made thoughtful men fearful of the future, and some of them have predicted that within a quarter of a century or less there will be such an industrial war as can be wiped out only by blood. We do not want such conditions in Canada.
The position which I take on reciprocity, Sir, is the position taken by this government. I believe that reciprocity would be a good thing under proper conditions. I am not going to seek reciprocity from the United States, or make them think by word or deed of mine that we need it more than they do. The truth of the matter is that the question of reciprocity is up to the Americans now. I remember being in Boston last fall addressing tbe lower province men's society, at which there were three members of Congress and two senators present, and I took the opportunity of telling them that they need not expect to have Canada, because we would not go with them, hut that they could have reciprocity. I speak for the lower provinces when I say that we want reciprocity, but. we do not want their wretched fiscal system which hon. gentlemen opposite want to copy. They forced ns into looking for markets in other parts of the world by their treatment of our products, and now we have, by the British Mr. FRASER.
preference, these markets, and so they have to come to us looking for reciprocity. The hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) talked about our going to Washington to get a banquet. Well, two reciprocity delegations went from Canada to the United States, Joseph Howe, the brightest man that Nova Scotia ever produced, and probably one of tbe brightest men that Canada has ever produced, spoke in reference to the very thing the late government did as a ' comedy of errors.' Then, Sir John Thompson went The hon. member said that the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) was going to a dinner. When the late leader of the Conservative party went there, he did not stay long enough to get his dinner, because he was only there three minutes.
One of the most amusing features of this discussion was brought out by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart), who joined protection and transportation together. Now, that is something that I cannot understand. How are you going to have very much transportation if you are going to exclude foreign goods ? You spend millions in providing the best means of transportation in the country to take goods out ; what are you going to bring hack ? Are you going to bring back a shipload of money ? Every one knows that money will not come back ; every one knows that goods must be exchanged for goods. If you put a tariff wall high enough, nothing will come in, and if nothing comes in, nothing will go out. One of the most absurd ideas possible is to join protection and transportation. What is to become of tbe great granary of the west, which is to be Britain's future granary, be our transportation facilities ever so good, if we put up a tariff wall high enough to keep all foreign goods out ? Transportation goes with a moderate tariff ; transportation and a revenue tariff will go together, but never transportation and protection.
I need scarcely say that I was very much pleased with the speech of the hon. Minister of Finance. I was pleased with it for a number of reasons. I felt proud that lie was able in so lucid a way to place tbe financial condition of the country before us, favoured as be was with conditions such as have never existed in Canada before I was proud of him as a Nova Scotian. I was proud of him as Minister of Finance, instead of having to apologize, as the late Minister of Finance had to do for our little business capacity, be was able to show what splendid things this country was doing. I may say also that my pride in him was increased by the fact that when our opposition friends found themselves in a dilemma, they had to go to Nova Seotin to get a man to save them from utter ruin, though I do not think that the high standing of even that hon. gentleman can prevent that ruin.
We are spending more than we did before -why ? Because we can' afford it. Hoes any man blame the farmer whose condition

is twice as prosperous this year as it was last year, for spending more ? Is he not going to have a better house, provided with all those appliances which will make it a more comfortable home for his wife and family ? The merchant who makes 20 per cent this year, where he only made 10 per cent before, can make an addition to his house. As it is in business, so it is in the country. While we are spending more, the people can pay that much more easily than they did the lesser amount that was paid under the late government. The people know that, and they do not feel it ; and when the increased revenue is being applied to the building of great public works and to the reduction of the debt, the people are willing to contribute. But even while we are getting a greater revenue which we are spending in the interests of the country, the taxation which is producing that revenue is 10 per cent less than it was before, taking one article with another. The late Minister of Finance himself said that the tariff was only reduced one per cent, from 19 per cent to 18 per cent. That is not a fair way of putting it. The tariff rate was reduced from 18 per cent to 16 per cent, a reduction of two in the rate of duty, which is really a reduction of nearly 10 per cent.
It may not be out of place for me to say something about the present conditon of the country and the condition in which it was left by lion, gentlemen opposite. The marvel to me is that these hon. gentlemen do not consider the changed conditions. The present government found the country with deficits and almost in the throes of a revolution-class against class, religion against religion, and everything that would make for the worse condition of Canada rather than for its better condition What happened ? We are to-day exporting nearly $100 per head for all the people of Canada, besides living much better than we did before. These are the conditions that exist to-day, and every man sees them. I was told by a manufacturer not long ago, one who only wants what is fair, living in a city of 40,000 or 50,000 population, that he actually cannot get men to work. Is that not a state of things for which everybody should be grateful.


Mr. PUTTEE.: What city is that ?


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: Except the farmers would buy more.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Of course they would buy more if there were more manufacturers ; but how does the ex-minister suppose that sixty-five people are going to be made rich by feeding fifteen people, the proportion between farmers and manufacturers ? I say that the more men you have consuming things produced on farms the better ; but I deny these things are going to be brought about by protection, because while admitting that you may aid a few men, you are hindering the great body of the people. Canada for 68
the Canadians, I hear ; but every time it is Canada for the few. I am in favour of Canada for the Canadians. I am in favour of laying tribute on every country under the sun, in order that Canada may be made greater than it is. But I refuse to acknowledge that Canada for the Canadians means Canada for the favoured few. They wish to build up a wall by which the Canadians are fleeced. Is that Canada for the Canadians ? Give every man a fair show, and then the best conditions will be realized.
One thing I wish to say to the right hon. leader of the government, and I say it with all the more ease because he is absent. If he has done nothing else, he has since 1896 done more to cement together all the races and creeds in Canada than all the men in Canada before him. I venture to make this observation, that the Protestants of Canada understand our Catholic fellow-citizens, and have a better and higher idea of them than sometimes in our narrowness we had before, and our Catholic fellow-citizens, I think, understand us better and hold better relations with us than they did before. We talk of protection to help the few ; but the men who can bring Canadians together, whether they be English, Scotch, Irish, French, German, or any other nationality, and cement them together as Canadians, does more than any other man or combination of men can do by any other method. Is there not today a better feeling among our people ? I venture to make the statement, Mr. Speaker, that hereafter it will be impossible to raise the racial and religious cries that formerly prevailed in Canada. I think the good sense of the people of Canada will frown down any attempt of that kind. It may be that some would-be politicians will have to go out of business. Thank God if they do go out of business, when the general community is coming to understand better what will lead to the higher development of Canada. I wish to say this as a Protestant, that the right hon. leader of the government will leave a name for thus doing that will be green in Canada so long as men worship at different altars or trace their families back to the various nations of the world.
The hon. leader of the opposition made a western trip. I was not invited to go with him nor can I speak of what happened from personal observation. But four things followed, which we all know. We know that from the extreme west the first answer that came to that movement which was going to result in the defeat of the government, was the election in Burrard of a government supporter without opposition. The opposition there, even after this visit of their leader to the west, could not muster among them a candidate. Then there came an answer from central Canada, given in the election in North Ontario. Everybody knows the result of that election. Following that came the voice of the far east, in the Yarmouth election, where the Liberal majority



of 250 at the general election was raised to the overwhelming one of 800 or 900. These are the results which followed the preaching of the Conservative gospel by the leader of the opposition. But perhaps my hon. friend was unfortunate in his choice of the gentlemen who accompanied him and they may have spoiled the good he must otherwise have done. The hon. gentleman had occasion to attend a banquet in his own province in the town of Sydney. Here let me say that, and as a rule, Mr. Speaker, we run local politics in Nova Scotia on the same lines as federal politics. On his way to that banquet, my hon. friend passed through the county of Antigonish, where a local election was being held, and despite his presence the Conservative party there could not find a candidate to present himself in their interests. There are the four results which followed this remarkable tour. How can we explain these results ? I would venture to suggest that the condition of the people was such that they were too busy to turn out and take part in politics. Go to a farmer, when he iS busy gathering in the products of the soil or putting seed into the ground, and ask him to attend a political meeting and you will find that he will prefer remaining at home, where he is contented and happy, doing labour that is going to bring him in profits, than to go and listen to the arguments of hon. gentlemen who want to make him dissatisfied with his lot. With the sun shining, with tliet blessing of Providence in his work, with every man busy, he will take no chances, he will not seek to change his present condition, and that) is1 why my hon. friend cannot get followers.
Mr. Speaker, this is a country of vast extent. The conditions that exist in one locality should not be allowed to colour our views of the conditions that prevail generally throughout the Dominion. I made the calculation, and was able to make the statement in Boston, which I now repeat. They were surprised to learn, but it is perfectly true, that neither in ancient nor modern times was there ever a people of the same population as the Canadians, who did as much trade per head as we have done in the last six years. No nation, not even the nation from which we have sprung-the land of all lands, Great Britain-can compare with us in that respect. We have discounted our neighbours to the south, for in those six years we have done 75 per cent more business per head than they. That is the condition of the country, and that being its condition, should not wise men draw from it the conclusion as to what is going to be best for this whole country. I heard an hon. gentleman opposite say :	' I know no
west and no east.' I am glad of it, Mr. Speaker. I do not want any question interjected into the politics of Canada which will disturb our happy relations with one another, but so soon as you propose a policy Mr. FRASER.
which will give advantages to certain people in Canada at the expense of others, you break away from that policy, which recognizes no east or west but takes the country as a whole. But when we learn the important lessons that every interest in the east and every interest in the west are joined, that no man liveth to himself as no man dieth to himself, then we will have laid down the golden rule in Canada and will perpetuate a different order of conditions to that which exists in the country to the south of us.
Men on both sides ask where is all this prosperity we are1 now enjoying coming from ? Even Liberals are surprised that these conditions should not only continue, but increase. Hon. gentlemen opposite are unable to explain, they are lost in wonder, and their wonder is no doubt mingled With regret. But the answer to the question is easy. All the prosperity we are now enjoying comes from the soil. Everything comes from) the soil-God's only foundation for a country's wealth.
When we properly appreciate that fact, we will, irrespective of party, do) what we can, not to hurt the manufacturers or any one else, but to increase the general prosperity of east, west and middle. We in the east must understand that the wealth of the country, as well as its population, is going in the next twenty-five years to be centred in that mighty west beyond Lake Superior. Shall we do anything that will injure the new settler going into that country or tend to make his burdens too heavy ? Shall we not rather see that while he pays a fair share of taxation, he shall have every advantage that ought to be given him. The future is partly in our own hands, under the beneficient power which rules over all. But let us at least join in this sentiment, that while Canada remains as she is-and long may she so remain-that while Canada remains connected with the mother of heroes and lions we shall follow in the footsteps of our motherland rather than deck ourselves out in the wretched, effete garments worn by the republicans in the country to the south of us. I fear not for the future of this country. With better ideas of our relations to one another as fellow-citizens, with more moderate and broader views of the religious and racial sentiments of the people, with every man at work the best he can to make this country prosperous, Canada is bound to go ahead with greater strides even than in the past few years. We can never suffer, as other countries have suffered, because while there is not more than 5 per cent of our good agricultural land now in use, we will be always able to supply these products which men must have, whether times be good or bad. And as the good work and policy of the present government become more and more appreciated, as the beneficial effects of their administration become more and more felt,

our lion, friends opposite will find that not even the magic lantern displays of the hon. member from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) in an election campaign will enable them to lead the Canadian people away from their loyalty to that noblest Canadian, the right hon. Prime Minister, and those who are glad to follow his leadership, and who at the same time are quite ready to tell him when he is wrong. We have refrained from doing that, because there was no occasion. And join with all the members on this side-and I am sure that the members on the other side will join with us too in their heart's best sentiments-in believing that the interests of Canada are safer in the hands of the present government than they have been in the hands of any government that has ever held power in this country.


Arthur W. Puttee: Mr. Speaker, in view of the amount of industrial unrest and strife in the country at this time, I think that one remark made by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Eraser) should not be passed unnoticed. He has asserted that labour is harder to obtain in Canada to-day than ever it has been before, and that wages are higher in Canada to-day than ever they have been before. I will not deal with that saving clause, for we could come to no agreement on that, at all events. But I do say that labour is not scarce in Canada to-day, and that wages are not comparatively high. The man who earns wages estimates those wages by their purchasing power ; and to-day wages purchase far less than they did two years ago. This is not simply an assertion of my own, for financial concerns have declared it and proved it all over the country. Dunn & Co. published the fact last fall that, in the last two years, taking the country over, the prices of commodities-that is, the cost of living-had increased from 25 to 35 per cent. That is practically a reduction of the earners' wages to that extent. So far as the west is concerned, the increase in the cost of living is even higher than that, and with the influx of immigration and the general prosperity, it is no exaggeration to say that the cost of living is 40 per cent more than it was three years ago. Then, I say that wages are not relatively high. As to the matter of labour being scarce, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser), in his remarks on that point, simply voiced a general opinion in this country at the present time, an opinion which has been encouraged and generally accepted, but which is not in accordance with the facts. In this House we have had a proposition to increase the salaries of judges, the higher cost of living being recognized ; and in the other House, among other labour matters, they have been discussing the matter of raising the wages of the lieutenant governors. One of the senators, in urging this increase, gave it to be understood that he was not encouraging? or promoting a strike on behalf of the lieuten-68$
ant governors in Canada. Now, if that hon. gentleman should be unsuccessful ; if there should be a strike or a walk-out on the part of the lieutenant governors of Canada, this government will see whether the labour market is overcrowded or not. I am sure it will put them in a very different position from any they have been in before, if they have trouble in finding men to fill these offices.
In this debate, as in other similar debates in previous sessions, the question of what constitutes a surplus has been brought up. There seems to be a great variety of opinions on the subject. In some years there has been a question of whether we have had a surplus or not. Owing to the matter of bookkeeping it can be argued in either way. Sometimes our revenue has been less than our ordinary expenditure. But sometimes our ordinary expenditure has been less than our revenue, though the whole expenditure is greater than the revenue ; yet we are told on such occasions that we have a surplus, because some of the expenditure has been charged to capital account. For my part, I see no great objection to having a capital account for the Dominion apai't from the consolidated account. But if we are to have a capital account, then the items that are to be charged to it in all the departments should be specified and known and thoroughly understood. It is now at the option of the heads of the departments to say what expenditures of their departments shall be chargeable to capital and what to consolidated account. And of course, the heads of our departments wish to make as good a showing in the House as possible. While this state of affairs exists we are bound to take the total expenditure of the country and call that the expenditure. Whatever revenue there is above that may be called a surplus. But, even on that line of reasoning, we have a surplus this year.
I can see no room at all for arguing that matter. But there is one point I have not seen brought up before, and that is that if we have a surplus we have no proposal for reducing taxation. And this brings up the question of the government's fiscal policy. If it were a policy of high protection for the industries of the country, the matter of surplus would not make much difference, for surpluses would not often exist. But if we have a revenue tariff, then I say this matter of surpluses demands attention. There is one course for the coming year every time there is a surplus. The imperial government have had their budget brought down since ours. Finding that the war expenditure having ceased, they have a surplus, the announcement of that fact is immediately followed by statements of the reduction of taxation. We have not received any such promise as that. And I draw the conclusion from this that the fiscal policy of Canada is not in the future, even if 1 it has or has not been in the past, to be

established on any principle either of protection or revenue tariff. That means that the government are going to be guided by the forces or influences that are brought to bear upon them in framing their policy. And that is why it seems to me very important that the members of this House, as representing the several constituencies of the country, should make their statements of where they stand on this question of protection or revenue duties. The hbm member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte), in speaking early in this budget debate, made this reference to the North-west:
Now let me say one last word about the North-west Territories and Manitoba. One of the influences, perhaps the main influence, which has prevented the revision of the tariff comes from the North-west Territories. That I happen to know.
Mr. Speaker, I look upon that as a very valuable statement, and one that should be gratifying to the representatives and to the people of the North-west; and I think the other parts of Canada can put that on the credit side when they are considering the matter of expense in connection with the North-west. X am free to say that last year when this subject was under debate, I feared that this year there was going to be a different story to tell, and that we were going to be face to face with a demand for higher duties ; and if the west has been the main cause, or a material cause, in restraining that sentiment, I think we can well be satisfied, and we can say that we have done something for the good of the country as a whole. That brings us to a consideration of the influences that are going to guide the policy of the government in the future.' Naturally, as has been pointed out before in this debate, those influences and those interests which make the most profit out of a protective tariff are the very ones that are the most in evidence, and that are the most persistently and powerfully before the government. The producer, the farmer, the worker, naturally cannot get his views nor his influence easily before the government. In view of these facts, it seems to me more important than ever, for the sake of good government, in order that the sentiments of the whole people may be carried out, that representatives of the people who come here should get up and state exactly what they think themselves of this question, and what they hope for in the future.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there were some announcements made in the budget speech which I cannot help looking upon but as of a protective character. I cannot form any other conclusion. I regret most that anything in the nature of a threat should be held out to Great Britain that probably the British preference may be repealed. Sir,
I always was a supporter of that preference^
I believed in it. I thought there was a good deal that was right and sound in that position. I did not consider the preference was


Arthur W. Puttee: made for Britain's benefit, though I knew it might have some effect there, that it might commend itself to the people of Great Britain ; but I believed that it was adopted primarily for our own benefit. I believed it had an effect beneficial to our own people. I believe that the operation of the preferential tariff with Great Britain has been a distinct advantage to this country, and that we should retain it, and retain it for that purpose alone. And it would seem to me somewhat ungracious now to make a threat to Great Britain to repeal it in certain eventualities. Probably there was not sentiment in the first place that dictated that preference, I prefer to believe that there was not. I accepted it myself as a Canadian business proposition, and as such I intend to stand by it.
Then, Sir, another thing of a distinctly protective character is the German surtax. I regret very much that its effect will be probably more disastrous in the immediate future to the Canadian consumer than it will be to Germany, though in the long run as a retaliatory measure, Germany will suffer the most from it. But in view of our considerable imports of sugar from Germany, and our rapidly growing imports of structural iron, the imposition of this surtax will not be to the benefit of the Canadian consumer in the near future. Both as regards sugar and structural iron, the surtax will have a protective effect. Then another announcement in the budget speech was that a duty would be put on steel rails. Two years ago the Finance Minister announced a bounty on steel. Previous to that we had a bounty on iron, and I believe that the bounty system is the most honest protective system. When the country deliberately hands over cash to any company or individual as a bounty, the people know what it costs, what it is, and what it is worth, and just how much the tax amounts to. To that extent I think a bounty system in regard to these industries is far preferable to an import duty, which becomes a tax to the consumers. But, Sir, I cannot see any warrant or any necessity for offering $7 a ton on steel rails. When the industry gets into a position that it can supply the market the duty will go into force, and the effect will be to increase the cost of steel rails to railways. Seeing that it has been the policy of the country to assume to a great extent the burden of the construction of railways by granting bonuses the result will be that we shall be asked to grant larger bonuses. It would have been a more honest and straightforward proposition to give a straight bounty. In regard to binder twine, which at first appears to be a protective proposition, I think there can be but little objection to that. I would myself have preferred to see the burden placed upon our binder twine manufacturers lifted by a straight bounty given to them, equal to the amount of the rebate

given in the United States on all twine manufactured there.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the amendment that has been moved to the motion. It states that the operation of the present tariff has been unsatisfactory, and that what is wanted is a declared policy of such adequate protection In Canada to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures, and industries, as will at all times secure the Canadian market for Canadians. There is a difference of opinion as to what is meant by adequate protection, mutual preference, and all these propositions that we hear so much of in this House. I see no need of quibbling over the meaning of the words at all. I think the men who make these motions give us clearly to understand what they mean. Of all the amendments that have been moved to the budget since I have been in this House, they mean this one thing, higher tariff, more protection to the manufacturers. I am bound to deal with it as such and I am bound to vote on it as such. This amendment states that it would give protection to the labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries, although it has been pretty fairly demonstrated on both sides of the House that protection to the agricultural industry is something that is beyond us and that it is an illusion. It is just something to talk about and nothing more. If the industries of this country were to be so much protected that from very shame an attempt was made to protect the farmer in the same way, I say that his last state would be worse than his first, I think the proposition to protect the farmer by absolutely debarring from this country all kinds of products that are in any way similar or identical to our native products is a proposition that is an absurdity. The fact that agricultural products are imported into this country means that there is some vital necessity for them in some parts of the country. Let us take the example of bananas and the like, for instance. They come into this country. Nobody wants to exclude them ; all we want to do is to cheapen them. If hay and the like is imported it must make for the benefit of the farmer, as the importation must be made to supply a shortage in some district at a particular time. The very fact that he needs hay badly enough to make it necessary to import it would indicate that he should be allowed to import it to the full extent required. Such an exchange of products must be a benefit to our farmers as well as to the people on the other side of the line who trade with them. Now, I come to protection as regards labour. I listen always very attentively in this House when I hear the apostles of high protection approach this subject. I have never heard them do more. I have never heard them go into the subject. I have heard them assert that protection does benefit the labourer. I have never heard them explain how or point to any instances where it has really done so. My conclusion is that it does not and that it is not calculated so to do. The statement though of all hon. members who stand for this policy is that protection is for the benefit of the labourer. It was perhaps put as pithily as it has ever been in one sentence uttered during the debate of last year by one hon. member who said :
The basis of the national policy is to give our industrial classes work.
I am prepared to admit that, but that is very nearly its limit. What is there in this proposal merely to provide work ? Is it more work that a man wants ? We want, they say, to give him lots of work, and long hours of work. Apply that logic to the farmer and see how its suits his case. The protectionists say to the farmers : Work is a good thing, you want work, you are fortunate that you can work, what you "-ant is work, go and work-work-work. You are fortunate for you do not have to get the permission of another man to work. You can employ yourself. Do not come here bothering about legislation, transportation and tariffs, leave that to us and go to work-we have given you lots of work. How does that sound ns applied to the farmer ? It is just the same when you apply it to the workingman. When you tell him that all he wants is work he replies that it is the conditions, made to a certain extent by governments that affects the results that he gets from his work. He does not want so much work, he wants a better living and a better opportunity to enjoy life. After all that is the furthest extent that hon. gentlemen who support protection for the benefit of the worker can go. They say that the national policy provided work for the industrial classes. Then, they say : We want the reservation of the Canadian market for the Canadians. However, that sentiment may be approved, however nice the sentence may sound, what they mean when they introduce a protective resolution to that effect is to reserve the Canadian market to the Canadian manufacturer. What is there in that sentiment to appeal to the farmer ? He wants a great deal more than the Canadian market. This country needs a great deal more than the Canadian market. I have heard it said that without high protection it would be made a slaughter market. If this tariff wall is put up it will be a slaughter market for the Canadian farmer and the Canadian workingman all right enough. I am aware that in this country as well as in other countries there are some men who are entitled to and do speak for labour who believe in protection. I often wondered how this was so. and what reason they could give to themselves for their opinions. I have followed tills cry in Canada for protection on behalf

of tlie manufacturers very closely. I have followed all their assertions that they are interested in the workers who work for them, and I have found that there is only one time when the manufacturer as a rule displays his interest in the workers, and that is when he wants more protection. Outside of that everything that the workingman goes into, that he puts time and his money into, in order to improve his own position, is looked upon coldly by the manufacturer and he has then no help or assistance or sympathy for the labourer. Yet, in this one matter that means so much to the manufacturer, the worker is told to believe that the manufacturer is looking after his interests. The story is not plausible enough to stand investigation. It does not stand the wear when it is on the statute-book. It is not in the interest of the worker to have high protection to give to the man who has to pay him practically absolute power to fix the price of all things he has to buy. It is not good logic and it is not good business for the man who works in the factory, or on the farm, or in the mine. But, the manufacturer is a wise man. He has two strings to his bow. It is generally supposed to be evidence of wisdom to have an alternative route. It reminds me of the darky whose business was coon-catching. lie had traps set both ways and when asked the reason for this he said it was to catch them both coming and going. That is what the manufacturer does. He wants to catch the workers both coming and going. He wants protection for the article he manufactures and he wants the fullest freedom in the employment of his labour. He wants the privilege not only to bring in labour but he wants the government to spend more money yet to import labour. He wants the freest of free trade and he wants a bonused trade in the one thing he buys, the labour of his fellow-man. He wants a bonus against the one thing the workingman has to sell; that is his labour, and yet he wants to have protection for the article he is going to make and going to sell. It is a scheme that works both ways; the traps are set both coming and going there, Mr. Speaker, and for my part I think that these extremes in both ways make for his undoing.
I want to deal for a little while with the form and extent and methods of our present immigration system. There is a great deal of immigration at the present time; there is a tremendous call for it; prosperity seems to need many immigrants. A few days ago, the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) prompted by the action taken by the Toronto Trades and Labour Council, put a question to the ministry, the gist of which was :	Whether Mr. W. T. R. Preston the
Canadian immigration agent in England stated that mechanics were simply unobtainable in Toronto owing to the great demand for skilled labour in that city. In Mr. PUTTEE.
reply to that question the acting Minister of the Interior (Hon. Sir William Mulock) stated : Instructions have been sent to immigration agents to confine their efforts towards promoting the immigration of agricultural classes. Now, Sir, I have been interested in this matter and I have gone to the minister, and I know that the policy of this government is to encourage the immigration from foreign countries of agricultural labourers and those who till the land. But I want to state most emphatically to the government and to the acting Minister of the Interior, that this agent in London is not in sympathy with that policy of the government to encourage only agriculturists to come to Canada. I know as a matter of fact that that is the policy of the government, this year, last year, and for years, and the minister has told us emphatically that the government would not adopt the policy of encouraging mechanics to come to Canada. I know as a matter of fact that instructions to that effect have been sent to the government agents in the United States and more especially in England.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are these instructions ignored ?


Arthur W. Puttee: but the demand is now almost filled, owing to the enormous influx. In the cities the demand for artisans will be, in most cases, fully met by the supply, while there is over-supply of unskilled labour, except in cases where strikes are pending. Wages, no doubt, seem high, compared with those prevailing in England, but this is not because of any scarcity of labour, still less does it show that the labourers are particularly well off. It is due to the high cost of living, especially in the matter of rent and fuel. Living has gone up 25 per cent in the last year or so and numerous strikes are pending in all parts of the country in the attempt to raise wages to subsistence point.
. Under the conditions we' would advise intending immigrants to exercise the greatest caution before coming out, especially those with families, unless they have capital. With a view of preventing^ English workingmen from being duped or victimized, the Winnipeg Trades and Labour Council send this warning and hope that you will give it due publicity.
It is signed on behalf of the council by the president and the acting secretary. Now, I submit, knowing some of the facts, that that is a fair and fairly moderate statement; but if the gist of that should be telegraphed across the ocean, it would be denied by the government agent in London to-morrow, as other statements have been recently.
Now, Mr Speaker, in connection with this question of protection, I wish to refer to the speech of the hon. member for St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte). It will he in the recollection of the House that he touched upon more really interesting matters than most of the other speakers have done since ; but at the same time, a most peculiar strain * to be heard in a Canadian parliament ran through his whole speech. The greater portion of the speech was a glorification of the United States, and by the same reasoning a condemnation of the national policy of Canada. If his theory was right, what condemned the national policy was that it was just one-half too low down, so far as protective duties were concerned ; and he referred to some authorities on the other side of the line in justification of his remarks.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I in no way follow him in the deductions he draws from the policy followed in the United States in its effect on the workers. I say again, and he did not prove the contrary, that the protective tariff does not necessarily, and even does not at all, affect the standing or the standard of life of the worker. One Instance of that is very pronounced in the United States to-day. Their cotton industry is protected by about 50 per cent. During the last two years there has been a great movement in that industry. Villages and towns in the state of Massachusetts and the adjoining states which depended entirely on the cotton mills, are now closed up. The cotton mills have gone What did they go for ? Not because they wanted more protection ; they got about all they could get. They went because they wanted cheaper labour, though it was as low as would maintain a decent standard of living in the Mr. PUTTEE.
northern states. They left almost in a body; but before going they sent their emissaries to several of the legislatures of the southern states, and secured the repeal of their laws against child labour and their factory laws. The cotton industry is now centered In the southern states, and In that industry there is to-day a condition of child labour that is almost incredible. All through the states ns well as through this country there is quite a movement on against the dirty little cigarette ; but this question of child labour in the cotton mills of the south is not attracting the attention or getting the assistance of these people who are so interested in the children and the workers. The manufacturer does not necessarily seek protection for the sake of benefiting those who work in his factory ; not by any means. The hon. member for St. Mary's division referred to a speech made by Mr. Andrew Carnegie at St. Louis. I think it was very unfortunate for that hon. gentleman's argument having the object of commending protection to the worker of this country, that his first quotation should be made from a speech by Andrew Carnegie. That gentleman has profited well from protection in the United States ; but his workers cannot say the same. Industries that were under his control in the states not many years ago. under a tremendous protective system, were selling armour plate to build the American navy at three times its cost. That is the kind of protection Andrew Carnegie believes in. It has been wonderfully successful from his point of view, and the hon. member for St. Mary's division quotes his opinion in this House as an argument for Canada adopting as adequate protection as they ha^re in the states. Mr. Carnegie says :
The manufacturer on a large scale can afford to make many contracts in distant parts of the world, and even some at home, at a direct loss in times of depression, knowing that, upon the whole, the result will he less unprofitable by running full than running short time or stopping. Hence, those possessing the most profitable home market can afford to supply foreign markets without direct profits, or even at a loss whenever necessary.
That is a nice doctrine.
Politicians give far too much attention to distant foreign markets, which can never amount to much ; and far too little to measures for improving conditions at home, which would increase the infinitely more important home market.
Yes, the home market bound up and delivered absolutely to men of this stamp. That is the policy of Andrew Carnegie. Even though you sell cheaper outside, even though you sell at a loss outside, take It out of your own people, take it out of your own workmen. Of course, where else could it come from ? Sell cheaper to foreigners and make all you can out of the people at home, and in this way, within the last thirty years, immense fortunes have been amassed in the United States by means of

the highest possible protective tariff. What has protection done in the United States during the last thirty years ? It has built up a plutocracy. It has enabled a few to amass fortunes, it has created an aristocratic class in that short time more powerful than the ruling classes in Great Britain. What it took centuries to do in Great Britain has been done in thirty years in the United States. High protection has taken from the American people the heritage of that vast continent which should belong to them. It has enabled the wealth produced by the people to be used for the enrichment of a class which is fast becoming all powerful, and which to-day is not only running industries, but owns the government from the bottom to the top. I do not know that we need that kind of aristocracy in this country. But that is what we have been developing, and what we would develop much faster, if we were to adopt the tariff of our prosperous neighbour to the south.
My hon. friend asked me what about the lead duty. I am glad he put that question, because I had omitted to refer to it, in dealing with the effect of the western settlement on this question, as it was put forward by the hon. member for St. Mary's, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte). Of course in the west and other districts, there will always be some industry that wants protection. But I submit that, as compared with the mass of the people, those interests are very small, and this very item that my hon. friend has referred to is unimportant compared to the general interests.	The lead
men are asking for protection.	What do
they base their demands on ? That they cannot produce lead ? No, not at all. Blit they base it on this plea. They say : You have increased by protection the prices of everything we consume. You practically have burdened our trade, and we want equal protection with these other people. Sir, go on that line and you will never see the end. You will finally attempt to protect the farmers, and the farmers' last condition will be worse than the first.
Mi\ BBAIN. Is the hon. [DOT] gentleman in favour of an increased duty on lead ?


Arthur W. Puttee: The hon. gentleman would not think I was a politician if I gave him a direct answer.


Mr. BLAIN.: I am in earnest. And I ask the hon. gentleman if he is in favour of an increased duty on lead.


Arthur W. Puttee: All through this debate 1 have noticed that on one side of the House and the other, these straight questions have been put in order to try and get a man to commit himself. When I started to speak, I said that I did believe it was the duty of men representing constituencies to commit themselves on these questions, but they have not done so. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that I am not in favour of the
duty on lead and shall vote against it, if proposed.


Mr. GALLIHER.: At the same time, you want your miners who mine that lead to be paid exceedingly high wages '!


Mr. BENNETT.: He wants Chinamen.


Arthur W. Puttee: I have found out in my experience that it is not a protective duty which enables mine owners, any more than others, to pay higher wages. They do not pay higher wages on that ground. The workingmen and miners have found out that labour organizations alone have the power to increase wages. That is my answer to the hon. gentleman. That is a fact, and in view of the matters< that are in the public mind at present, it would be well for hon. gentlemen to digest that fact. When certain Bills come down from the other House, that will be a good time to discuss those matters. Before I leave this question of the manufacturers double traps-traps that catch coming and going-I want shortly to refer to a further lesson which shows the whole-hearted goodness of the manufacturer when he comes to deal with the worker. I refer to the lesson we had during this last week in the city of Ottawa. 1 have heard the most extravagant, unreliable and unwarranted statements-as statements tending to make trouble between the workers and the employers, statements that should properly be called demagogic-made in Ottawa by men who want higher protection. I have been astounded at the statements and the speeches made and the spirit shown in this city by the Manufacturers' Association last Monday. They showed very plainly their attitude towards the workers, they told the government that they wanted free immigration. They want the government to spend more money bringing in more immigrants. They said :	We want you to
understand that we want an immigration policy for the cities. That was the statement made by these men who want protection for the benefit of the worker. , Is not their pretension of interest in the worker a piece of hyprocrisy ? Not only are they desirous of having traps to catch both coming and going, traps that give them power to tax and power to intensify competition in labour, but they want to spike the guns of the labouring men. They are seeking to have our labour organizations practically outlawed. They are endeavouring to have these organizations divided in order that they may the better crush them. Why are they doing this ? Because we have the power to increase wages and the manufacturer, though he asks for protection, does not want to increase wages and does not intend doing so unless he cannot help it.
Now, I wish to deal a little more closely with the matter of protection to the workmen. Can it be done ? It has never been expounded by the men who ask for protection for their industries ; but can it be

done ? Now, I take it that as a matter of fact the imposing of protective duties is not a simple matter. Of course it is simple enough for a deputation to come to Ottawa and wait on the government with the request that the taxes be increased to a certain figure on certain articles, with a view to giving protection to that line of manufacture. But to actually fix the duties is not nearly so simple a matter as that. If you were to get the experience and opinions of those who have held the position of Finance Minister in this country, I fancy you would find that, in the matter of fixing duties they have to go very minutely into all these matters, they have to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with the details of the private business of the parties interested, in order to learn the proper and equitable way to arrange those duties. I suppose there was something of that iu it when the Manufacturers' Association wanted to submit their schedules to the government in private. There were matters in connection with their business which they did not wish to make known to everybody. Now, can you protect the labourer with your protective tariff 1 Well, yes, you can. Whether it is wise to do so, or not I do not discuss at this stage. But I for one will never believe in the honesty of the manufacturer or other person who asks for high protective duties for the benefit of the worker, unless he is willing to have included in the schedules a minimum wage in the industries concerned ; so much protection, so much wage ; so much increase in protection, so much increase in the wage. If protection is for the benefit of the people, let it be so arranged that the people shall secure that benefit. Of course there will be trouble in so arranging it. You will have to go thoroughly into the man's business. As I have said, a man does not object to it as interfering with his business when inquiry has to be made with a view to making good his demand for increased protection. But when you come to ask for a minimum rate of wage, either through the union or through the government, he wants to run his own business, and does not want to have outsiders prying into his affairs. But, in a protective tariff, it is only when there is a properly digested scheme providing that, in every industry which the tariff is calculated to protect, it shall really protect the people and give a minimum wage with an increasing rate according to the amount of taxation, that I would be prepared to say that you have applied protection to industry for the benefit of the worker. Then, we shall hear from the farmer in a different strain.
Now, the hon. member for St. Mary's, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) dealt with this question as widely and as fully as he could, and put forward his policy. He put forward a proposition that I knew him to have Mr. PUTTEE.
entertained in the past, and that is outlined in this excerpt from his speech :
It we give cheap transportation between the west and the east why should we not supply the west with our goods ? We are prepared to increase our transportation facilities by rail and by water. Let us combine this Dominion solidly together. National unity follows commercial intercourse. We are settling the west with foreign elements. Let us have as much intercourse as we can with those foreign elements. Let us trade together, let us unite the country solidly together by a strong Canadian tariff and by a scientific system of transportation.
The hon. member takes his stand as an easterner, and speaks to the west and says : Help us to get absolute control of this market-Canada for the Canadian manufacturers-and we will give you railway facilities. What is the method adopted by the government of Canada in giving railway facilities ? It assumes a good proportion of the cost of construction by giving a bonus to the railway companies. So, what does this proposition mean ? It means :	You
give us power to tax you on everything you buy, then all of us will join to give money to the railway promoters, and then we shall all be better off. Certainly the people of the west will not be better off. There is nothing in that for the west. That is not a proposition that need be made at all. The west does not want transportation facilities as a gift or as a toy ; it has got to have transportation facilities for the benefit of the east, as well as for its own benefit. It must have transportation facilities, if this country is to progress. And so the question comes : How are we to get these facilities ? Are they to be provided by bonusing again ? Are we going to accept this proposition to give the eastern manufacturers the power to tax us on what we buy, and then all of us give more in bonuses to the transportation companies or rather to the promoters of transportation companies. No, Mr. Speaker. I believe with the hon. member for St. Mary's division, that the question of transportation is one that demands immediate attention ; I believe that it is high time that the government of this country should take hold of this question, no longer leaving itself to be the shuttlecock of circumstances, but with a firm hand direct the preparation of the channels in which the export and import business of the country is to run. I believe that this country would heartily endorse and support a policy that was inclusive, that was strong, that was wide and big enough to meet the whole circumstances, a policy of government construction and ownership of a transcontinental railway. I believe that the situation could be met now by the extension of the Intercolonial Railway through to the coast, or by the construction of an independent line, constructed, owned and operated by the government from ocean

to ocean, and with a policy for business purposes, and large enough to meet all the wants of the west in the matter of branch lines. And I am reminded that the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) dealt with this question, speaking in the same way in this debate as he has dealt with it in the west. He has avowed himself in favour of the government road, if we could only get it. But he said that we could not get it, and proceeded to drop tears because our government is based on wrong principles and because we are not fit to own and operate railways. There is too much corruption. So, much as he regrets it, he has to part with his principles of government ownership, and, perforce, must favour the bonusing of other railways.
Now, I admit, I insist even, that this question of control must be attended to before we undertake a system of government ownership. That is necessary in the interest of the public undertakings we have at present in hand. It is a reflection on the power of the people of Canada to govern themselves that this question o'f patronage and corruption should enter into all our undertakings. The present railway system and other public utilities operated by this government would all be better operated if they were taken altogether out of the influence of members of parliament, so that it would be useless for any man to approach a member of parliament to get a situation on the government road or in any government enterprise. What could be accomplished has been shown in Great Britain, where there is no connection at all between members of parliament and patronage. We have had lately in this country one or two illustrations of how this matter could be arranged ; and, though I am no great admirer of the present party system, at the same time I believe it could be made a benefit to both parties in this country if they would get together and come to an agreement in the matter of a commission. Both -sides of this House could get together and formulate a scheme that would put the Intercolonial, the customs, the post office, the printing bureau and every other public institution out of the influence of members of this House. I say that some such arrangement as that must be arrived at before we can undertake government ownership of railways. I believe that a system of government ownership could be successfully undertaken, and the more comprehensive it was the more heartily it would be supported by the people.
We are going to have more transcontinental roads. They are not going to be built for colonization purposes, but for purposes of profit as business enterprises. All sorts of statements will be placed before this government by the promoters of those roads who will ask for aid. I imagine that there are good grounds for believing that public moneys are paid to promoters that do not go into the construction of roads.
But the roads that are going to be built hereafter will not be for colonization purposes, but for business purposes. Every cent of money that goes into the construction of roads in the North-west will return a profit as a business undertaking. Now, as the producers are going to pay the dividends on those roads, let them be owned by the government. We will have to pay the freight and the interest, why not take the operation of the roads into our own hands and guide this business for the public advantage ? It seems to me that once the idea was grasped by the people of this country that these great public services could be put beyond the reach of political influences, the people would eagerly accept the scheme. What would be better to overcome and end the many grievances that are recurrent in the North-west with this tremendous increase in the business of grain transportation, than for the government to own the roads and handle all the grain directly, doing away with the private elevator system altogether ? I.ast year the Minister of Railways expressed his regret that his best year had been spoilt by a combination of the coal mine owners, and that he had to pay exorbitant i>rices for coal. The surplus he expected had been reversed in consequence. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were lost through the combination of the coal men. You get a transcontinental road owned by this government, and you would then have your own coal mine in the east and your own coal mine in the west. I advocate this because these men who advocate higher protection tell me that they are doing it in the interest of the man who works, that they want to ensure him steady employment, good wages, a good standard of living. Well, this is the way to procure him those benefits. If you want to guarantee to the workers of this country steady employment, good wages and fail- conditions, let the government take hold of the business for the general benefit.
Then, what about the binder twine question ? That has been up every session I have been here. I think it has been wisely dealt with at the present time. But why should we not manufacture all the twine that is going to be needed in this country ? It is going to be needed in increasing quantities, it is already a big item. We manufacture already a portion of it in the penitentiaries, but why should not the government take hold of the entire business ? We find the manufacturers telling the government this session that they are face to face with ruin. Buy them out, and put in plant extensive enough to supply the demand of the whole Dominion from year to year, and I will dare to say that the consumer will get it cheaper, and get it better in the long run, than the farmers get it in the United States. Mr. Speaker, these things are not impossible, they are not- impracticable. We have some very good institutions already

in this country, but over in the old country these matters are carried on successfully. There is no better, and I think no bigger, institution in the world than the royal arsenal at Woolwich, carried on absolutely by the government, entirely divorced from political influences, with good wages and eight hours a day. It is not impossible for the people of this country to do the same thing if they take hold of it in a proper way and in a proper spirit. This is my answer to those gentlemen who want more protection for the sake of giving steady employment, better wages and better conditions to the working people.


Mr. R. LEMIEUX (Gaspe).: I intended in the course of this debate to speak in my own language, but as the debate has been so protracted, I think I should not weary the House by a long speech in French, nor do I intend to speak in English more than a few minutes. I thought this evening, after hearing the very able speech made by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser), that I should reciprocate with him. After listening to the noble words which fell from his lips addressed to the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) I thought I should thank him in English, from the bottom of my heart, for the very kind feelings he uttered. My hon. friend the hon. member for Guysborough said, in concluding his speech, that the right hon. Prime Minister had done more for the peace, union and harmony which should reign in a mixed community like ours than any other public man in the past. Indeed Sir, he spoke the truth. It was said a few years ago by that great statesman, Mr. Gladstone, that the Manchester school in England had given the world what was terme<J by a literary genius Pax Britannica-British peace. May we not say that with the conciliatory policy which has been pursued by the right hon. premier since 1896, he has given to the Canadian people what I may term Pax Canadensis-Canadian peace. I may add this, before referring to the questions which have been discussed at such length by the speakers on both sides, that no man in this country, no man in my province, and I am proud to say it before my English fellow-members, has done more to root firmly in our soil the love of British institutions than the present right hon. leader of the government. Now, I also pay my respects to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). We have been gratified with his visit during the last few months in the province of Quebec, and I am pleased to state that this distinguished gentleman has spoken with eloquence the language of the minority. It is a great example which he has set to his party and to our party, in fact, to all public men in this Dominion, by learning and speaking with grace the language of the minority. I have listened with particular attention to the speech made by my hon.


Arthur W. Puttee: friend the whip of the Conservative party Mr. Taylor). I was under the impression that the issue which he discussed had been settled long ago. For instance, he spoke of the Manitoba school question, and with no uncertain sound he raised his voice and addressing himself to the members of the government, he asked : Have you settled the school question ? Let me say that I have grave doubts as to the sincerity of my hon. friend. I well remember the attitude he took in 1896 when the Remedial Bill was brought before this House. The then whip of the Conservative party was very anxious that the Remedial Bill should not pass, although he was saying to his friends from the province of Quebec that he favoured the measure. Indeed, the question should not have been put to the members of the government. He should have turned to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), and to the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Cas-grain) and he should have asked my two distinguished friends, where since 1896, have the friends of the Manitoba minority been. They, in the province of Quebec have agitated that question year after year in the public press as well as in their speeches, in fact they made the whole campaign of 1896 on this question-and yet they have raised their voices in this House to ask the government for the settlement of that unfortunate question.


Mr. MONK.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) allow me to ask him if he states that the Manitoba school question has been settled to the satisfaction of the minority.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will answer like a good Canadian. I will not speak as my hon. friend does, that is by stating one thing in the province of Quebec and another in the province of Manitoba. In the province of Quebec my hon. friend says that the question is not settled, but we hear of him speaking at a banquet in the city of Winnipeg in the presence of his leader and of his friends of the Conservative party there, and reading his speech as carefully as 1 can, I find nothing concerning the Manitoba school question. But I will now answer his question. To my mind the question is not fully settled, but I will add, and he knows I am speaking the truth, that in a mixed community like ours, life is made up of honourable compromises and honourable concessions. I will say further that time is a great healer, and if to-day, the Manitoba school question is not settled, at least from what I have heard with the exception of the city of Winnipeg the school law works fairly well.
I trust that the majority in the province of Manitoba, when the time comes, and without any trouble, without raising any racial or religious issue, will bring a settlement that will satisfy the minority as we, in the province of Quebec have acted towards the Protestant minority, and as our friends in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince

Edward Island have acted towards the Acadian minority. But my friend from South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) also raised another old issue. He spoke of the plebiscite and asked the government if they had settled the question of prohibition. I would be very sorry for one that prohibition should exist, because I believe with the majority in my province, that things should remain as they are. But, I wish to protest against the remarks which fell from his lips. The hon. gentleman stated that we in our province, had been brought to the polls under the dictation of two or three members of the cabinet and that if we had been left free, probably we would have voted in favour of prohibition. In the province of Quebec we are against all excesses, the vote which was taken on the plebiscite was the true expression of the popular sentiment. We do not believe in prohibition by the statute-books, in the province of Quebec. But, let me say this to my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor), and if he does not take my word for it, he can have the word of his leader from the province of Quebec (Mr. Monk). In Quebec, with the exception of the large cities, the municipal councils are at liberty to grant licenses for hotels and restaurants, and in three-fourths of the municipalities this privilege is not used, and though we are against prohibition by statute, we are nevertheless in favour of temperance by moral suasion.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the popular verdict is the criterion by which the policy of the government is to be judged, then, Sir, this government enjoys the full confidence of the Canadian people. Since the last session of this House, we have had by-elections in Maisonneuve, a manufacturing constituency, in Terrebonne, in Argenteuil, in Maskin-onge, and in Two Mountains. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) made the fight of his life in these constituencies. He fought bravely, as he usually does. He came surrounded by his friends of the Conservative party and the issues or rather the 'issue,' for there was only one-was the tariff question. In these constituencies of the province of Quebec, as in the constituency of North Ontario, the electors declared themselves in favour of the fiscal policy of the government. Sir, I think that the defeat of that remarkable man, Mr. Foster-one cannot deny his ability, and he would have been an ornament to the House had he been elected-the defeat of Mr. Foster proves that this country is not in favour of any change in our tariff policy. The hon. leader of the opposition went to that constituency and he travelled from township to township making speeches, but notwithstanding all his efforts, in that Conservative stronghold, my young friend (Mr. Grant), whom I was pleased to listen to and to applaud this afternoon, carried the county by a very large majority.
We have been told that the Liberal party had played a mean trick on the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). We have been reminded several times during this debate, that we did not carry out the policy which we promised in 1896, and some one hinted-I think it was my hon. frien'd from Dundas (Mr. Broder)-that during the elections of 1896 some work was done behind the scenes by the leaders of the Liberal party, and that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte), together with the premier, went to the manufacturers and gave a pledge that the tariff policy then existing would remain in force. Well, I was perhaps too young to know what was going on behind the scenes, but I went around the province of Quebec with my leader and with the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and I can say boldly that they fully agreed on the tariff issues of the day. But let me refer to this book ; it is the report of the Liberal convention of 1893, and I find that so far back as 1893, the hon. member for St. Mary's was present at that convention, being sent there by his then electors of the county of L'lslet. Opening this book at page 71, I read this :
The Tariff-We the Liberal party of Canada, in convention assembled declare :-
That the customs tariff of the Dominion should be based, not as it is now, upon the protective principle, but upon the requirements of the public service ;
That the existing tariff, founded upon an unsound principle, and used, as it has been by the government, as a corrupting agency wherewith to keep themselves in office, has developed monopolies, trusts and combinations ;
It has decreased the value of farm and other landed property;
It has oppressed the masses to the enrichment of a few :
It has checked immigration ;
It has caused great loss of population ;
It has impeded commerce ;
It has discriminated against Great Britain ;
In these and in many other ways it has occasioned great ipublic and private injury, all of which evils must continue to grow in intensity as long as the present tariff system remains in force.
That the highest interests of Canada demand a removal of this obstacle to our country's progress, by the adoption of a sound fiscal policy, which, while not doing injustice to any class, will promote domestic and foreign trade, and hasten the return of prosperity to our people.
That to that end, the tariff should be reduced to the needs of honest, economical and efficient government.
That it should be so adjusted as to make free, or to bear as lightly as possible upon, the necessaries of life, and should be so arranged as to promote freer trade with the whole world, more particularly with Great Britain and United States.
We believe that the results of the protective system have greviously disappointed thousands of persons who honestly supported it, and that the country, in the light of experience, is now prepared to declare for a sound fiscal policy.
The issue between the two political parties on this question is now clearly defined.

cial subsidies not to forget that tbe provinces to-day are looking towards the federal government to lend them a helping hand. If confederation is not to end in legislative union, we must give the provinces the ways and means to exist. It is admitted to-day, after the conferences which took place in 1887 and 1902 that the provinces with their present limited revenue are hardly able to meet both ends. I listened with much pleasure to my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Kemp) yesterday. He spoke of the preferential tariff and blamed the government for having given Great Britain a preference. Sir, let bygones be bygones. We, In this country, enjoy a responsible government, and the electorate is the supreme judge. We went before the country in 1900 and the country replied that it was satisfied with the preferential tariff. But my hon. friend says that if this government had been willing to accept the responsibilities which arise from naval defence and our participation in the wars of the empire we would probably have had the mutual preference which we were seeking.


Mr. KEMP.: I did not say that I desired this country to participate in the wars of the empire outside Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understood my hon. friend to have said so, but of course I am ready to accept his word to the contrary. At all events, after the colonial conference which was held last summer, having read the manly answer given by my hon. friend the premier, to the proposals made by the colonial secretary, I think we should all agree that our representative did his duty. Sir, we are loyal to England. We give her the benefit of a preferential tariff. We have asked for reciprocal concessions. Whilst Mr. Chamberlain appeared to favour such a policy we find that in that respect he is somewhat isolated among the public men in Great Britain. If I were not afraid to weary the House I could quote Mr. Mor-ley, Mr. Bryce and Sir Michael Hicks-Beech on this point. It is admitted to-day that we cannot have, on the basis of protection any reciprocal trade with Great Britain. If we cannot have that mutual preference, we must fully concur in the language used by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance in his budget speech. If Great Britain will not give us a preference then we will consider what action we shall take in the interests of Canada. Again I say that we must all approve the answer given by my right hon. friend the premier at the colonial conference. We are not ready to accept all the burdens which Mr. Chamberlain and some of his friends would like to impose on this country. As I said a moment ago, we are loyal. We are ready to do our duty to the empire, but we shall do it of our own volition. We shall do it ' proprio motu.' We will never sacrifice any of our political rights and we will never barter our political Mr. LEMIEUX (GaspS).
independence to suit the purposes of some ultra-Britishers. In a word we are and intend to remain good British subjects, but before all we are Canadians, and 1 may add that Canada belongs rightly not to a favoured few, but to all Canadians.


George Taylor: Before the hon gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) takes his seat, I wish to make a personal explanation. I know we would not wilfully misrepresent me. I understood him to say that I had opposed the Remedial Bill. I wish to inform the hon. gentleman that such is not the case. If he will read ' Hansard,' he will find that I both spoke and voted for the Remedial Bill. More than that, I stayed up night and day trying in every way to have the Bill passed. I always contended that the minority in Manitoba had constitutional rights, and that those rights should be recognized. By the settlement which has been made, they did not secure a recognition of those rights to which they are entitled under the constitution of our country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am pleased to accept the words of my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor). He may have spoken and may have voted in favour of the Remidial Bill. But it is a fact well known to every one, that, while the whip of the Conservative party, he canvassed against the Bill.


George Taylor: That statement is not correct, and I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. ffm. Paterson).: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) is probably to follow me to-night, so I shall not detain the House at any great length. I have been undecided whether to take part in this discussion, and notwithstanding your kind indulgence extended by request of hon. members permitting the whole broad subject to be discussed, taking in the financial as well as the trade question, I shall confine myself to a few words with reference to the amendment before the House. Had I desired to say anything with reference to the financial statement, I feel that it would be out of place. The statement speaks for itself. The concise, plain manner in which it was put by the hon. gentleman who delivered it, and the matter that was contained in it, render any enlargement on my part unnecessary. But if enlargement were necessary, it has been supplied by hon. gentlemen on this side who examined in more detail than did the Finance Minister the expenditures of the country. And I must say that there have been speeches delivered in this debate, and now to be found in ' Hansard ' which will be of the utmost value to me, as they will be to other hon. members, refreshing our memories for the discussion of public questions. I suppose we all feel, when we have to engage

in an election contest, after a period of rest and quiet, liow very soon we seem to forget the questions that engage our attention here.
I proceed to consider, for a few moments, then, the amendment. And it is an extraordinary position in which I find the debate on this occasion. We have an amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) which reads as follows :
That all the words after ' that ' in the proposed motion be left out, and the following *substituted therefor :-' This House regarding the operation of the present tariff as unsatisfactory is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labours, 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, why do I say that it was a remarkable discussion that has taken place upon this amendment ? We are asked by the mover of this amendment to declare that the House regards the operation of the present tariff as unsatisfactory. I do not think that I can bring myself to vote for the amendment. But there are some hon. gentlemen in this House who can induce themselves to do so. Some of these hon. gentlemen have spoken, and have spoken at length ; but I have failed to hear any explanation as to how this tariff is unsatisfactory-not merely why it is unsatisfactory to the House, but why it is unsatisfactory to themselves. When the hon. member for West Toronto rises, I would like him to tell me what there is unsatisfactory in the working of this tariff. Is it unsatisfactory in that there has not been sufficient revenue raised to carry on the affairs of the country? The hon. gentleman will not say that, for there has been enough revenue raised under it during the years it has been in operation to more than pay the ordinary expenditure, and almost enough to pay, up to the end of the present year the ordinary and the capital expenditure. The tariff can not be unsatisfactory in that regard. Then, is it unsatisfactory in its effect upon foreign trade? I do not mean to give you many figures tonight, but I am trying to find out what is unsatisfactory in this tariff requiring the thorough revision and readjustment in all its parts called for by the amendment. Why, if the tariff requires this thorough and judicious readjustment throughout its hundreds of articles, is it not a strange thing that we have not had the defects pointed out by these hon. gentlemen. I have sat in my place patiently. The other night when the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) was lecturing the ministers for not being in their places, I did not feel guilty. I have sat here patiently and listened to what was 69
said. And now, when hon. members are asked to declare by their votes that this tariff is unsatisfactory and that it requires readjustment in all its hundreds and hundreds of articles, I say 1 shall expect the hon. member for West Toronto, who follows me, and whom I consider one of the ablest members on that side of the House, to state what has been lacking hitherto, to tell us the items in this tariff which are defective, and how they can be improved. I think we are entitled to ask that. I have asked the question whether it was unsatisfactory with reference to securing revenue and have concluded that no hon. gentleman will affirm this. Now I ask, has it been unsatisfactory as regards the promotion of foreign trade ? I have already said that I shall not give many figures, but I have here a short table in which I have divided into four six year periods the export of the produce of this country, and another in which I have divided into four six year periods the aggregate foreign trade of the country. Why did I take four six year periods ? Because, commencing with 1878 and running down through the eighteen years when the national policy came into operation, and into the six years when this tariff has been in operation. I propose to contrast the foreign trade and the progress made in building it up in three periods under the operation of the old tariff and the increase under the six years of the present tariff.
Now, the percentage of increase in the export produce of Canada for the four six-year periods between 1878 and 1892 is as follows : From 1878 to 1884 the increase was 17 per cent ; from 1884 to 1890 the increase was 7 per cent; from 1890 to 1896 the increase was 29 per cent; from 1896 to 1902 the increase was 78 per cent. Is the tariff unsatisfactory, I ask hon. gentlemen, through you, Mr. Speaker, who will follow me ? Is this tariff unsatisfactory in so far as its operations have had an effect on the exports of this country ? Well, what about the total foreign trade of this Dominion ? There are gentlemen in this House who would confine Canadian trade to Canada. They do not take views broad enough. We want Canada for the Canadians, but we want all the other countries in the world besides to sell our goods to. I do not understand that trade is a bad thing if we know how to trade. My hon. and genial friend, one of the merchant princes of this country, doing one of the largest businesses in this country, representing the city of Toronto (Mr. Brock), he does not conduct his own business on the principle that an extension of trade outside his own family would be a bad thing for him. He sends his travellers north, south, east and west. Possibly, if he confined his trade within his own family circle it might enrich the members thereof a little, but he would not do much business.


Mr. BROCK.: That is an absurdity.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Well, I see the hon. gentleman is coming to take our view of it, that trade is not a bad thing. What is a nation but an aggregate of individuals, and if it is good for an individual to trade with his neighbours, must it not he good for a nation to trade with its neighbours ? Will the hon. gentleman say it would be an absurdity ? Now, what trade have we done with other nations ? From 1878 to 1884 our total foreign trade increased 20 per cent; from 1884 to 1890 it increased 5 per cent; from 1890 to 1896 it increased 9 per cent; from 1896 to 1902 it increased 77 per cent. I ask my smiling friend opposite, when he rises to speak, to say if the tariff has been unsatisfactory in the way of promoting foreign trade.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What has the tariff had to do with the increase of the export trade of the country ?
The MINISTER OB' CUSTOMS. The tariff has had this to do with It, that when this tariff was Introduced, and it was known that it was in the hands of a government who held, as one of their fundamental principles, that changing circumstances might require in time a revision of the tariff, and that they held as a fundamental principle that the greater stability you could give to a tariff the better, from that moment the country commenced to move forward. Then I want to tell him further that by reducing the burdens of the people, immigration was promoted into this country. I want to tell him that there are more people in his country. I want to tell him that the administration of government, combined with the operations of the tariff, have had much to do with the exports. The fact that you have a cold storage system has had much to do with it; for, say what you may, you had not a cold storage accommodation to compare with the Australian, under the Conservative regime. You have it to-day, it is well known, and the figures prove, that since this government came into power the article of cheese has taken its proper place in the English market, though I do not say that it had not a good place before under hon. gentlemen opposite. But I do say that butter and other perishable products have swollen the aggregate export of the produce of this country, so far as its money value is concerned.


William Rees Brock: What did we do with our products before you came into power ? What did we do with our grain ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: A great deal of it was consumed by the people of Canada, and the balance was exported.


William Rees Brock: We had poor crops.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Well, I don't know about that. I have spoken of the eighteen years under the regime of the Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
hon. gentleman's party. Are we to understand that if the Tories came in again we are to look for another eighteen long years of bad crops ?


William Rees Brock: Whooping it up.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman is getting a little irritated-


William Rees Brock: Not at all.
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS-but I have not given him any reason; I simply point out a fact. He explains the difference by saying they had poor crops. Well, now, I say there were eighteen years when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, and that the Giver of all good blesses Canada, whether under Tory or Liberal rule, we must not forget that. And during the eighteen years they were in power, Providence smiled upon this land, as Providence has smiled upon this land since we took control of its affairs. But if it be a fact that Providence blesses this country and has blessed it, whether under Tory rule or Liberal rule, if you find an increase so vast under the Liberals that you did not find under the Tories, the same Providence being equally kind to us all, what is the inevitable inference ? Simply that while Providence blessed Canada under whatever rule it may be, the Liberals know best how to use the blessings of that Providence. That we claim for the Liberal party, and that we claim alone.
Now, Sir, I have given the facts. I have stated that there has been an entire lack of instances given us wherein this tariff is unsatisfactory. I again prefer the request that we be told how it has been unsatisfactory. It has struck me as strange in this debate that hitherto when we have had arguments upon the tariff, the old question of protection and free trade has been debated, which is not a question in actual existence in this country at all. We have been told that in certain lines the manufacturers were suffering. We had them venturing to say that certain lines were suffering, but this year, strange to say, with the resolution that these gentlemen, I presume, are about to vote for that declares that we should have a thorough and immediate revision of the tariff, we have heard very few complaints about the manufactures. What manufacturing concerns are suffering ? What manufactures do you propose to lay a duty in favour of and how much do you propose to lay. I have noticed that, leaving the manufactures alone, hon. gentlemen opposite have centered their interest upon the farming community and that it is the poor farmer they want to protect. These are the parties to whom their sympathies are extended at the present time. We have had the whip of the party, the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor), we have had the leader from the province of Ontario, the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), we have had the hon. member for

Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) and others appealing largely to the farmer and their whole argument seems to be this:	The Americans
send in here a few million dollars worth of farm products, crushing the farmers out of their market and therefore they say put up the tariff and shut the Americans out. If hon. gentlemen will bear with me for a moment I will read over the list of articles that our farmers are particularly interested in and I will show you that while the Americans do sell a few million dollars worth of their farm products, the American nation takes as large a quantity from our farmers and there is nothing to find fault with in that respect. I will just give the chief products that the farmers of this country are interested in. There are swine, horned cattle, horses, sheep, all other animals n.e.s., barley, beans, Indian corn for distillation, oats, pease, rye, wheat, bran, mill feed, &c., corn meal, oat meal, wheat flour, all other breadstuffs n.e.S, butter, cheese, hay, potatoes, turnips, vegetables canned, vegetables all other n.e.s. and eggs. Now, I think hon. gentlemen will agree with me that I have gone over pretty much at any rate the important articles in which our farmers are interested and what is the result of that ? While the Americans sent into our market $2,973,098 worth in the aggregate of these articles we sent to the United States, not to other countries, but to the United States, $3,917,878 worth. They bought a million dollars worth more from our farmers of farm products than this country took of the produce of their farms, or to be exact, $944,780. But hon. gentlemen opposite will say : You have left out Indian corn, and so I may as well anticipate that there may not be any side issue in reference to it. We will take in Indian corn which we hold is on the free list for the benefit of the farmer. We think that when the manufacturer gets his raw material free, when used in the goods which he exports, the farmer and the cattle man has the right to have free corn to finish their productions. But, if we take the ground that these gentlemen take that it is an interference with our farmers and if we look at the figures we find that there were $2,480,397 worth of Indian corn imported but there was exported of that $1,036,090 worth, leaving $1,444,307 worth, and if we take the $944,780 into account we have a balance of only $499,527 in favour of the Americans. Now, I say there is not much ground for our friends to appeal to the farmers with any degree of success in that. But, they have looked into the thing very particularly and they have discovered that there are some products of the farmer that ought to be protected. The hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) dwelt upon that. He gave us, the other night, a list of fruits that came in here and he was determined to have these fruits excluded. These Yankee fruits coming in here, monopolizing our market and lowering the prices
of our own fruits was something that was not to be tolerated. He said that there was $765,771 in duty levied on these fruits that came from the United States. I had a little curiosity to look into that list and what do you think I found ? Why, that on all kinds of fruit that are grown here at present there was only a duty paid of $157,204, instead of $765,771. What did he include in the list of fruits upon which he wanted a prohibitory tariff placed ?-dried currants, dates, figs, prunes, raisins, almonds shelled, almonds, not shelled, pecans not shelled, shelled peanuts, walnuts not shelled, all other kinds of nuts, oranges, lemons and limes. Now, we must have a tariff placed upon these and it must be adequate. There is no use saying that oranges and lemons cannot be grown in this country. They can. I saw one in the hot house myself. It can be done and adequate protection, which means prohibition, if placed on oranges will tempt some people to grow a tree or two for the glory of the thing under glass. It is an outrage upon these farmers that they should be subjected to these Yankee importations of dried currants, dates, figs, prunes, raisins, almonds shelled, almonds not shelled, Brazil nuts not shelled, pecans not shelled, shelled peanuts, walnuts not shelled, all other kinds of nuts, oranges, lemons and limes. The farmers want to get even with these people and they are asking this government to put $15 more duty on the reaper that is made by the Yankee so as to get even with him in that way. That is the proposition of hon. gentlemen opposite. These Yankees send in pecans and limes and they send in some agricultural implements and it will benefit the farmer to have an additional duty of $15 placed upon his binder. Then, the hon. gentlemen took up the item of vegetables and he said that there was a duty of $86,074 laid on vegetables. He was right. That includes potatoes, tomatoes, and several other articles. I find that if it be a grudge we have against the Yankees that they took from us $327,046 worth of our potatoes while we only took from them $87,212 worth. If there is anybody who has a right to get mad about that it is the Yankees. The total value of the imports mentioned under that head were $417,407, while the people of this country exported to the United States altogether $994,410 worth, so that we sent $2 out for every one we brought in and yet this hon. gentleman is for having us engaged in a commercial war with the United States in reference to the matter, and he is going to see that these vegetables and fruits are produced in this country. Well now, if he asks my opinion, I will give him my answer. I see the smiling face of my late colleague the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) opposite me and he was good enough to say in the remarks he addressed to the House, that while he perhaps did not view me in every respect more friendly

than he did some others of his late colleagues that, at any rate, there was one question on which we were nearer perhaps than on some others.
Of course I cannot allude to these things, and I am not going to talk about ancient history. There was a speech of mine read here the other night by the member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) which I made away back in 187G, twenty-seven years ago. If the bon. gentleman (Mr. Roche) is ever here that long it will be an honour to him if lie can have a speech of his quoted which is twenty-seven years old. I was pretty young in parliament in 1876, but it is significant that the sentiments expressed at that time are those embodied in this present tariff. I said then that I did not see how a duty on wheat would help the farmer much so long as he grew a surplus and exported it, but nevertheless I said that there might be perhaps a month in the year, if the farmers were sold short and before the new crop came in, when a home demand might be required and if the farmer could import wheat under circumstances like that, then he would get the benefit And we have a duty on wheat now, and there is a duty on other grain. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche) will see, therefore, that even as far back as 1876 I had sound views on the tariff, and that ought to give him confidence in any tariff that I approve of. X do not know that I would pin much faith on arguments that were used years and years ago and under different circumstances, but it just happened that in this case I announced some views about the tariff, and those views are embodied in the tariff which is in existence to-day.
Just a year ago when the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Leonard) made his motion to the effect that it was in the interest of the country that there should be an increased duty placed upon certain vegetables, the hon. the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) replied to that motion, and I commend that reply to the member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) and other gentlemen on that side of the House. The hon. gentleman from Laval moved as follows :
That it is greatly in the interest of the market gardeners and the farmers, that the duties on our Canadian garden products he so adjusted as to guarantee the Canadian farmer an effective protection against foreign competition.
I will read to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) the argument that was delivered upon that motion by my late colleague (Hon Mr. Tarte) and I think that answer will be sufficient ; I think it will show him how strange his proposition is that we should go on and increase duties on these articles because some of them are imported. The Hon. Mr. Tarte said last year :
I entertain considerable doubts as to the increase of duties on those products imported from abroad being likely to result in something practical, if you take into consideration the Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
fact that our farmers cannot supply that foreign market, because they do not produce those vegetables all the year round. Many articles, amongst those just mentioned by the hon. gentleman, are imported from the United States, to which country a little later in the year many similar products of our own are exported. If we raised the duties on those products as asked for by the hon. gentleman we should incur the risk of retaliation on the part of the United States as to products coming from Canada. We carry on, for instance, a considerable trade in melons with our neighbours, and our duty on that article is 25 per cent, whereas it is on the free list in the United States. What would my hon. friend say if the American government should decide to impose on that article a similar duty to ours ? At any rate, it is of public notoriety that the greatest number of the articles, upon which we are asked to increase the duty, are not produced in the winter months. We should thereby be increasing the prices of those products to the great mass of consumers without our market gardeners being benefited thereby. My hon. friend wants us to raise the duties upon lettuce, cucumbers, tomatoes, asparagus, celery, beets, onions.
I hope my bon. friend. (Mr. Taylor) is keeping in mind these articles, because they are the very articles which he has spoken about. The hon. gentleman continues :
It is well known that in the winter months we do not grow cabbages nor cucumbers. We are also aware that it is extremely difficult to raise tomatoes in the winter season. We had to pay, last winter, 50 cents a pound for tomatoes of Canadian growth, whilst American tomatoes were being sold on the Montreal market at 20 cents a pound.
That is the condition of things which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) wants to bring about.


Mr. INGRAM.: Read what Mr. Tarte said after that to the effect that he was no free trader.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am glad that my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) is following me, I have that very passage from the speech underscored here and it is curious that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) should think that I was going to miss it, because it is far more conclusive than what I have read. He says :
I am no free trader


Joseph Israël Tarte: That is a pretty well known fact.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is true.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Now here is the point the hon. gentleman thought I was going to miss reading, and when I read it he will see that I certainly would not omit it, because it is one of the richest things in the whole speech :
I am no free trader, but it is necessary to use common sense in our transactions in this world, and I declare here and now that I object to paying 50 cents a pound for Canadian tomatoes, when I can have Amerioan tomatoes for 20 cents. It is really going too far.


Andrew B. Ingram: Read on.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I will read on :
This shows conclusively that tomatoes cannot be grown here with advantage in the winter months. So with asparagus and cucumbers. We do not produce asparagus nor celery in the winter season. There is not to be found one single gardener in the whole island of Montreal, or around Ottawa or Toronto, who can grow lettuce as good as that imported from the United States in the winter.
Don't think you are going to get the exMinister of Public Works to vote for any such amendment as is before the Chair in favour of adequate protection, when it involves as the member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) says it does, the putting on of duties that will make twenty cent tomatoes cost fifty cents.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I ask the Minister of Customs, if the government is opposed to an increase of duty on these articles


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There is no increase provided for in the tariff that is brought down this session, and as to future tariff changes of course we never announce them before the budget speech.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: My excolleague (Hon. Mr. Tarte) continued to say:
It is idle to appeal to prejudices. There are enough people buying tomatoes and lettuce, for let it be known that I am speaking the plain unvarnished truth. Cauliflowers are not grown in the winter months in Canada. I agree that during a certain season of the year they can be kept, perhaps during two or three months. The cauliflowers we buy in the winter are imported from the United States.
Yet they want to put on a tariff of adequate protection to force you to pay a higher price under the circumstances which my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) describes and he seems to know whereof he was speaking :
The market gardeners around Montreal receive iust as much protection as any other class of the community does, and I may further say that those gardeners are the most prosperous people in the country.
And yet it is demanded that we should have an immediate revision of the tariff in order to benefit those poor gardeners. Here is the testimony given a year ago by the ex-minister, that these gardeners were very well off, and I am sure they have not suffered this year. The argument used by the ex-minister is an argument to show that the Liberal party in framing the tariff looked upon both sides, whereas our Couservative friends, judging by their policy and their amendment, look at only one side. They say :	Put the duties so high that it will
be prohibitory. Prohibition is the principle of their protection. That is its essence; that is its final result and our friend (Hou. Mr. Tarte) is not one of that kind because
he looks at the other side of the question as we do on this side of the House. He says:
Should I be disposed, nevertheless, to add something to their happiness, would that be conducive to the happiness of other classes of the community much more numerous than the market gardeners are.
There is where he looks; there is where the Liberal party look. They.look at all classes and all occupations; they have regard to the producer and the manufacturer, but at the same time they do not lose sight of the consumers :
To my mind, the consumers of Montreal should not be forced to pay extravagant prices for these products.
The consumers would be forced either to deprive themselves of vegetables or to pay exorbitant prices for them. Should we impose additional duties, consumers would have to pay 25 or SO per cent more, nor could we hope thereby to increase the production of those articles *which cannot be grown to advantage in this country. '
Sound sense. If, in forcing an unnatural production in this country, it should be done at the cost of raising the prices of the articles above what the people ought to pay, there would be less of them consumed, and the whole benefit would be neutralized. My hou. friend saw that clearly. He says he sees eye to eye with me on many things. He goes on to say :
There are seasons when we must import vegetables from the United States, because they can there be grown more easily and much more cheaply.
Then the hon. gentleman, who'moves the resolution, interjects this sentence :
There is this great difference, that the climate of the United States is favourable to the production of vegetables, whereas the Canadian climate is not so advantageous. And that is why our farmers ought to receive more protection than is given to the farmers in the United States.
To which the reply is made by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Public Works :
My hon. friend knows very well that, even if additional duties were imposed on pease, tomatoes, cucumbers and other vegetables, that would neither improve the climate nor enable us to grow those vegetables to advantage during the winter months. The increase in the duties asked for by my hon. friend would only result in forcing the consumer to pay more for those products, without improving the condition of the Canadian producer.
He winds up by dismissing the subject In the following words :
To my mind such a proposition is preposterous.	.
Now, my hon. friend from South Leeds would do well to ponder over that answer. There is a great deal of sense and good argument in it. There is in it the grasp of a gentleman who is considering the question, sincerely desirous as we all are that all classes in this country should prosper. But

when asked to impose duties, which, if imposed, would be of doubtful benefit even to those for whose benefit they were asked, he insists that they might so enhance prices as to lessen consumption, but if not, they would be an unjust burden placed upon those who are forced to buy the goods.
Now, I pass on to notice very briefly that when lion, gentlemen opposite ask us for a thorough and entire revision of the tariff, we should have seen a spectacle of greater agreement among themselves. I do not want to be captious. I recognize that there will be differences of opinion among hon. gentlemen opposite as to a particular rate of duty that should be placed upon a particular article. Wherever men think, you will find such differences of opinion. But here is a ease in which it appears to me professions and contradictory statements are made involving more than particular duties. For instance, the hon. member for Haltou (Mr. Henderson) and the hon. member for South Heeds (Mr. Taylor) say that they want the duty wiped off raw sugar. The hon. member for Halton said that, speaking over the head of my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), who has a refinery in his town that wants the duty on raw sugar increased. My hon. friend the leader of the Ontario opposition members in this House, the hon. member for Bast Grey (Mr. Sproule) who I take it is nearer the fountain-head, if I may use that expression with reference to the hon. leader of the opposition, says that we ought to increase the duty on raw sugar, instead of taking it off. Will the lion. leader of the opposition tell us what he would do with his policy of adequate protection in that case ?


Mr. SPROULE.: I want to correct the hon. gentleman, and say that I have no knowledge of ever having made such a statement in the House. I understood that the beet-root sugar manufacturers desired to have the duty increased on sugar, but I did not specify raw sugar at all.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They came with a deputation asking it to be increased on raw sugar.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: 
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have given the sense of it. He said he advocated taking the duty off raw' sugar and making that up by paying a bounty.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman ought to be fair enough to say that the proposal was to give it to the farmers.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Whenever a bounty is given by the Ontario government, they do not give it to the farmer in his own hand, but they so arrange it that the farmer through the manufacturer would get it; and I suppose that any government would take care that the grower of the beets would have the advantage. When the hon. member for East Grey came with that deputation, they did not ask, so far as I remember, that the bounty should be given to the farmers who grew the beets. Must I ask the hon. member if they did ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I said there were different ways in which it could be done.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: What did the deputation ask ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know, because I was1 not present until the interview was pretty well over, and therefore I did not hear many of them speak. But I said that there were two or three ways of arranging the bounty. One was by providing that the farmers should get so much a ton for their beets. Another was that there should be a bounty paid on the sugar produced according to a sliding scale: for instance, one cent per pound the first year, three-quarters of a cent the second year, one-half of a cent the third, one-quarter of a cent the fourth,, letting it run out in that way. I was not aware in what particular way the deputation wanted the assistance, but I said that the government should help them in some way, because the farmers were very much interested in the matter.


Mr. COWAN.: You made a speech three years ago advocating a bounty to the manufacturers.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think the hon. gentleman will bear me out in this, that while he suggested that the bounty might be given, he did not suggest that it: might be given in the way of wiping out the duty on raw sugar.	He wanted the duty
kept on raw sugar at the same time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No. I pointed out that the American manufacturer had a higher

duty on his sugar than the Canadian manufacturer, and therefore it was unjust to the Canadian manufacturer. I did not say in what way I advocated help, but I advocated that it should be given in some way.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am only pointing out the difficulties incident to all tariffs, when you come down to particular items. Let me give the views of the hon. gentleman. He said :-
But those engaged in that industry want an increase in the tariff on sugars coming into the country, and for the want of this, they are handicapped in carrying on their business. We are told that unless they get some consideration in the tariff-
Mark you, Sir, this. Not by way of bounty.
-tlieir industry is likely to go down instead of becoming one of the great established industries of the country.
That is very plain. The hon. gentleman wants an increased duty on raw sugar. You do not give bounties in the tariff.


An hon. MEMBER.: Why not ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Because you must have a separate Act of parliament in order to do it. You do not do it because you cannot. I shall not take up longer time on this point. I merely wish to show that you cannot expect unanimity with respect to the various items in the tariff. Hon. members opposite may be able to point out that some gentlemen on this side, giving their individual views, have thought that the duty on some particular item might be raised or lowered. But those are merely personal views with regard to particular items, and these men, when asked to pronounce themselves on the tariff legislation of the country, will declare in favour of carrying out our present policy. Each bon. member recognizes that he is only one in this House, that others have their views, and he judges the tariff, not from any particular item, but taken as a whole.
Let me now say a few words on the surtax on German goods, concerning which there are as many differences of opinion among hon. gentlemen opposite as there are on the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition. Some hon. gentlemen opposite commend us for taking the power to levy the surtax and say that it is right. Others condemn us and say that it- is wrong. Others say that we should have done it a year or two ago. Well, I hold that we were right in not doing it a year or two ago. We stand now in this position, that we have made representations to the German representatives of the German government, that we have made personal representations through our Prime Minister to the representatives of the British government, and having waited years, having given the German government ample time to turn the matter over, and they having continued to
treat us as they have done, then we put on the surtax. And the civilized world recognizes that it is a just act on the part of Canada, done at the right time.
With regard to the preferential tariff, hon. gentlemen opposite say that my hon. friend the Finance Minister, after having granted a preference, now proposes to abolish it. My hon. friend has done nothing of the kind. He has not said that he would abolish the preferential tariff. He is aware, as is every member of the government, that that is a large question in which great interests are bound up, and concerning which no hasty action should be taken. But what my hon. friend pointed out was that when in England, conferring with Mr. Chamberlain, he pointed out that while we gave a preference to Great Britain, we hoped, on the other hand, that Great Britain in return would give an exemption from the corn tax then in existence, to the colonies, but that if British statesmen continued to view our preferential tariff as of no value in itself, except as a sentiment, then we should be free to guard our own interests or to take such action as might be in our interest. There is where the preferential tariff stands.
My hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Cowan) has put in my hands a resolution in which the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) moved that there should be a bounty given to free sugar. In that resolution I find the following :
And ailso to encourage the establishment of beet sugar factories, a bounty should be offered for all beet root sugar manufactured in the Dominion during the next ten years and that the machinery necessary for such plant, not made in Canada, admitted free of duty.
But he forgot about the farmers there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is exactly what I said when I was with the deputation, and that is still my opinion.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman has given so many contradictory opinions, some of them must be right. I say that the preferential tariff is not interfered with. There is no proposition from the Finance Minister for the abolition of a preference, but my hon. colleague has put himself in the position, as did my right hon. friend the First Minister, in that note to Mr. Chamberlain, that in view of the fact that the corn tax is now abolished, and it will not be competent for the British government to make an exception in our favour, we are at liberty to take what course we may think proper. As my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has said, the English people recognize this and would have no reason to complain if we should come to the conclusion, in our own interest, to modify, alter, amend or change that preference. There are several reasons which might prompt us to do this. We have not considered propositions from other nations. So long as the preferential tariff is in ex-

istence, if any nation should demand equal preference with Great Britain, we would not consent to give it, but if Great Britain does not consider the preference of any value to her she could not complain seriously if perhaps we desired to place ourselves in the position of being able to obtain trade preference from other nations.
My bon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) spoke in rather a scoffing way of the little we had accomplished when we went over to the mother country and asked for the preference. He seems to think that the position taken by this government on this question had something to do with our failure in that respect. At any rate he spoke in this strong language with reference to it:
But they gained nothing. But, while they gained nothing in the way of better markets, they humiliated Canada by declaring that Canada would not consider the question of imperial defence. And Canada stands as the laughing stock of the world, because, notwithstanding our wealth and position and loyalty and everything else, our premier, who was in the band wagon of the great jubilee of our lato beloved Queen in 1S97, refused to even discuss, on the lines desired, the question of imperial defence. They said Canada was not prepared to pay her share for the defence of the empire. I say this is a humiliation to Canada. We are doing less than we ought to do and are the laughing stock of the world.
There he commits himself. He says that our Canadian representatives humiliated themselves by not acceding to the views of the^ imperial government on the question of imperial defence. If he feels that this country was humiliated because the Prime Minister and his colleagues took that stand it is upon him now-and I call his attention pointedly to this-to bring up a motion in tliis House censuring tbe ministers for not having committed themselves to a policy of imperial defence upon the lines suggested by the imperial government. Now, I emphasize that, and cal] tbe attention of tbe country to it. Tbe bon. gentleman as leader of the Ontario section cannot afford to say that tbe country is humiliated, and leave it there. We want to know where the members of Ontario are upon this question ; we want to know if they feel in that position, and we can only ascertain it by a vote. The hon. gentleman may smile, but he may be in a very awkward position if he does not propose such a motion.
Now, I turn to speak of another matter and I am very glad that tbe leader of tbe opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax") has done me tbe honour of being present while I am speaking, because I wish to ask him, in all sincerity, some questions. For it has been intimated that our Conservative friends are about to bring on an election this fall. If there is an election, it is possible I may speak in one or two places, and I would like to know where we are on this question. I know where I am and where the government are, and hon. gentlemen opposite know, and so does everybody else, for tbe tariff Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
and all its items is printed, so there is no mistaking where the government stands on that point. But we have not the views of hon. gentlemen opposite; we have only this resolution which speaks of ' adequate protection.' Now, if it is not wearying the House and if the hon. leader of the opposition will not consider me unduly inquisitive-for it is in the interest of the country and of fair discussion on the platform that we should understand one another-I would ask, and ask in no carping spirit, but in all sincerity, what this means ? He will not be offended, for he has asked as direct questions across the floor. The hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) read from the report in the Winnipeg ' Telegram ' of a meeting in Morden, where the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) was asked what 'adequate protection' would signify in reference to agricultural implements. I have no doubt that what appears in ' Hansard ' is a correct copy of what appeared in the ' Telegram,' which, I believe is the organ of the Conservative party in Winnipeg. This is what is given :
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.
There is a definite item on which the mover of this amendment has spoken and I ask him, in all sincerity, if that is the view lie expressed at that meeting-for he has told us that he has spoken the same in Manitoba as elsewhere.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) like me to answer now ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If the hon. gentleman pleases.


Robert Laird Borden: Tn the first place l would like to.ask the Minister of Customs a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose that if questions are to be asked at all, they are fair on both sides. Has any application been made to the government to raise the duty on agricultural implements ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Now, I will tell the hon. minister what I stated. Two questions were asked me on that occasion, and not one only. I was asked, in the first place, whether or not I proposed to abolish the

duty on agricultural implements, and I said that I did not, because I regarded the manufacture of these implements as a great Canadian industry and I believed the duty imposed upon implements of that character had not had the effect of. increasing the price in Canada, that I had been informed by gentlemen who had investigated the subject that the price of agricultural implements was no higher-at least was not materially higher-in Canada than in the United States.
I was asked another question-whether or not, if the Conservative party came into power, they would be prepared to raise the duty on agricultural implements; and I said that if it were necessary to preserve that great Canadian industry, I would be prepared to raise the duty on agricultural implements. I am not responsible for any report which appeared in any newspapers. I noticed the next day after the meeting that it was not reported as I have stated, and I spoke to the gentleman who represented the Winnipeg ' Telegram ' of the imperfect report of what had taken place at that meeting. The questions were proposed to me in writing, and I made exactly the answers I have stated to the House to-night.
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS, so, we have that statement, and I think it is well that I gave the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) the opportunity to make it.


Mr. BALL.: You know where you are now.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If lion, gentlemen opposite are taking the position that a statement appearing in their organ Is to be treated as untruthful, that may be all right.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) will pardon me- I am not attributing any untruthfulness, but merely saying that an imperfect report of my remarks was made, and am not casting any reflection either upon the newspapers or upon the reporter. Every one knows that where one's remarks are not written down in shorthand, they are sometimes reported in such a way as not to convey the exact meaning given. But I may tell the Minister of Customs that there are probably six or eight gentlemen here to-night who heard my remarks on that occasion and who would be prepared, if he has any doubt about the accuracy of my version, to inform him that I have stated exactly what took place. Further than that, if I had adopted the argument of th^>
hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) I might safely disregard the report of this meeting, because it had not appeared in the ' Canada Gazette.'


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I certainly shall not appeal to the hon. gentleman's colleagues who were with him, for I accept the statement he has made. But he will pardon me if I say that I do not quite understand where he is now. Has
he ascertained whether these implements can be made in Canada or not ? He is asking for a thorough revision and readjustment of the tariff, and must have given close consideration to this point. Is this one of the items that he wishes to have amended ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think that is a fair statement. Hon. members are going to vote on this and they want to known what they are voting on.


Robert Laird Borden: It is perfectly right that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) should ask across the floor of this House what the policy of the opposition is. That is his position, as I understand it, that it is perfectly fair to ask what the policy of the opposition is.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, let me tell him his own colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), took an entirely different position years ago, because he said that a physician should not be asked to prescribe until he had been called in to attend the patient. And Mr. Chamberlain, whom my hon. friend recognizes as a pretty high authority, took exactly the same view. Now, I am not going to shelter myself behind any such consideration as that, and I have not done so to-night. The hon. gentleman seems to think that he cannot understand our position. Well, perhaps that may be more his misfortune than his fault, I am not sure about that. I thought I had made myself pretty plain. I said that I would not take off the duty on agricultural implements, and I said further that if it were necessary to preserve this great Canadian industry I would be prepared to raise it. Now, is that not plain ? Sir, if it is necessary that an opposition should announce its policy to the country, surely it is ten times more necessary that the government should announce their policy. Now, we have in the House to-night the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs. The Minister of Customs has the floor, and he has the confidence of his colleagues. Will he answer as frankly as I have done what the policy of the government is with regard to agricultural implements ? He has told us that an application has been made to the government for an increase of duty on these implements. The government have therefore had this matter under consideration. Will the Minister of Customs now, speaking for the government to-night, tell this House and the people of this country what the policy of the government with regard to that matter is ? It will not do, Mr. Speaker, to put this answer in any evasive language. Here is a government charged with the duty of giving a tariff to this country, and I invite my hon. friend the Minister of

Customs to declare to this House and to this country, as he has seen fit to introduce this question, what the policy of the government is with regard to this application respecting agricultural implements, which he says has been under the consideration of the government ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have not the slightest objection to tell the hon. gentleman, and I will tell him in such definite terms that I think his own supporters will admit that he has failed to answer my question. He has not told us whether it is necessary to preserve this industry or not. I want to tell him that the propositions that the Finance Minister proposes to make are on the Table, those with which he proposes to supplement the present tariff, in which agricultural implements, binders, &c., are at 20 per cent duty, and they remain at 20 per cent. Now, that is the kind of answer he ought to be able to giye me on one item out of hundreds in the tariff ; and the evident evasion, this trimming, this cutting round, are made to enable the opposition, so far as it can, to go to the country and to say one thing here and another thing there. To say ' if it is necessary to preserve the industry '-that is not the language of gentlemen who sit behind him. It is not necessary to have more duty on to preserve the industry in the country, because there are firms making these articles.


Mr. PRINGLE.: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? The constituency which I have the honour to represent, being vitally interested in the woollen industry, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he considers that the protection now afforded the woollen industry is sufficient or adequate protection ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is evident that the conclusion at which the ministry have arrived is that it is sufficient, as there is no change in that respect, except the German surtax. Now then, let me go on, if I am making this speech. An hon. gentleman who offers a resolution declaring that there is a necessity for an immediate and thorough revision of the tariff, when one particular item of that tariff is brought to his notice, and he is asked to give a statement, his answer was that it was dependent upon circumstances. He seems to have had that question ringing in his ears ; he must Jntve seen that that was a question in which 'the people _were interested, and he should have his mind made up on it and ascertain whether that industry could be maintained in this country or whether it could not. If he has made up his mind it cannot be maintained in this country under the present tariff, then he would say that 20 per cent on agricultural implements is not adequate protection. But I point out to him that the member for Peel (Mr. Blain) the other night read a list of iron goods that were imported . Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
from the United States amounting to some millions in value, and when he finished reading it I ventured to ask him : Why do you not read the importations of agricultural implements ? He was too wise to do that. He had heard, I fancy, something about the conversation that took place in Morden, therefore he left that out. But the member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor), honest soul that he is, blundered right into it; he read all these, and showed where there had been an increase of nearly $2,000,000 in the importation of these articles, and he said that their policy was to make the tariff so high- and hi response to one gentleman he said he didn't care if it was 100 per cent-he would make the tariff so high that every one of these articles would be made in this country.


George Taylor: Ought to be.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: He did not say that, because when I called his attention to what his leader said he replied : I don't care what my leader said, I am not responsible for that. The hon. gentleman is going to have a duty put on so that every one of these $2,000,000 worth of agricultural implements should be made in this country. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) and the hon. member for Peel tells us- and I think these are gentlemen who accompanied the leader of the opposition in his trip west-have laid it down that adequate protection means that such a duty shall be put upon whatever articles that are produced and made in this country as will shut out every single article of that line coming in from another country. I want to tell the leader of the opposition that if he reads the utterances concerning the meaning of adequate protection as defined by the speeches of his lieutenants, it is beyond cavil that adequate protection means a prohibitory tariff, and nothing else. It will not be a question on the platforms of this country, if we are going to the country this fall-it will not be a question as between protection and no duties. The Liberal party never proposed to do away with all duties. The platform that was read by the hon. member tonight distinctly states that we were to raise our revenues by a tariff of customs duties. Have a tariff, but have a tariff adjusted in such a way as to weigh less heavily upon the people, and do not adjust it in such a way as to do any injury to any class. We framed our tariff upon these lines, we carried it out, and what is the use of hon. gentlemen talking about having violated our promises and our pledges ? We went to the country, and what was the result-50 of a majority.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Humphrey Bennett: What about Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I want to tell hon. gentlemen that to-night we are iusisting that we shall have the information. Unless the hon. leader of the opposition gets

up now, as this is the time when this question is to be settled, and says that those were not his views that were given utterance to by his lieutenants behind defining what * adequate ' means, then, Sir, they are committed to it and what do these bon. gentlemen say ? The hon. member for South Leeds was ashed a question and he said :
Sufficient protection to secure to the manufacturers, to the agriculturists, and to the labourers of this country the work of manufacturing or producing all the articles that we can produce and manufacture in this country by our own labour and keep the money in our own country.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (reading)- Make your tariff sufficiently high to do that. Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Now. by inference and by what they have said I have a kind of idea what the duty will be on agricultural implements when they come iu. They are all to be made in this country. Nearly $2,000,000 worth were imported last year; that $2,000,000 worth of agricultural implements Is to be made iu this country and this is to be brought about in this way. There is $20 of a duty on a binder coming into this country now. Prior to 1895 there was a duty of $35 instead of $20, or $15 more.
Some lion.! MEMBERS. No, no.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There was $15 more duty on binders at one time and therefore we have positive proof of what is required to keep these implements or some of them out of the country, and mark you, every one is to be kept out. Binders came in and ploughs came in under a 35 per cent duty. Put the duty at 50 per cent and perhaps it will do but I question if 50 per cent will do it. They stand pledged to that. That is where they are.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Will the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) allow me to ask him a question ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Does the hon. gentleman claim that by raising tlje duty on an article he would raise the price of that article by the amount of the duty ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Certainly.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I want an answer from the hon. Minister of Customs.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) says he knows my mind as well as his own. In all cases he might not do so, but he knows as well as I do what the object of raising the duty is-and he is leading away from the question we are discussing as to what adequate protection means.


Joseph Israël Tarte: This is on the question.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Do not take me off this. In tlie case of agricultural implements 35 per cent would not shut them out of the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Answer.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Answer what V


Some hon. MEMBERS: The question.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I answered the question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I answered the question.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 1 would like to get a straight answer. My hon. friend has understood me. I have put to him that question to which he has given an answer already many times in my presence. Does he claim now that by raising the duty on agricultural implements we will raise the price of agricultural implements ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am not making that argument at all.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If my hon. friend does not contend that I have not one word to say.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am not arguing that now, but I will say this to him that in many cases circumstances come in. These circumstances arise in individual cases and they modify-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If hon. gentleman want to laugh they may think that they can discuss this question a great deal better than I can. I have been in business myself since I was a boy. I have been actively engaged in business all my life either as an employee or an employer.
I have been in this House for thirty-one years and for twenty-seven years I have heard this question discussed, and I claim to know as much as some hon. gentlemen upon the subject. But, from the position I occupy through the kindness of the right lion, the Prime Minister in the Customs Department where I am brought into contact with the active working of the tariff and where I am brought into contact with business men I would be utterly unfit for the position, and I venture to say it myself without any egotism on my part, if I did not understand the workings of the tariff as well as any other hon. member of this House.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr.. Tarte) has asked me a.question. I want to tell him this :	When
you impose a tax you have to be very care-

ful that the incidents of that taxation is not going to be put upon the people. I atn free to tell you that, and I do not hesitate a moment to say it, that there are people m foreign countries who, in their desire to sell their goods, will sell them in this country, as they will in any other country, at a lower price than they will sell to the people in their own country. That will happen to us here and happening in this way if you have a tariff the money goes into the revenue, but, that will only go so far, but if you levy too high a tax then the consumer must pay.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Well, my hon. friend did stand a good long time. I don't want anything personal, but I may say that my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarta) was able to stand it a long time. I am standing it a little longer apparently.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am standing by the principles on which we were elected.


Joseph Israël Tarte: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: We know all that.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Well then, why do you ask me ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I have just asked a question that the hon. Minister of Customs has answered over and over again. He said a minute ago that by raising the dutv on agricultural implements we would raise the price of agricultural implements. He is wrong.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I did not say that. I ought to tell the hon. geu-tleman that he never heard me speaking that 1 know of anywhere in any different manner to that in which I am now speaking.
Hon. Mr, TARTE. The hon. minister will not deny that joublicly-I do not speak of cabinet secrets-he has advocated the raising of duties on many things and the hon. gentleman cannot stand in his place to-night and say that he is not anxious to have a higher tariff.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman says that he is not speaking about something "that transpired in the Privy Council.


Joseph Israël Tarte: No, no.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Certainly not. If we were, of course, I would be utterly precluded from saying either yes or no, because, inferentially, I would be divulging the secrets of the cabinet and I would be unworthy of occupying a position in the cabinet if I violated my oath. I think I would not so far forget myself as to violate my oath, because, if I did, credence would not be put in any statement I made. Now be ,saJ'sT that I did it openly and publicly, and if I said it openly and publicly every one knows what I said, and I stand bv what I said.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I stan where the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarti stood in reference to that fruit matter W stood in a great many other things togethei


Joseph Israël Tarte: We don't stand together now. I stand, but my hon friend (Hon. Mr. Paterson) does not stand where we stood formerly.


Hon. Mr. PATERSON.: 


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I do not want to have any words with my hon. friend, but if he desires any personal encounter he will find me perfectly willing to meet him either on the platform or on the floor of this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I grant that my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has some views on the tariff. Yes, and when he was under my tuition he got on pretty well, but when I was taken by the Prime Minister to England, he must have got playing with some bad boys in my absence- Georgie Taylor, for instance, and they must have been reading Willie Maclean's paper and so he got a little off the track.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I was playing with my hon. friend from Ontario (Mr. Ross) and some of my friends all around the government benches. I see a lot of them there, and I played with them. They would like to play again the same game if they were free to do so.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: What is the matter ? Some persons seem to be uneasy. I do n it interrupt any one. However, Sir, I think it is desirable that we should keep close to this question and know what this ' adequate protection ' is.
Some hon. MEM BURS. Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. minister does not wish to be interrupted of course we will not interrupt him from this side of the House But he will be good enough to bear in mind that he began this game of asking questions.
The MINISTER OF CUS'l'OMS. I am not finding fault. I am pointing out to my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) that while he is a little indefinite in his own speech, and while his resolution is indefinite, he does not come out as clearly as his lieutenants have done on this matter. He heard what some of them said ; he perhaps did not hear what they all said, but unless he repudiates what was said by his lieutenants, then he must accept the responsibility of having his term 1 adequate ' interpreted by the speeches of his followers. I want to know what * adequate protection ' is, and what it means. I have pointed out that the chief Conserve-

tive whip (Mr. Taylor) has taken the ground that every agricultural implement should be made in this country, and that he would put the tariff up so high as to secure that. I put it that there was a greater increase in the imports of that particular manufactured article than in anything else, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) apparently has not been able to satisfy himself whether that industry could get along or whether it could not get along. But carrying out the policy announced by his lieutenants, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) ever has to put his ' adequate protection ' policy into operation, he will have to put the duty on agricultural implements so high that every one of them will be made in this country and none come from the outside. I have told the hon. gentleman (Mr Borden) that we had 35 per cent on agricultural implements for years, and still they came in. Thirty-five per cent may not be adequate ; it will take more, probably 50 per cent, and I question if even that would do. You take any other industry you like, and if you were to produce every article in this country then you have to have a rate of duty that would give adequate protection ; adequate protection being the prohibition of the entry of these articles into Canada. Mr. Taylor says:
My hon. friend was willing to go as high as 35 per cent.
He said that to a Liberal member who intervened in the debate.
Now I am willing to go to an amount sufficient to protect the industries of the country even if it is 100 per cent.
Then speaking of the imported agricultural implements he said :
Thus, we sent to the United States last year nearly two million dollars to purchase these implements. In a very few years there will be nothing left of them but a heap of iron, and the Americans will have our two million dollars, whereas if we had a government that would have given adequate protection, every one of these articles would have been made in this country, employment would have been given to our workingmen, Canadian farmers would be supplying the home market, and we would have these two million dollars in Canada as a national capital to help on our progress and development.
Then, according to the chief Conservative whip, under this term ' adequate protection ' there is to be a duty on agricultural implements sufficient to exclude every single one of them from being imported into this country. I pointed out that the former 35 per cent duty did not accomplish that, and he says he is willing, if it be 100 per cent, to go it. I say, Sir, that the leader of the opposition sitting there, who has assumed the responsibility of asking this House to pronounce upon this amendment, must accept that interpretation of the words ' adequate protection ' or else he must denounce it and disclaim it now. He cannot escape from it. We must know where we are in this thing.
We have an open policy ; our policy is printed ; it is in the hands of the people ; it is to be changed somewhat by the resolutions laid upon the Table, but the people know all about it. They have the right to know, if we go to the country this fall, that that will be the policy followed by us. The people know what our policy is, and they are entitled to know what the policy of the Conservatives is. Now then, there, are some other gentlemen amongst the Conservatives who have put an interpretation on this amendment. If I mistake not the member for Peel (Mr. Blain) accompanied the leader of the opposition in his journey-iugs west The member for Teel says :
A considerable quantity of these commodities come in under 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, the tariff should be placed sufficiently high so that the United States farmers could not send to this country one dollar's worth of goods in competition with the products of our own farmers.


Richard Blain: Hear, hear. I believe that.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, but the hon. gentleman said more than that. He said :
That is In accordance with the principles enunciated in the amendment that Mr. Bcrdea has moved.


Richard Blain: Hear, hear. I stand by that.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There now, we have It. The leader of the opposition has seen his lieutenant rise in this House and say : I have declared that the principle enunciated in the amendment of the leader of the oppostion when he declares for adequate protection, is a duty so high that not one single dollar's worth shall come into the country. The leader of the opposition must either acknowledge that or requdiate it. If he does not repudiate it it stands there as an explanation that the policy of the Conservative party is a prohibitory tariff.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) asking me a question.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, I am making a statement. When I am through the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) can rise and say whether or not he repudiates the statements of his lieutenants.


Robert Laird Borden: I want the hon. gentleman to understand that I am ready to answer any question he puts.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Very well. The hon. gentleman does not require any question to be asked. I have read what the hon. member for Peel has said In regard to certain articles coming from the United States, of which he holds that not a single dollar's worth should be allowed to come into the country, and he says that is in accordance with the principle of the amend-

ment which the hon. leader of the opposition has moved. Therefore we are forced, in view of the vagueness of the language of the hon. leader of the opposition, to learn the meaning of this adequate protection from the speeches made by his supporters in the House.
Then, the hon. member for Halton is one of the old members of the House, one of the staunch old Conservatives. He told us in his speech last night:
But we say we will put a Chinese wall right round this country, and we will not allow these Americans to come in here and monopolize the markets of this country.
That is what he understands by adequate protection-a Chinese wall around this country that will admit none of those products.
Thus we have arrived at the real meaning of adequate protection ; we have learned what the policy of the Conservative party under the leadership of the hon. gentleman is to be. If not, it must be denied. It is not the old national policy ; not at all. It is to be an adequate policy that will exclude everything from this country. It is to be a prohibitive tariff as interpreted by the speeches of hon. gentlemen who are following the hon. gentleman in the House, one of whom at least in his presence has reiterated his belief that that is the true meaning of the term.
But why go to the trouble of framing a tariff with hundreds of items in it to accomplish their purpose of prohibiting the Importation of foreign goods ? Why not at once pass a simple Act and say : It shall be illegal from this time henceforth to introduce into this country any goods of which a like kind are produced in Canada. They have not thought of revenue ; there is no expression in the resolution with reference to revenue. The only thing is protection- adequate protection-which is defined to be protection high enough to exclude everything, even if it should require a duty of 100 per cent.
Well, I am glad that we have been able to have this discussion. My remarks have been a little broken up by the friendly interruptions which we have had, but I, of course, must share the responsibility of that. The hon. leader of the opposition was courteous enough to give me an answer when I asked him a question, and I endeavoured to return a like courtesy when any questions were asked of myself. I have my views on the tariff, and perhaps, like some other members in this House, I may not get what I think the very best duty on every one of the 600 or 800 items in the tariff. I am quite sure that when the hon. gentleman forms an administration in the far distant future, he will find among his supporters, possibly among his colleagues, a difference of opinion on some items, because of different interests, and so on. But we are now getting down to a principle. Hon. gentlemen Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
are not fighting for the old national policy. What they are fighting for is away beyond that. It is for a prohibitive tariff that will shut out everything, while we on this side stand where we always have stood, for a revenue tariff, and a revenue tariff is what is now enacted. It is the kind of tariff that we were instructed to frame by the great Liberal convention in 1893. We were to raise our revenues by means of a tariff, and in arranging the tariff we were to take care to do injustice to no class. We have endeavoured to do that. It is a mere play upon words to talk about protection and free trade in this country. Where you have a tariff with'hundreds of items produced in the country, where you have a constant tariff on these items, you of necessity have protection as an incident of that tariff. It cannot be otherwise, unless you put a corresponding excise duty upon the articles manufactured in the country, which no one has ever proposed. What we have contended is, that under that tariff so aranged, we had to care for every interest. We have secured a tariff for revenue. We have obtained money from the people which I believe the people have not felt the burden of to any great extent. You do not hear murmuring in the country. We are carrying on the public business, developing this country at a rate never before known. The manufacturing and farming industries especially are prospering under the operation of that tariff, as they never prospered before. And this is the time, when the country is in that prosperous condition, that you are solemnly asked to declare that it is the bounden duty of the government to have a thorough revision and readjustment of the tariff, and to have it this session.
As the hon. Finance Minister has said, under the operation of the tariff, under changing conditions, which change very fast in our time, not shutting our eyes to what is being done in the course of legislation in other countries, tariff changes may be necessitated. When the time comes when, in the opinion of the government, those changes should be made, they will be made, I believe, in such a manner, as will promote the best interests of the people of this country ; and I think the vast majority of the members of this House, and the majority of the people of this country, will feel that when the revision of the tariff becomes necessary, either in whole or in part-I believe the manufacturers themselves will feel so-that it will be safer to leave that revision in the hands of the men who completed the last revision, than to entrust it to the hands of men whose only policy, as enunciated in their speeches, is to put the duties so high as to shut out every article the like of which is produced in this country. It would be ruin to the manufacturers as well as to all other classes in the country. Every person conversant with the intricacies of a tariff levied on such a vast multi-

tude of articles as our tariff comprises, knows the interdependence of trade, the relation of one article to another ; and in-the framing of that tariff it is necessary not only to provide for securing revenue, but to see that you are not crushing out one class of manufacturers, while unduly helping another class. It is no simple matter, and I venture to express the belief that the manufacturers of this country would feel that it would be safer to have the revision of the tariff, when the time comes for it to be made, whether in whole or in part, accomplished by the men who six years ago, with the aid of their supporters in this House, put in force the tariff that has stood from that day to this, without any material change ; and during those six years there has been such prosperity in this country as never existed in it before.
I have not spoken about that prosperity. It has been alluded to ; but every one knows the prosperity of this country. 'Our Conservative friends admit it, and claim credit for admitting it. What credit is due for admitting that the times are good ? Do we not know that hon. gentlemen opposite are men of truth, and being so, how could they say anything else, than that times are good? We could not have maintained that character if we had said that the times were good when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power.
The hon. leader of the opposition has told us that we have not done a single thing to promote the prosperity of this country-that this prosperity is outside and beyond anything we have done-that it is simply an incident cf the prosperity of the world at large. Well, if my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, thinks that the policy of a government has nothing to do with the prosperity of a country, if that is his view of the action of government, why does he want any change ? Why does he propose any change of policy ? But the very fact that he proposes an amendment to the policy of the government, of necessity indicates that, in his opinion, a change of policy would produce greater prosperity and advancement, otherwise his resolution is meaningless. If it be true that under our present tariff policy, the country is prospering, as it never did before, surely some credit is due that policy. But if governments have nothing whatever to do with the prosperity of a country, then my hon. friend is singularly inconsistent in advocating a change of policy. When pressed to explain what really his amendment meant my hon. friend sheltered himself very jocularly, on one or two occasions, behind what other hon. members had said. He was evidently unable to explain what the word ' adequate ' in his resolution means. He has replied more than once by saying :	Well the Minister of Public Works' (Hon. Mr. PrSfontaine), down in Montreal, said that he was in favour of legitimate protection. He seemed to think
that * legitimate ' and ' adequate ' are synonymous terms, and that we must ask my hon. colleague the hon. Minister of Public Works to explain them. Well, I do not agree with my hon. friend. I do not consider the two expressions synonymous.
' Adequate protection,' as defined by the speeches of the lieutenants, as I have pointed out, and as one of them re-affirmed in his presence, means a tariff that will exclude from this country the importation of every kind of article that is manufactured in it.
I would call that illegitimate protection. That is a protection which the government have no right to [DOT] impose. Legitimate protection is not my phrase, but I accept it as a very good one. It is such a protection as, by a judicious' arrangement of the tariff, gives the requisite encouragement to our industries and at the same time furnishes the revenue required to carry on the business of the country. Such a protection we now enjoy, and if my hon. friend's predictions should be true, and we should have an election this fall, the issue will be between legitimate and illegitimate protection. If that be the dividing line, I am for legitimate as opposed to illegitimate protection. I am for a tariff so adjusted that it will secure the requisite revenue and give every legitimate industry in this country the assistance it requires, as opposed to a tariff prohibitory in its nature, and which would exclude every article of foreign manufacture from the country.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that I ought to apologize to the House for rising at this very late, or rather early hour, to attempt to follow the speech just delivered by the hon. Minister of Customs. It seems to me that I am displaying a good deal of temerity in attempting to follow him at this hour and in the present circumstances. I had not the privilege of being in the House when he began his speech, but I came in very soon after, and the first words that caught my ear were his statement that there was no dissatisfaction with the tariff at present, and his invitation to us to point out when any dissatisfaction existed. Why, has the minister been asleep during the past twelve mouths ? Has he been dozing during the past two weeks since this discussion began ? Has he turned a deaf ear to the statements of several of his own followers as to the amendments they thought necessary? Has he forgotten what was said about salt ? Has he forgotten what his hon. friend from Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) said about lead, and what an hon. member, heading a deputation of his constituents, said not long ago about vegetables ? Has he completely lost recollection of the statements made by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) with regard to the necessity of protection against servile labour ? Have the statements made by the hon. member for West Assiniboia regarding the necessity for fur-

220S
tlier protection against inferior horses coming into this country passed from his recollection V And the statement of the hom member for New Westminster (Mr. Morrison) regarding the necessity for protecting lumber and lead ? Has he forgotten the statement of his own colleague from Brantford (Mr. Heyd) as to the necessity of revising the tariff with regard to the duty on binder twine ? When the hon. minister challenges hon. members on this side to point out where the dissatisfaction exists with regard to the tariff, we need only refer him to his own followers. I am astonished that the hon. gentleman should ask such a question because ' Hansard ' bears the indubitable evidence that, not only from this side but from the other side, since this debate has begun, again and again objections have been taken and amendments pointed out and changes suggested with the object of making the tariff more suitable to the needs and interests of the people. Let me recall to the hon. gentleman the statement made by an hon. member who takes second place to no man in this parliament as an authority on trade questions. I refer to the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). Has the hon. Minister of Customs forgotteu the statements made by that hon. gentleman twelve months ago in this House when the budget debate was progressing ? Has he also forgotten the reasons he gave the other day why a tariff revision could not now be entered upon ? Has he forgotten all these things ? If he has not, I fail to understand how he can rise in his place and invite hon. members on this side to point out where dissatisfaction exists with regard to the tariff.
Sir, the hon. gentleman referred to the wonderful progress which has been made during the last few years, and he pointed with pleasure to the increase in the export trade of this country. We join in the congratulations offered the people of Canada on the substantial increase which has been made in our exports during the past five or six years. But to what is that increase due ? Will the hon. gentleman say that the tariff has had anything to do with giving us the bounteous crops with which Heaven has blessed Canada during the past five or six years ? Would our exports have increased, as they have done, if Canada had been cursed with meagre crops instead of being blessed with abundant harvests ? Will the hon. minister have the temerity to say that the tariff, the particulars of which he has at his finger ends, has had anything to do with the increase in our export trade ? When I took the liberty of asking that question, what did he attempt to say ? He attempted to say that the perfecting of the cold storage system under the benign influence of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) had - helped to promote the export of our surplus products. And when I asked how much of our products had been Mr. CLARKE.
exported under this cold storage system he did not answer. He was not frank enough, I regret to say, when he referred to cold storage, to admit that that system had been introduced by the predecessor of the present Minister of Agriculture in order to carry the perishable products of our country across the ocean. The markets of the United States being closed to them, our farmers were enabled by their industry and xierseverance and pluck to find across the sea a better market than that of the United -States; and the administration of that day, realizing the importance of favouring that trade and giving every facility for carrying it on, made provision for cold storage so that these perishable products might be placed in the markets of the old land in the best shape. Now, if hon. gentlemen opposite take credit for the increase of our exports that has resulted from the cold storage system it is surely not unreasonable for us on this side to expect that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) would have done simple justice to his opponents by pointing out that they and not this government were the originators of this system, and that if it has been an advantage. to the exporters, they as well as this government should receive some credit. The hon. gentleman went on to discuss duties on beets, tomatoes and other vegetables, and to lay down the policy that the Liberal party intend to follow with respect to the tariff on these products. He explained the position of the Liberal party, and quoted from the speech of the late Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) stating that that speech contained common sense ideas. Was it because that hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) gave utterance to these common sense ideas that he was compelled to separate himself from the present cabinet ? And if his speech declaring against additional protection to the market gardeners of this country enunciated the policy of the government, what does the hon. gentleman think of his colleague from West York (Mr. Campbell) who appealed for the suffrages of the people of West York and the market gardeners who are an important element in that constituency upon the ground that he would advocate and strive for a change in the tariff which would give additional protection to the men whose suffrages he sought ?
Sir, the hon. gentleman (Hon. air. Paterson) wants to know every particular of the policy which hon. gentlemen on this side of the House would adopt if they were called upon to administer the affairs of this country. Has he any right to ask for that information in view of the experience which the Liberal Conservative party has had during the last six or seven years ? I do not think it would be advisable for the leader of the opposition to give further particulars. ' Once bitten twice shy ' is a good old adage. The gentlemen occupying the treasury benches coming into office six or

seven years ago, after denouncing the national policy which had been established by their predecessors in 1879, realized they could do nothing better than leave the national policy as they found it, and the only change, practically, that they made in the tariff was whatever change resulted from the introduction of their so-called British preference. And why should they expect hon. members on this side, who are not charged with the responsibility of administering the affairs of the country, to give particulars of every change which they would make in the present tariff if they were called upon to assume the responsibility of carrying on the affairs of Canada ? The hon. minister is very anxious to ascertain the position of the leader of the opposition respecting the duty on agricultural implements. He dwelt long, he even laboured to get this information, and challenged the statements that my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) was alleged to have made in his recent tour in the North-west. It was my good fortune, Mr. Speaker, to accompany my leader on that tour, and I well recollect the meeting at which these questions were asked him. It is unnecessary for me to corroborate the statements that the hon. gentleman has made, for the word of the leader of the opposition will be taken anywhere throughout the Dominion. But if it were necessary I could corroborate every word that has fallen from the lips of that hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) tonight. It seems to me that it was most unfortunate for himself that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) should bring the question of the duty on agricultural implements before the House in this debate. It was fresh in the minds of many of those with whom we came in contact during our recent tour in the west that when the Liberal party were appealing for their suffrages to that particular portion of the Dominion, their rallying cry was ' vote for McCarthy and free agricultural implements.' Was that part of their policy in 1896, and if so, has it been carried out ? Have they fulfilled the pledges they made to the electors of that part of the Dominion, and given them free agricultural implements which they declared would be such a boon to that portion of the country ? No, they have not ; but, on the contrary, they have increased the protection which the manufacturers enjoyed. They have given them additional protection by minor changes which they have made in the duties on articles coming into this country which enter into the manufacture of these implements. The hon. gentleman declared that since the Liberal party came into power they have been fulfilling their pledges of reducing the burdens resting upon the people. By what method or policy have they succeeded in reducing the burdens of taxation which they found resting upon the shoulders of the people ? I shall not weary the House at this late hour 70
by reading many figures. But let me draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that the increased taxation imposed upon the people, the taxation derived from the customs and excise, during the past six years, as compared with the previous six years has been equal to twenty-six per cent per annum. And the end is not yet. If we compare the taxation of the people in the first year of the Liberal administration, 1897, which amounted to $28,648,626, with the taxation levied during the last year, 1902, which amounted to $43,308,111, we find that the increase of taxation in these five years, notwithstanding the pledges which these hon. gentlemen made again and again to the people of this country, has been no less than the enormous sum of $14,740,485, equivalent to an increase of fifty-one per cent, xind this is the way the hon. gentleman and his colleagues have fulfilled their pledges to the people and reduced the burdens of taxation. I shall not follow the example which has been complained of by the /hon. gentleman by quoting from statements which he made as far back as 1876. But, with his permission I will make a quotation from a speech delivered by him in this House in 1894. I need not apologize for making a quotation not quite ten years old. The quotation is valuable because it clearly proves that the hon. gentleman had then some idea how best to measure the taxation which was being imposed upon the people by the government of that day. He is reported in the ' Hansard ' of 1894, volume one, page 356, as follows
The hon. gentleman said that the taxes we had in 1878 were heavier than they are now. That is a very strange statement for any one to make. I want to give hon. gentlemen opposite what I consider is a true way of measuring this, because the mere assertion made on one side of the House or the other will carry no weight. I would ask those hon. gentlemen to turn to page 11 of the Trade and Navigation Returns, prepared, not by Mr. Laurier or by the member for South Oxford, but prepared by the government themselves, and what is that statement. One of the columns shows the amount of customs duties paid per head of the population. That is the way to measure your taxation. Take the taxes of 1878 and see how much was paid by the population then. You will find it was $3.13 per head. Take the sum this last year, and it was $4.26 per head.
That is the statement'made by the minister as to the best method of ascertaining what burden of taxation was being laid upon the people by the imposition of the customs and excise duties. In 1893 the customs taxation was $4.26, as the hon. gentleman then stated, but in 1896 that taxation had fallen to $3.90. What has been the record since then ? The taxation under the administration of these business gentlemen has increased, in customs from $3.90 to $5.90 per head; and in excise from $1.56 to $2.05 per head. Sir, the average taxation per head per annum during the past five years shows an increase



of no less than 17J per cent. The taxation per head In 1897, the first year of the Liberal administration, amounted to $5.57; the taxation per head last year, 1902, was no less than $7.95, an increase of $2.38 per head, or 421 Per cent. This Is one of the ways in which hon. gentlemen have fulfilled their pledges and have relieved the taxpayers of this country of some of the burdens which they found resting upon them.
I do not know that there is much more to refer to in the speech of the Minister of Customs except his reference to the preferential tariff, and also to the German surtax, which I will refer to a little later on, with the permission of the House.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Will you finish with me now, as I wish to go out ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: No, I want to come back to the hon. gentleman later on, I want to keep the good wine and the best wine until the last. In making his budget speech, the Minister of Finance congratulated the country upon the prosperity which exists at the present time. We do not dispute that prosperity, we congratulate the hon. gentleman upon being able to make such a good statement, and we hope that that prosperity will continue for a great many years to come. But there was one statement made by the Minister of Finance in his opening sentences to which I would like to draw the attention of the I-Iouse. He said :
Two years ago, after several years of rapid progress, there was anxiety in the minds of many observing men. Some indeed, thought we had already entered upon a period of depression. Others, and among them I count myself, felt that while we were not likely to have any period of severe depression, we might reasonably experience a check upon the very great prosperity of recent years. However, as it turned out, all these fears were unnecessary.
Sir, if these gentlemen can lay any substantial claim to credit for the creation of prosperous times in the Dominion, would they not be grossly derelict in their duty to the people of Canada if they did not perpetuate a policy which would give us a continuation of that prosperity for years to come ? Why did the hon. gentleman hesitate ? Why did he fear that there might be a set-back, why did he fear that this prosperity might not continue ? He intended to make no change in his tariff when he made that statement; and if that tariff was the perfect instrument he claimed it was, if that tariff has contributed to the prosperity of this country, if it has been one of the main causes which have promoted its prosperity, why should the hon. gentleman have any forebodings as to a period of depression following in days to come ? The position which we have taken, which we have had no hesitation in taking, is that the splendid, the phenomenal prosperity, if I may use the word, which has obtained in this country for the last six years, has been due primarily, and practically
speaking, entirely, to the revival of business the world over, notwithstanding what the Minister of Customs has said, and also to the abundant crops with which Canada has been blessed during that period.
In the course of his speech, the Minister of Finance made reference to what has been accomplished by the Postmaster General in his administration of the Post Oflice Department. We have no desire, certainly I have no desire, to rob the Postmaster General of any credit to which he may be entitled for his administration of the affairs of the Post Office Department; but I have this to say, and I say it without hesitation, that in no department of the public service to-day is there so much dissatisfaction existing among the employees, in none does a feeling so strongly prevail that they are not getting fair-play or justice, as in the department of the Postmaster General. I say, Sir, that occupying the dual position which he, does, the position of Minister of Labour as well as that of Postmaster General, he is especially bound to see that every grievance, every reasonable complaint which has been made to him, and which is being constantly made to him, shall be inquired into and redressed. It is a matter of greater importance to the people of Canada that we should have the benefit of an efficient postal service, than that the hon. gentleman should be able to make the two sides of the ledger balance to a cent at the end of the year. If the hon. gentleman has accomplished that feat, if he has made the receipts balance the expenditure, how has that been done ? It has been done, as has been pointed out, by special efforts ; it has been done also by the enormous increase which has taken place in the correspondence of this country, due to the general prosperity which has obtained. But the hon. gentleman has not hesitated to levy upon the newspaper proprietors of this country a new tax. He has compelled them to pay a tax which was not in existence when he assumed office. That tax, which is certainly a burden upon the readers of newspapers as well as upon the makers of newspapers, has undoubtedly been a reactionary measure, and a burden upon the people of this country. He has also lessened the privileges which the people enjoyed by raising the parcel post and the book post. Where four ounces were formerly sent for one cent from one part of Canada to the other, now only two ounces are sent. So when the Finance Minister gives credit to the Postmaster General for the administration of the affairs of the post office, we ask him to state how it has been accomplished, and we ask him to tell frankly the story of the additional burdens which have been placed upon the shoulders of the people to enable the Postmaster General to do what he has done.
The Minister of Finance made a reference in the course of his budget speech, to the prosperity which obtained on the railway


Edward Frederick Clarke: system of the Dominion. He referred to the fact that there was a small credit balance in the operating expenses of the Intercolonial for the past twelve months. Sir, during the past five years every railway in the Dominion of Canada, every railway on the continent of America, has substantially improved its position. Every railway company has been practically at its wit's end to find power and to find cars to handle the freight which has been offering. Notwithstanding the fact that the times have been propitious, notwithstanding the fact that business has largely increased in the maritime provinces owing to the development of the steel and coal industries, what is the position of affairs in regard to the administration of railways by hon. gentlemen opposite? Is it one that the hon. Minister of Finance can point to with any degree of pleasure or satisfaction, notwithstanding the fact that there is a small credit balance at the end of this year's operations ? Let me make a comparison, Mr. Speaker, of the last six years of the operation of the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway with the operation of these roads during the six years previous. The past six years have been fat years ; the previous six years were lean years Yet, notwithstanding this fact, these roads were operated by hon. gentlemen opposite, and the showing which they make at the end of these six years' operation is one that hon. gentlemen ought not to take any credit for. It is one that they ought to he heartily ashamed of. What are the facts ? From 1897 to 1902 inclusive, the capital expenditure on the Intercolonial road reached the enormous sum of $13,041,282, and on the Prince Edward Island railway the capital expenditure for the same period amounted to $849,260. The expenditure on both these roads on capital account during the past six years amounted to $13,890,542. What were the operating results of these railways ? From 1897 to 1902, the net loss on the Intercolonial Railway was $487,971, and on the Prince Edward Island Railway $39S,792, making a total net loss for the past six years in the operation of these roads of no less than $886,763. Notwithstanding this period of prosperity, notwithstanding the enormous increase in the traffic during the past six years, these two roads did not earn enough by $886,763 to meet the operating expenses. Is that a condition of things that the government can felicitate itself upon or compliment the country upon ? I repeat that it is a most disgraceful condition of things, and one that ought to he put an end to as soon as possible. Compare the figures of the previous six years with those which I have just presented. From 1891 to 1896, the capital expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway was $2,827,391, and on the Prince Edward Island Railway $8,300, making a total expenditure on capital account for that period of $2,835,691. The operating results were a net loss 70*
on the Intercolonial Railway of $519,287, and on the Prince Edward Island Railway of $430,497, or, for the two roads, a net loss of $949,784. The country was burdened by an additional debt through the operation of these roads and through the expenditures made on capital account during the period from 1891 to 1896 of $3,785,475. What is the net result to the people of Canada from the operation of these two roads for the past twelve years ? We have an indebtedness placed upon our shoulders of no less a sum than $18,562,780, and four-fifths of that burden has been laid on the shoulders of the taxpayers of this country by the hon. gentlemen opposite. Is that a satisfactory condition of affairs ? I say it is not and that it is one which the hon. Minister of Finance cannot derive any pleasure from or compliment the country upon. That is one phase of the transportation problem which these hon. gentlemen have not attempted to solve. That question appears to have dropped out of sight notwithstanding the fact that it is one of the most important problems awaiting solution at the hands of the people of this country. Since the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) abandoned his colleagues, practically they have given up the idea of making an attempt to solve that problem, and some statements have recently been made that they propose to refer the matter to a commission. They have not attempted to solve it, or they are not capable of solving it, or they would try to solve it; but they are appointing a commission to try and solve it for them. The suggestion was made two or three years ago from this side of the House, and made in all humbleness and respect, that there should be a commission appointed at that time to make a thorough examination as to the best means of perfecting the transportation facilities of the country and report to the government upon it. Nothing has been done up to the present time, except to make the announcement that the government propose to appoint a commission, which means practically that they cannot solve this problem, that they have not the ability to deal with it. and so they have asked a commission of gentlemen to take the matter out of their hands, to relieve them of the responsibility of dealing with the transportation problem and of making a report to them as to what is best to be done in the interests of the country. That is the way this question is being solved by these hon. gentlemen. They had a solution of the fast Atlantic project in their hands when they assumed office in 1896. They abandoned the contract which was then awaiting their signature. They refused to sign it. They refused to call the fast Atlantic line into existence. They told the people that they were going to give them a new type of ,vessels, bottle-nosed or bottle-necked vessels which would be much steadier boats and by which they were going to save to the people $250,000 per

annum in the subsidy to this line. But what have they done towards giving the people the benefit of this fast line across the Atlantic ? Nothing. I believe there was an announcement made two or three months ago that the government proposed to call for tenders for this fast Atlantic line; but, I presume, a commission will need to be appointed to tell these hon. gentlemen how they should establish the line.
But, they have some desire to pose as a naval administration. They propose to do something to establish their record as men of light and leading respecting naval affairs ; for the announcement has been made that, instead of giving a reasonable and moderate contribution towards the maintenance of the imperial navy whose ships are on every sea to protect our commerce, they propose to establish the nucleus of a navy on their own account. They propose to place cruisers on the lakes and on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. If they do not succeed better in the administration of this naval force than they have done in carrying on the business of the country it will be a very serious matter ; and the taxpayers will look with alarm if the affairs of the proposed naval department are placed under the control of my Lord High Admiral Prfifontaine. who occupies the position of hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
The hon. Minister of Finance took credit to himself for the enormous surplus which he hopes to have ou the credit side of the ledger at the end of the present fiscal year. The hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) very naively and very suggestively asked if it is a revenue tariff that is in force in this country, why it is that no suggestion is made, nothwithstanding this enormous surplus which the government will have at its credit at the end of the fiscal year, for reducing the burdens of the people ? Surely, when this business administration have a surplus of $13,000,000 at their credit the taxpayers of this country have a right to expect some reduction in the burden of taxation which has weighed so heavily upon them during the past .twelve months and as a result of which this enormous surplus has been raised. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce nad *something to say in days gone by regarding surpluses. The hon. gentleman is quoted in 1900, as follows :
I ask how it (the surplus) was got ? $1,000,000 was derived from two of the most odious and oppressive taxes which were ever imposed in any civilized country before, under similar circumstances at least-the taxes on breadstuffs and fuel. If he really wants to relieve the people let him remove the taxes on breadstuffs and coal.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce and his colleagues have an opportunity of proving that they meant what they said when they declared that the tax on breadstuffs and fuel was the most oppressive and the most odious tax that coulld be imposed on Mr. CLARKE.
a civilized community. From the report of the Trade and Commerce Department of last year, we find that no less than $437,496 was raised by a tax on breadstuffs, and that $1,652,993 was raised by a tax on coal. Of this $13,000,000 of surplus, not less than $2,090,490 was raised as a result of the tax on breadstuffs and coal, and yet not a suggestion has been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) or by any of the ministers that this odious and barbarous tax should be removed and that the consumers of this country should get the benefit of its remission.
This afternoon the hon. member for Hal-ton (Mr. Henderson) was told by one of the ministers that by reason of the increased duty put upon tobacco in 1897 by this Liberal government, no less than $1,335,753 additional taxes were collected from those who use the weed during the past twelve months than would have been collected had the Conservative tariff remained in force and the same quantity of tobacco been consumed. Tobacco is solace and comfort and consolation of the working classes after their hard day's work, and would it be an unreasonable thing for them to expect that a portion of this extra tax which this government (whose pledge it was on coming into office to make Canada a cheap country to live in) placed upon tobacco, should be remitted to them.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The Minister of Customs made reference to the enormous expansion that is taking place in the trade of this country. I do not admit for one moment that the fact that the imports and exports have increased, is of itself an infallible test as to the prosperity of a country. It seems to me that if we manufactured some of the goods which we import and thereby reduced the volume of our imports ; and if we exported less than we did, because of a market for our produce, the prosperity of the country would be greater although the volume of its trade might not be so large.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And if the trade of this country has increased, we may also remember that the trade of the United States has increased, that the trade of the other colonies has increased, that the trade of other nations has increased, and that the trade of the motherland has substantially increased during the past six years. Again I ask the gentlemen on the treasury benches ; What changes have they made in the fiscal system which they found in operation in 1896, which have caused this large development in our export and import trade ? Sir, the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) in his eloquent advocacy of the policy of protection to our legitimate industries, made a statement on the floor of this House that has not been answered ;

ti statement that the Minister of Customs has not attempted to answer ; a statement that no minister who was a colleague of the Hon. Mr. Tarte has attempted to answer ; a statement that no member supporting the government has attempted to answer ; a statement that they cannot answer, and will not answer, because it is known far and wide to be a fact. This is the statement of the Hon. Mr. Tarte to which I refer :
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 draw the attention of the Minister of Customs to this language of the ex-minister :
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 what 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. Ther" 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.
Has any hon. gentleman wbo bas been a colleague of the ex-Minister of Public Works during the past six years anything to say about that statement ? Is any one of them prepared to contradict it ? Are they all dumb ? Is that statement a fact, or is it not ? I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a fact.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I say that the same tactics which the ex-minister tells us were adopted in Montreal, were pursued in the manufacturing centres of the province of Ontario. Were these the tactics of honourable public men ; were they the tactics we would expect to see adopted by gentlemen who made the professions which these Liberal ministers made ? What has the Minister of Customs to say to the allegations of liis late colleague ? Are they correct ? Is it a fact that the men now on the treasury benches who rung the changes from end to end of this Dominion, denouncing the national policy, declaring that the people of this country were being bled white as a result of this policy-is it a fact that these men went into the centres of industry throughout the Dominion and taking the manufacturers to one side, gave them assurances, that should they come to power no changes would be made in this much maligned national policy ; but that instead, in the course of time, additional protection would be given them if they only voted for and supported the Liberal party ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They appealed to the people as the great tax reducers, and they pledged themselves to the people that if they came into power they would wipe the last vestige of protection out of the tariff that was placed on the statute-book in 1879. Has the Prime Minister or his colleagues anything to say regarding this allegation which has been made in parliament by an ex-minister, respecting their laches, respecting-shall I use the word- their perfidious conduct towards the great body of the taxpayers of Canada ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was it not a perfidious course to pursue, to tell the horny-handed sons of toil from one end of Canada to the other, that the national policy was inimical to their best interests ; that they were groaning under the burden of taxation which that policy imposed upon them ; and, at the same time, that these Liberal statesmen should go from factory to factory and pledge themselves to the captains of those great industries, that if they got on the treasury benches no change would be made in that abominable tariff which would in any way hurt the manufacturing industries of this country ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And, Sir, if this government can take credit to-day because our industries are prosperous, is not the secret of this prosperity found in the statement made by the member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) ? And if our industries are prosperous, it is because the government forgot or ignored the pledges they made to the people of Canada. They declared in favour of free trade ; they declared in favour of the abolition of protection, while in the same breath they gave assurances and pledges to the manufacturers, pledges that they have since fulfilled to the letter, namely : that the manufacturing industries would have their first consideration. If our industries are prosperous, Mr. Speaker, surely then it is because these hon. gentlemen, if they had any convictions, had not the courage of their convictions, and were afraid to destroy that principle of protection which they found in the tariff and which they denounced as the national policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But the hon. member (Hon. Mr. Tarte) went further. He said :
_ The revision of the tariff in 1897 has placed it about 2 per cent less than it was before.
That tariff averaged about 30 per cent in 1896 and these gentlemen who were to cut out every vestige of protection, had the temerity to reduce it to 28 per cent:
The revision of the tariff of 1897 has placed it about 2 per cent less high than it was be-

fore. We did not do more than that ; and when my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce was this afternoon denouncing the former tariff, the tariff that I supported myself, 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.
And the hon. member for St. Mary's is right, because the duty collected on dutiable goods In 1896 was 30 per cent, while the duty collected last year was 27 33 per cent; and this reduction of 2-67 per cent includes the goods brought in under the so-called British preference. Imitation is the sincer-est form of flattery ; and these hon. gentlemen, while professing to be revenue-tariff men and free traders, paid the greatest possible compliment to their predecessors by adopting their tariff as soon as they had the opportunity of doing so.
If I may trespass on the indugence of the House a litte further, I would like to say a few words on the operation of the British preference and as to its effect on our imports. At the opening of the Colonial Conference in London last summer, the Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain made the following statement in reference to the British preference given by Canada :
So long as a preferential tariff, even a munificent preference, is still sufficiently protective to exclude us altogether, or nearly so, from your markets, it Is no satisfaction to as that you have imposed even greater disability upon the same goods if they came from foreign markets, especially if the articles in which the foreigners are interested oome in under more favourable conditions.
Was Mr. Chamberlain justified in making that statement, or was he not ? What are the facts ? In 1902 all imports from Great Britain entered for consumption in Canada had a duty of 17-12 per cent levied on them. In the same year all the imports from the United States entered for consumption had a duty of 12-54 levied on them. In other words, the duty levied on all goods imported from England was nearly half as much more as the duty levied on all the goods imported from 'th/e. United Statesi. The duty levied on dutiable goods imported last year from Great Britan was 24-02 per cent, while on dutiable goods imported from the United States it was 25-18 per cent. That is all the advantage the British manufacturer got In the markets of Canada, while he had the disadvantages of distance, insurance and time. That is the extent of the preference which these hon. gentlemen have made so much ado about during the past five years ; and I have shown the appreciation in which the preference is held by the gentleman best qualified to speak on it. The officials of the British Board of Trade also made a statement respecting the operation of the pre-


Edward Frederick Clarke: ference in which they endorsed the position taken by the Colonial Secretary. This is what they said :
The period which has elapsed since the first application of the preferential tariff has not been long enough to enable any certain inferences to be drawn as to its effect in encouraging or diverting trade, especially as the period has been an abnormal one, marked by great general revival of trade throughout the world, accompanied by large oscillations of prices of some of the principal articles which figure in the Canadian import and export tables-notably coal, iron and steel, and corn. There has also been a rapid growth of gold production in the north-west of Canada, practically the whole of which, so far as it is exported, goes to the United States.
The hon. Minister of Customs, in the course of his speech to-night, flippantly referred to the statements that had been made about the general revival of trade throughout the world ; yet here is a high authority on that matter, which I think he will hardly dare to call in question. Further, Sir, this remarkable statement is made by these same officials :
We may look at the figures in another way, i.e., by comparing the percentages of the total import trade of Canada which came from the United Kingdom before and after the introduction of the preferential tariff, respectively. The result is to show that the continuous decrease which has been taking place in recent years in the proportion of imports from the United Kingdom into Canada has not been arrested by the operation of the tariff. The percentage proportion in the year 1900-01 (during which the preference of one-third was in force) was 23J. In the three preceding years 1897-8 to 1899-1900 (during which there was a preference of one-eighth, to 30th June, 1898, then one-fourth), the percentage was 241.
These are statements which have not been, and I think, cannot be gainsaid by hon. gentlemen opposite.
Now, Sir, let me go back into what my hon. friend the Minister of Customs would call ancient history. I do so merely to show that history is repeating itself. In the first years of confederation, during the period from 1868 to 1874, inclusive, our average imports for consumption from Great Britain amounted to $50,709,791, and from the United States they averaged $34,759,154. During the five years that the Liberal party were in office, from 1874 until the introduction of the national policy in 1879, what was the trend of our trade as between Great Britain and the United States ? The imports from the United Kingdom decreased during their period of oflice by no less than 17i per cent per annum, while the imports from the United States increased 38 per cent per annum, as compared with the imports from those countries during the period from 1868 to 1874, prior to their coming into office. Now, take the whole national policy period, the period about which so much has been said in the course of this debate, and what is the fact ? Taking that whole period of seventeen years, from 1880, when the

national policy came into force, until 1897, when it was abrogated by bon. gentlemen opposite and replaced by their tariff, the average annual imports from the United Kingdom were $40,826,435, as compared with $41,805,689 for the period when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office, and the imports from the United States had increased from $48,089,257 to $50,123,811.' Taking the entire national policy period, from 1880 to 1897, inclusive, the imports from the United Kingdom declined 2J per cent, while the imports from the United States increased 41 per cent, as compared with the imports from those countries during the period from 1875 to 1879, when the Liberal party were in power. In this connection it may be pointed out that the average decline in imports from the United Kingdom and the average Increase in imports from the United States, both occurred during the years from 1894 to 1897, inclusive, a period of unusual depression in Canada and the United States ; for from 1880 to 1894 the average annual increase in imports from the United Kingdom was almost 3 per cent, while the average annual increase in the imports from the United States was less than one-sixth of one per cent, as compared with the imports for the years from 1875 to 1879.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it may be said that Canada was not making any very great progress, if its progress was to be measured by its imports from the United States and from the United Kingdom respectively. But, Sir, Canada was in a formative period at the time. The national policy had been pronounced the policy of the Conservative party and placed on the statutes ; and if our imports from the United States and England were practically stationary during that period of seventeen or eighteen years, we were consoled by the fact that we were laying the foundation of great industrial institutions, and that during that period the yearly output of those industries had increased some $200,000,000 or $300,000,000. If our imports from the United Kingdom and the United States were stationary, I repeat we had the consolation that we were establishing permanently our industries in Canada, that we were developing our own resources, and providing,' to a certain extent at least, a home market for our agriculturists, and giving steady employment at good wages to an ever-increasing body of artisans from one end of Canada to the other.
Now, look at the record of the last five years since this so-called British preference has been on our statutes. From 1898 to 1902, the average of our imports from the United Kingdom was $41,314,999, and from the United States, $102,571,37S. From 1898 to 1902, the period during which the so-called British preference has been in force, our imports from the United Kingdom have increased 1-18 per cent while those from the United States have increased 105 per cent
as compared with the period 1880 to 1897. That is the record which the tabulated statements of the Trade and Navigation reports present. Is there anything in that picture which the hon. gentleman has any reason to proud of ? Does the increase of 1T8 per cent in the imports from the United Kingdom justify the statements made from year to year on behalf of the government, as to what they have accomplished in arresting the decline in our importations from the United Kingdom, especially when we consider that in the same period our imports from the United States increased by more than 100 per cent ? Whatever consolations hon. gentlemen can take from the figures I have quoted from the public documents, prepared by the officers of the government, they are certainly welcome to them. If time permitted, I could make statements respecting the exports of British and Irish produce during the last fifteen years, which would show conclusively how misleading it is for hon. gentlemen opposite to make comparison between the trade of Canada in the period from 1896 to 1902 and the preceding period from 1891 to 1896. The condition of things which existed in the Dominion and throughout the world from 1S91 to 1896 was an abnormal one. It was a period of general depression practically world wide. In 1894, the magnificent country to the south of us, the United States, was in the midst of a commercial upheaval-a commercial revolution and depression-and we had the spectacle of an army of unemployed men marching on the capital to endeavour to get some relief by legislation. Is it fair to take the trade of the country during such a period of depression and compare it with its trade during the period of buoyancy, expansion and prosperity now existing, not only in Canada, but throughout the civilized world ? I am sorry that time will not permit me to refer to the statement of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) regarding the necessity of our seeking privileges in the American market by a renewal of reciprocity negotiations with our neighbours to the south ; but I wish to refer for a moment to the question of preferential trade. Let me remind the House that those who are competent to speak on the subject- the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tairte) who has been a consistent protectionist all his life-have both declared that the only change made in the old tariff by the present government amounted to not more than 2 per cent, and that was accomplished by the granting of the so-called British preference. The hon. Minister of Finance said in the course of his budget speech :
Hon. gentlemen opposite have frequently endeavoured to assure themselves and others that the imperial authorities were ready and willing to give us a preference.
That is what the hon. Minister of Fin-

a nee said in his budget speech, and he went on to say :
We remember how it was stated that Mr. Chamberlain practically offered us a preference and that we had declined to have it.
If that view was entertained by the people of Canada, who was responsible for it ? If that was a misconception, upon whose shoulders are we to lay the blame ?
Let me quote three or four sentences from what was said by the right lion, the First Minister, at London, Ontario, in June, 1890. which will explain, better than I can do it myself, how this misconception arose :
Now, the statesmen of Great Britain have thought that the governments of the colonies have come to a time when a new step can be taken in their development. What is that ? That there shall be a commercial agreement between England and the colonies. That practical statesman, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain has come to the conclusion that the time has come when it is possible to have within the bounds of the empire a new step taken, which will give to the colonies in England.a preference for their products over the products of other nations. What would be the possibilities of such a step if it was taken ? We sell our goods in England. We send our wheat., our butter, our cheese, all our natural products, but there we have to compete with similar products from the United States, from Russia, and from other nations. Just see what a great advantage it would be to Canada, if the wheat, cheese and butter, which we would send to England, should be met in England with a preference over similar products of other nations. The possibilities are immense.
In the paragraph just read Mr. Cham-lain is called a practical statesman. In this one he is called the new and progressive secretary of the colonies :
Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, the new and progressive Secretary of the Colonies, has declared that the time has come when it is possible to discuss that question. But, Sir, if England is going to give us that preference, England would expect something from us in return. What is it she would expect ? England would expect that we would come as closely to her own- system of free trade as it Is possible for us to come. England does not expect that we should take her own system of free trade, such as she has It ; but I lay it before you, that the thing the English people would expect in return is that, instead of a principle of protection, we should adopt the revenue form of tariff, pure and simple. These are the conditions on which we can have that boon.
_ I repeat that if there is any misconception in the public mind as to what the situation was with respect to the mutual preference between tlie colonies and the empire, the responsibility rests entirely on tlie right bon. gentleman, wlio made statements such as I have quoted when campaigning throughout the country in 1896. He went to England, but unfortunately got no preference. We gave a preference to England in our market but got no preference in the English market in return. This is his explanation. He said:
There is a class of our fellow citizens who ask that all such concessions should he made for Mr. CLARKE.
quid pro quo. The Canadian government has ignored all such sentiments. We have done it because we owe a debt of gratitude to Great Britain. We have done It because It is no intention of ours to disturb in any way the system of free trade which has done so much for England. The colonies had already granted certain concessions to the mother country, but they asked for no quid pro quo, no pound of flesh. What we give you by our tariff we give in gratitude for the splendid freedom under which we have prospered. It is a free gift. We ask no compensation. Protection has been the curse of Ca.nada ; we would not see you come under its baneful Influence-for what weakens you must weaken us.	[DOT]
Again the right hon. gentleman said :
It would be a boon for a time, hut how long ?
He was referring to a mutual preference.
But how long will it last? Would it be an advantage in the long run ? That is what men who think beyond the .passing moment have to ask themselves. Suppose England did such a thing and abandoned her free trade record. She would inevitably curtail the purchasing power of her people and do you not think we should suffer from that, we who alone have natural resources enough to feed your millions from our fertile lands.
I have too great a belief in English common sense to think they will do any such thing. What we have done in the way of tariff preference to England we have, as I said, done out of gratitude to England, and not because we want her to enter upon the path of protection. We know that the English people will not interfere with the policy of free trade, and we do not desire them to do so. We know that buying more goods from England she will buy more from us and so develop trade, and the moment the trade is developed Canada is benefited.
So. after all, the First Minister believed- for be would not make a statement he did not believe to be true-that notwithstanding tlie fact that we got no direct benefit as a result of this preference, we got a substantial indirect benefit and Canada, after all, would be the gainer by giving the preference. I am trying to interpret accurately the statement the right bon. gentleman made. He emphasized that statement in Bowmanville in 1899, after the preference had been two years in operation. This is wliat he said :
The merchants of England, the men who have to buy articles in the markets of the world, no longer go to the United States to make their purchases. They come to Canada, and this is the direct result of our preferential tariff.
Now, we have good reason to compliment hon. gentlemen opposite if this statement can be borne out, if our trade has enormously increased and Canada has been benefited. But we have the right to bold them to account, if that preference has brought us great benefit, if, for no good reason, they have abrogated it. The government claim to have shown that this preference was beneficial to Canada, and, that being so, they must give good reason why they have decided, as shown by the statement of the Minister of Finance, to absolutely abandon

that policy-for that Is what the resolution of the Minister of Finance means, if it means anything. Having quoted the First Minister, I am going to take the liberty of quoting somewhat extensively from a speech delivered by the Minister of Labour, the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock). This speech has been very nicely printed, and I believe it was sent by thousands through the mail under frank during the by-elections in the different constituencies.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: That speech was never franked through the mails except during the session of parliament.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. minister say that the speech to which I have referred had not been sent through the mails under frank before this session of parliament ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I quite deny it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I accept the statement. I am bound to do so, and I do it unreservedly. But I have had information that it was.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is absolutely wrong.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Let me draw the attention of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir William Mulock)-who plumes himself upon doing so much for the working classes and who is now passing through this parliament a Bill to give recognition to the union label- to the fact that I have examined this pamphlet containing his speech delivered on the 4th November last in the city of Toronto, and, from cover to cover, I cannot find any trace of the so-called union label. I shall have to call the attention of the fair-wage officer to this omission, for it would be unreasonable to suppose that such an omission would be made by the Postmaster General intentionally. Let me give some extracts from the speech the hon. gentleman made referring to the British preference:
In framing that tariff it appeared to the government that a preference to Great Britain would not only lead to the advantage of Canada but of the mother country as well. (Hear, hear.) Here was our country, of vast, illimitable yet undeveloped resources practically without a neighbour in America willing to trade with her on fair terms, whilst across the ocean was our mother country that has ever been Canada's true friend and whose market was open to us. True, we were selling to her, comparatively little for Canada's resources were little known in the old land. Still, it appeared to us that our trade with her was capable of great development if we proceed the right way about it. (Hear, hear.) Aye, more, there was the opportunity of setting an example which, if followed, might yet secure to us on preferential terms the markets not only of Great Britain herself, but also of her world-wide possessions. (Applause.) Surely, Sir, when every foreign nation was and is hedging itself round with a tariff wall in order to shut out the produce of all other countries, our manifest duty
was and is to lay foundations for devoloping our trade in the only profitable market likely to be accessible to us-the great British world-empire of four hundred millions to which we are so proud to belong. (Cheers.)
I wish the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who made such an elaborate argument for renewing negotiations for reciprocity with the United States, had listened to the statement made by the Postmaster General that the British market was the only profitable market likely to be accessible to us. I quote further :
In this spirit, Mr. Chairman, we inaugurated a policy of that nature in 1897, when we placed our British preference on the statute-book of Canada. (Hear, hear.) Our opponents say we should have dickered for value in return. (Oh ! oh ') It is true we did not dicker for value in return. When did Great Britain ever dicker with us about getting value in return, when on many occasions she was prepared to pour out her money and her men in defence of the sacred soil of Canada ? (Hear, hear.) No, Mr. Chairman, we adopted another and higher course, treating Great Britain not as an alien country, but as our mother country-(cheers)-and with that liberality which she has ever shown us, conscious that ingratitude is not one of her faults and with some hope that as changing conditions admitted of it, our example might by degrees be followed by Great Britain herself, and by other portions of the empire, until at last each portion might enjoy throughout the whole empire trade advantages not shared in by foreign nations. (Loud cheers.)
How has Great Britain treated us since we granted her this preference ? Till then our produce was little known or appreciated in her markets and much was sold under the name ' America.' Now it no longer enters that market under an alias, but under its true name ' Canada.' (Hear, hear.) That name is now popular, respected and beloved in England, and sells our produce and wins for it a preference, thus increasing the demand for Canadian products. (Cheers.) In consequence, since the establishment of the preference live years ago our farmers have sold more and more of their products in the British market, the total value having increased from about $47,000,000 in 189S-7 to over $80,000,000 in 1902. Nor have our manufacturers been less favoured, for in the same period their sales to Great Britain have increased over 100 per cent. (Applause.)
This was a doubled-barrelled advantage we were getting. We were vastly increasing our sales of agricultural products and also increasing our sales of manufactures by 100 per cent under the preference.
Sir, these results are not accidents, but the direct result of our British preference, which our opponents wish to repeal. With such magnificent results as these within the short space of five years, what may we not reasonably expect as the years roll by ? Nor does it seem an idle dream to hope that our example may be followed by the rest of the empire. Already the leaven appears to be working, for, as you are aware, a resolution was unanimously adopted by Australia, New Zealand, Cape Colony and Natal, at the imperial conference held in London three months ago, favouring an interimperial tariff prefernce and suggesting action in that direction by the mother country.

222S


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Take it as read.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Let me read it for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell), and I hope it will do him some good :
The Liberal party is seeking to build up Canada in political as well as commercial alliance with the rest of the empire, to that end establishing, as fast as circumstances permit, steamship lines with South Africa, Australia and the mother country, promoting with them trade and interchange of sentiment by improved mail and cable services, rejoicing at the completion of the Pacific cable, the thin, all-red line now connecting together the great self-governing colonies.
I have taken the liberty of reading tbat, because I thought hon. gentlemen opposite would like to hear it. Now, Mr. Speaker, that statement was made on the fourth of November, 1902, the other statements which I read were made by the Prime Minister in 1897 and 1898. The Colonial Conference was held in London from June to August last, four months before the Postmaster General made the statements in the city of Toronto which I have read. Let me draw the attention of this House to the fact that on page one of the official report of the conference proceedings it is pointed out that these gentlemen absolutely declined to have the statements they made at that conference published ; they declined to allow their constituents, the people of Canada, to know what statements they made in discussing these matters of prime importance to Canada, with the Colonial Secretary and those associated with him. They absolutely refused to allow their utterances to be published in this blue-book, and we have only the utterances of the imperial ministers and those associated with them, and the tabulated statements which appear at the end of the book, to guide us as to what took place at that conference. I turn to page thirty-seven of the report of this conference, and I find the following significant statement
Prom the beginning of the proceedings the Canadian ministers have claimed that in consideration of the substantial preference given by Canada for some years to the products of the mother country, Canadian food products should be exempted in the United Kingdom from the duties recently imposed. Representations to this effect previously made through the High Commissioner for Canada were supplemented by the ministers, both in writing and in the personal interviews with the imperial ministers	The Canadian ministers desired to have it understood that they took this course with the strong hope and expectation that the principle of preferential trade would be more widely acepted by the colonies, and that the mother country would at an early day apply the same principle by exempting the products of the colonies from customs duties. If, after using every effort to bring about such a readjustment of the fiscal policy of the empire, the Canadian government should find that the principle of preferential trade is not acceptable to the colonies generally or the mother country, then Canada should be free to take such action as might be deemed necessary in the presence of such conditions.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Sir, the bon. gentleman who made the speech from which I quoted was present when this conference was being held, he was present when these memoranda were being prepared and presented to the imperial authorities by himself and his associates; yet three or four months afterwards in the city of Toronto he says :-
In this spirit, Mr. Chairman, we inaugurated a policy of that nature. Our opponents say we should have dickered for value in return. It is true we did not dicker for value in return.
Yet he makes it a sine qua non that unless the British government give them something in return for the preference, notwithstanding the statements which the hon. gentleman made of the advantage this country was deriving, the Canadian government felt itself free to withdraw the preference and to deprive Canada of the advantages which it was obtaining. Was that statesmanship gone mad, or what would you call it, Mr. Speaker ? This preference that was rapidly increasing the volume of our sales, this preference out of which the Dominion was reaping such substantial advantage, which was developing the imperial spirit which the hon. gentleman so much commends when he is addressing audiences in the province of Ontario, this preference is now being wiped out by the hon. gentlemen because of the action of Germany respecting the admission of Canadian products. Sir, it was unworthy of the Postmaster General, when he was addressing an audience in Toronto, not to have told that audience that three months before the Canadian government had given notice to the imperial authorities that they held themselves absolved from continuing that preference any longer, and they were prepared to break it unless they gave Canada a quid pro quo.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Nothing of the kind.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Unless Great Britain would make a dicker with them and give them something in return for the preference we were giving, they held themselves absolved from continuing that preference to Great Britain, thereby destroying the reputation which some person had given them of being empire builders. Sir, I leave it with the hon. gentleman and his friends to explain why he declined to take the people of Toronto, in November, 1902, into his confidence, and tell them that this government had given notice to the imperial authorities that unless the imperial authorities made a dicker with them the preference would have to go by the board.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Never gave any such notice. Don't state what is not the fact.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Let me read it again, lest I should have made a mistake, as my eyesight is not as good as it used to be

The Canadians ministers desired to have it understood that they took this course with the strong hope and expectation that the principle of preferential trade would be more widely accepted by the colonies, and that the mother country would at an early day apply the same principle by exempting the products of the colonies from customs duties. If, after using every effort to bring about such a readjustment of the fiscal policy of the empire, the Canadian government should find that the principle of preferential trade is not acceptable to the colonies generally, or the mother country, then Canada should be free to take such action as might be deemed necessary in the presence of such conditions.
Yet it is asserted that there is no dickering there, no attempt to get something in return for the preference which we had given, because of our appreciation of that splendid liberty which Britain had given to us. We had our compensation, yet we had our eye on the main chance; and in addition to recognizing the advantages which we enjoyed from that liberty which Britain had secured for us, we were reaping a substantial benefit from the preference by an enormous increase in the sales of our products in the markets of the United Kingdom. Sir, the hou. gentleman took great credit to himself and his friends for that matter. Let me draw attention to the fact that not many years ago when he and his political associates were fighting for unrestricted reciprocity, were fighting for continental free trade, those who then were charged with the administration of public affairs pointed to the	market	of the	old land as
the best, the safest and the most permanent market for the surplus products of this country. Did they -receive any encouragement, any support, apy countenance from the Postmaster General when they were trying to impress upon himself and his colleagues of the Liberal party that they should abandon the attempt to give_ the United States a preference in the market of Canada, and that they should endeavour to develop a trade with the mother country that would make Canada independent of the United States, and not the vassal she would have been if she had adopted the policy of commercial union ? When his attention was drawn to the fact that this policy of commercial union meant giving an advantage in the markets of Canada to the products of the workshops of the United States over the products of the workshops of the United Kingdom, did he ever raise his voice against that policy ? No, Sir, but he now asks the people of Toronto and the people of Canada to give him credit because the government are now assuming the role of empire builders, and are giving Britain an advantage of 33J per cent on her products in the markets of Canada. Let me read what the late Sir John Thompson said with regard to the policy which should prevail in Canada :
We believe that the markets of Great Britain are the greatest markets for the products of this country, and whether or not a preference
is given to our products in the British markets, we will not not submit to a policy by which our people shall jeopardize that market, and which shall exclude the products of that country from ours.
Sir, that was not, the policy which the Postmaster General was supporting then ; that was not the policy which those who are now associated with him in the administration of the affairs of this country were promulgating and supporting. The hon. gentleman is not frank enough to give credit for the splendid increase of our exports to the mother country, to those who established that policy, and who propounded it and worked for its accomplishment. But if the hon. gentleman and those associated with him had been sincere, if they had pursued a straightforward course when they came into office, they would have gone manfully to the United States and asked for unrestricted reciprocity, because they said we could never become prosperous unless our farmers had access to the markets of the United States. They had not the courage of their convictions, and it is a good thing for Canada that they had not. Our farmers were forced to send their surplus products to the markets of the old land and compete there on equal terms with the products of other countries. The expansion of our export trade to Britain has gone on steadily. The hon. gentleman has done nothing to promote it except to give that sentimental advantage of the British preference, and yet he asks the electors of Toronto and the electors of Ontario to give himself and his colleagues all the credit for the wonderful development in British trade that has taken place. What did his colleague, the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, say when the statement of Sir John Thompson, which I have just quoted, was made in his presence ? He said :
The hon. gentleman has indulged in a very absurd misrepresentation of the real value and importance of the English market to Canada. He makes a tremendous mistake if he believes that the English market is likely to be available to us for all or more than a portion or our products. There cannot be found any market in the world to compare for one moment with the market offered by the United States.
His colleague was a false prophet, was he not, according to the speech of the hon. gentleman himself, because the sales of our products in the markets of Great Britain are increasing enormously ? The right hon. gentleman was a false prophet six or seven years ago. He added :
They alleged to us the superior value of the British market. That market, at the best, is a second rate and second best market and the-only true and really valuable market is that along our southern border.
The hon. Minister of Customs, whose speech we listened to so patiently to-night, said :
We heard the Minister of Finance boasting because our trade with Great Britain Increased.

He added :
I feel that there Is a little drawback to the joy which we experience in the expansion of our trade with Great Britain, because it has resulted from the fact that another and a better market nearer by has been closed to us for much we have to sell ; and our products, being shut out from the United States, had to find the market that is open to all the world in England.
The lion. Minister of Customs could take no consolation in years gone by out of the increase in the sales of our products in the markets of England because he said they were barred out of a better market and that they found the market in England in competition with the products of the world. Is that not the condition to-day in England ?
One word more in regard to the surtax and then I shall apologize and take my seat.
I must apologize again for having taken up so much of the time of the House when lion, gentlemen are anxious to get away. The relations of England with the German fatherland are being imperilled as the result of this curious piece of statecraft on the part of lion, gentlemen opposite. We cannot forget that these imperial Houses are closely identified, we cannot forget that the august sovereign of the German Empire is a grandson of our late beloved Queen Victoria and that he is the nephew of our most gracious Sovereign King Edward VII. We all recognize the power, the influence and the virility of the German people. I wish we had more of these people settling in the Domin-Canada. They have been among our best settlers ever since settlers sought the snores of Canada. There are two counties in the province of Ontario to which we can point with pride which are settled by Germans, and which, as a result of their indus-tiy, integrity and self-denial, have bloomed and blossomed as the rose. These people are endowed with qualities that go to make the very best citizens, but the result of the action of hon. gentlemen opposite may be to divert the stream of German emigration from Canada towards some other country. When we look back to the heroic struggle of the German people to obtain that precious liberty which they now enjoy, we cannot but admire them. We recognize the proud position that the German empire occupies to-day among the great powers of the world and we must attribute to the vital energy of her people the wonderful strides and the grand position which she occupies to-day. If hon. gentlemen opposite had made friendly representations and explanations to the German authorities there would have been no occasion to adopt such a drastic measure as they have proposed. The German emperor apparently was not aware that he was dealing with resourceful politicians. If an increase has taken place in the export of goods from England to Canada during the last five years, that increase is due almost entirely to the importation of German goods and goods made on the continent


Edward Frederick Clarke: coming by way of England under the British preference. Two years ago I took the liberty of asking the hon. Minister of Finance a question about the imposition of taxation on goods made partially in Germany or made from German raw material. I' asked this question :
Is it the intention of the government to 30 amend the tariff Act as to debar from the advantage of the British preferential clause articles partly manufactured in Germany, or manufactured from raw material grown or produced in Germany ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: 
Georges Ball: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I would be failing in my duty, as a representative in this House of the French minority, were I not to say a few words before the question is put. For the last fortnight I have followed with much interest the discussion which has taken place in connection with the budget. Barring the speech, or financial statement, made by the hon. the Minister of Finance, barring also the able criticism of that statement offered by the leader of the opposition and two or three other addresses on either side of the House, very little remains of the debate which has been going on. It is not, therefore, my intention to take up the time of the House for any length of time.
We listened with interest this evening to the speech of the hon. the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson). He dealt for about an hour with tomatoes, onions and other truck. Truly, one would have been led to believe that the cabinet was made up of market gardeners.
The hon. member for Gasp6 (Mr. Le-mieux) also spoke briefly. He dwelt at some length on by-elections, giving, even, a full list of them. I shall not follow him on that ground, but shall refer only to the one which took place in Maskinongg. Previous to that election there was one man in this House with only one arm. Likely the government envied the opposition on that account, and they chose as their candidate a man in the same predicament. I was so pleased at this that I managed to have him elected by acclamation.
The hon. member for Gaspe referred also to Mr. Foster. He stated that the hon. gentleman had gone up for election, but had been defeated. The member for Gasp6 did not say what had brought about Mr. Foster's defeat. Well, I shall tell you. Mr. Foster was not returned because he had opposed the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company; and the same thing will happen to you should you obstruct the company's Bill. You will be defeated at the

next election. You may think I am joking, but I am in earnest.
I shall not deal with the tariff; enough has been said on that matter. At this late hour, I prefer cutting my speech short, and allowing the question to be put. No doubt, you will be pleased; on seeing me rise, you said to yourselves : Ball will take up our time for a whole hour. I am going to disappoint you.
House divided on amendment of Mr. Borden (Halifax).
YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn,	Ingram,
Avery,	Johnston (Cardwell),
Ball.	Kaulbach,
Barker,	Kemp,
Bell,	Kidd.
Bennett,	Lancaster
Birkett,	LaRividre,
Blain,	Lavell.
Borden (Halifax),	Leonard,
Boyd,	Maclaren (Perth),
Brock,	McIntosh,
Broder.	Monk,
Bruce,	Morin,
Cargill,	Pope,
Carscallen,	Reid (Grenville),
Casgrain,	Richardson,
Clancy,	Roche (Marquette),
Olare,	Rosamond,
Clarke,	Sherritt.
Cochrane,	Smith (Wentworth),
Culbert,	Sproule.
Earle.	Tarte,
Fowler,	Thomson (Grey),
Gilmour,	Tolton,
Hackett.	Vrooman.
Haggart,	Wilmot,
Halliday,	Wilson.-54.
 NAYS : Messieurs
Archambault,	Lewis.
Bazinet,	Lovell,
Beland,	Loy,
Belcourt,	Macdonald,
Bernier,	Mackle,
Blckerdike,	MacKinnon,
Borden (Sir Frederick), MacLaren (Huntingdon),	
Bourassa,	Macpherson,
Bourbonnals,	McCarthy,
Brown,	McCool.
Bruneau,	McCreary,
Bureau,	McEwen,
Campbell,	McGugan,
Carbonneau,	Mclsaac,
Carroll,	McLennan,
Champagne,	Madore,
Christie,	Malouin,
Costigan,	Marcil (Bagot),
Davis,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Delisle,	Martineau,
Demers (Ldvis),	Matheson,
Demers (St. John),	Mayrand,
Desjardins,	Meigs,
Douglas,	Mignault,
Dugas,	Mulock,
Emmerson,	(Sir William),
Erb,	Murray,
Ethier.	Oliver,
Fielding,	Parmelee,
Fitzpatrick,	Paterson,
Fortier, Mr. BALL.	Power,
Fraser,	Prefontaine,
Gallery,	Proulx,
Galliher,	Puttee.
Gauvreau,	Reid (Restigouche),
Geoffrion,	Riley,
Girard,	Robinson (Elgin),
Gould,	Roche (Halifax),
Grant,	Ross (Rimouski),
Harty,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Harwood,	Rousseau,
Heyd,	Russell,
Holmes,	Schell,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.),Scott,	
Hyman,	Smith (Vancouver),
Johnston (Cape Breton),Stephens,	
Kendall,	Stewart,
Lang,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Talbot,
Laurier (L'Assomption), Tobin.	
Lavergne,	Tolmie,
Law,	Tucker,
LeBlanc,	Turgeon,
Lemieux,	Wallace-107.
PAIRS:	
Opposition.	Ministerial.
Messieurs	
Calvert,	Taylor,
Logan,	Lefurgey,
Cartwright,	Tupper,
(Sir Richard),	(Sir Charles Hibbert)
Johnston (Lambton),	Simmons,
Charlton,	Tisdale,
Morrison,	Gourley,
Ross (Ontario),	Hughes (Victoria),
Thompson (Haldimand),Henderson.	
Guthrie,	Porter,
Gibson.	Kendry,
Cowan,	Pringle,
Blair,	Osier,
McColl,	Ward.
Sutherland (Essex),	Northrup,
Dyment,	McCormick,
Beith,	Maclean,
Fisher,	Calvin,
Copp,	Hale,
Ross (Yukon),	Roddick,
Farquharson,	Robinson
	(Northumberland),
Monet,	Ganong,
Turcot.	Seagram,
Angers,	McGowan,
German,	Lennox.
Amendment negatived, and House went into Committee of Ways and Means.
Committee rose and reported progress.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 2.40 a.m. Friday.

Friday, May 1, 1903.