1904-06-08

Mr. BENJAMIN RUSSELL moved :: That the petition of John P. Stairs and others, presented this day, praying to be permitted to lay before the House the petition of the provisional directors of the Alliance Bank of Canada for the passing of an Act to extend the time within which to obtain a certificate from the Treasury Board, as required by section 14 of the Bank Act, notwithstanding the expiration of the time for presenting petitions for Private Bills, be read and received, and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.
He said : I ask leave of the House to make this motion with reference to the petition which 1 presented a moment ago on behalf of the Alliance Bank for the extension of the time within which the company are required by their charter to obtain the cus ternary certificate from the Treasury Board. The reason the petition was not presented earlier and the legislation obtained is that the parties have been hoping from day to day that they would be able to get along without any extension of time.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: The hon. gentleman's remarks are quite inaudible here.
, Mr. RUSSELL. I know that my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has such confidence in me that he will know what 1 say is all right.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not even hear that brilliant sally.


Benjamin Russell: I am asking for leave to have a preliminary petition, which I presented a few moments ago, referred to the Standing Orders Committee for the purpose of determining whether the petitioners should have leave to have a Bill introduced here for the purpose of extending their time for getting their charter under the Banking Act. This is a banking company incorporated under the Act of last session. They anticipate that they will not toe able by the 4th October, the limit fixed by the law, to complete their organization and he In a position to obtain their certificate.


Mr. BELL.: 


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Russell) would be justified in his request, because much more serious action was taken by the government in the ease of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. Certainly there Should toe no objection from that side of the House.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: Notwithstanding that, I am going to raise a qualified objection, not to the immediate motion, but to the practice. It is not good practice to extend the time for the organization of banking companies. We have done it once or twice this session, and I suppose we will have to he reasonably consistent and permit the hon. gentleman to get his Bill as others have done. I think that the rule requiring a bank to toe organized within a year of the granting of its charter is a wise rule. I suppose that the practice is objectionable in the case of any company, but the principle of parties having banking charters and hawking them around is very unsound. I think that in view of the present banking conditions of the country, if any parties want to organize a hank they should have the men, the capital and the organization in sight before coming to parliament. If, after getting a charter, they are not able to organize within the time prescribed by the Banking Act they should have an exceptionally strong reason for asking an extension of time. We have granted the privilege in one or two instances, and to be reasonably consistent I suppose we will have to permit the hon. gentleman to have his Bill. I, however, would ask hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House to recognize the soundness of the principle, and not encourage these applications hereafter.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON.: I am glad to see that the hon. the Finance Minister takes a different view in regard to this from the view he took last year. It will be within the memory of the House that I moved an amendment to the charter when it came up last year, and protested against the numerous applications that were being made for new bank charters. I think that the statements that I then made are well borne out by results, because, so far as I am aware, only one of the nine charters granted last year has yet produced any result, and it appears that, as the Finance Minister has said, after hawking around these charters year toy year the promoters are unable to procure the funds requisite to establish these new banks. I am glad that the matter has come up again, because it will afford me another opportunity of perhaps pressing more effectually on the House the view which I expressed last year, and I would take this opportunity of intimating to the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) that possibly when the Bill reaches the proper stage I may again present my amendment and may ask him. under the new condition of things, if he will not accept it.


Mr.   R.@: L- BORDEN. I would like to say tkat as tar as the gentlemen interested in this Bill are concerned, I do not think they are deserving of the expression which has been used by the Minister of Finance and my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson), because, knowing them as I do, I can assure the House that they have not been hawking these charters around. So far as I am aware, they are not disposed to do that.
I was not aware that this matter was coming up to-day, my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Russell) did not notify me, and perhaps I am speaking without the book, but I believe that the conditions which have made it necessary to ask for the extension of this charter are conditions which not only afforded ground for an amendment to the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill, but they are conditions which have made it necessary for this country to effect a temporary arrangement for three years of loans on the public credit of this country. This bank received this charter last year, and every one knows that the condition of the money market since then has made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to float any enterprises. While I agree with the Finance Minister that, as a general rule, and in ordinary cases, extensions of this kind should not be granted ; and while I thoroughly agree that bank charters should not be hawked around the country, nevertheless I do not think the circumstances in this case call for any reproach of that kind, and the condition of the money market seems to me to make the case absolutely exceptional. I simply say this because I think I know the gentlemen who are connected with this company in Nova Scotia, and they really do not deserve any such reproach.


William Stevens Fielding: In the remarks which I made I had no reference to particular individuals. I did not even know who the gentlemen connected with the charter were, but now that I begin to think, I remember one of them, and certainly he would not be open to any such reproach. My remarks had no reference to the individuals connected with the charter, and certainly with regard to the only gentleman whose name I ever heard connected with it, I would not suggest the idea of his hawking a bank charter. I was speaking generally, because we have had a number of applications of this kind. Nothing was further from my thoughts than to refer to any individual. I was referring to the generai rule.
Motion (Mr. Russell) agreed to.



SUPREME AND EXCHEQUER COURTS ACT.

Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John's and Iberville).: (Translation.) Moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 133) an Act in amendment of the Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act.


Mr. T. C. CASGRAIN (Montmorency).: Will the hon. gentleman kindly explain ?


Louis Philippe Demers: (Translation.) The Bill is the same as the Bill I introduced last session and also the session previous. Its object is to lirpit the jurisdiction of the Supreme and Exchequer courts to federal matters exclusively. The Bill is set down exactly in the same terms as the above mentioned Bill. As my hon. friend from Montmorency is aware, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Sir Elzear Taschereau, has had the opportunity of commenting upon this question in Montreal and of expounding his own views as to its purport. He acknowledged that the jurisdiction of these courts should be restricted to Dominion matters. Moreover, a number of newspapers in Ontario, the ' Toronto News ' among others, have declared themselves favourable to the idea of restricting the jurisdiction of these courts to federal cases. These utterances have induced me to reintroduce this Bill, believing as I do that the most enlightened people in Ontario would join hands with the people of the province of Quebec in asking that the Supreme and Exchequer courts shall not decide any but Dominion and maritime cases, and litigation as between two provinces, or as between the individuals and the government of a province, or as between the inhabitants of a province and the authorities of another or several other provinces. I have previously discussed this question in this House and as my hon. friend from Montmorency has without any doubt followed closely the discussion, he must be familiar with the Bill I now introduce.


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


Mr. CASGRAIN asked :: 1.	Does the government Intend to construct a -wharf at Champlain, in the county of Cham-
Pl2.ll\f so, has the government selected the site whereon the said wharf is to be built ?
3.	To whom does the said site belong ?
4.	What price has the government paid, or is it going to pay, for the said site ?


Hon. C. S. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works).: The government has purchased a wharf and approach from Mr. H. Arcand, for the sum of $1,000, and has under construction the repair and extension of the wharf.


MR. JOHN BERRIGAN, KING'S COUNTY, P.E.I.
Air. LEFURGEY asked :: 1.	Is Mr. John Berrigan, of lot 39, King's county, Prince Edward Island, employed in looking after the fisheries at St. Peter's lake, in the said county and province ?
2.	If so, how long has he been in the service, and what amount has been paid him to date ?
3.	Is he employed by the season, month, week, or day ; and what are his duties ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Yes.
2- Since June, 1898. Seventy dollars.
3. Up to 1903 he was paid ten dollars per season, and since then at the rate of twenty dollars per season.
I. C. R. PASSENGER RATES PER MILE. Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Lefurgey-asked :
_ 1. What is the local passenger rate per mile in effect on the Intercolonial Railway system ?
2.	What is the through passenger rate per mile in effect from Montreal and Quebec to Atlantic ports ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railwys and Canals) :: 1.	The local passenger fares are based as follows : The first class fare is three cents (.03c.) per mile up to 100 miles ; and from 100 up to 400 miles the rate per mile is lessened until 400 miles is reached, when the rate is two cents (.02c.) per mile, or $8.00 first-class for 400 miles. This is the lowest rate per mile first class. For distances 800 miles and over the rate is two cents (.02c.) per mile first class. For any distance over 400 miles, but under 800 miles (say 600 miles) the rate is based by adding the tariff for 400 miles-$8.00 to the tariff for 200 miles-$4.78, making $12.78 first-class fare tor 600 miles. The second-class rate per mile is two-thirds of the first-class rate. Return fare is one and one-half first-class fare.
2.	In regular through fares Montreal and
Quebec to Atlantic ports, the rate per mile is as follows :	Montreal to St. John, 1
91-100 cents first class ;	1 23-100 cents
second; Montreal to Halifax, St. John, 1 97-100 cents first; 1 25-100 cents second. Quebec to St. John, 1 84-100 cents first; 1 23-100 cents second. Quebec to Halifax, 2 07-100 cents first ;	1 38-100 cents second.
Regular fares are as follows : Montreal to St. John, $14.15 first; $9.10 second; Montreal to Halifax, $16.50 first; $10.50 second. Quebec to St. John, $10.65 first, and $7.10 second. Quebec to Halifax, $14.00 first ; $9.35 second. On steamship passengers Montreal and Quebec to St. John, 1 01-100 cents first ; 74-100 of a cent second. Montreal to Halifax, 90-100 of a cent first ; 66-100 of a cent second. Quebec to St. John,
1 30-100 cents first ; 95-100 of a cent second. Quebec to Halifax, 1 11-100 cents first; 81-100 of a cent second. Steamship fares as follows :	Montreal and Quebec to Halifax, $7.50 first, and $5.50 second.


PURCHASE OF LIVE STOCK FROM MR. S. L. HEAD, RAPID CITY.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE asked :: 1. What number of thorough-bred bulls, heifers and other animals did the government purchase, for the reserves or other purposes from Mr. S. L. Head, of Rapid city, since July 1st, 1902 ?


Mr. LEFURGEY.: 2.	What was the age, and the price paid for
each ?	'
3.	Were they purchased by contract ?


Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of the Interior).: The following stock was purchased from Messrs. S. L. Head & Son, Rapid City, since 1st July, 1902 :
210 heifers, two-years old, delivered at points in Alberta, Northwest Territories, for $28 a head.
25 pure-bred, shorthorn bulls, between two and three years of age, delivered at different points in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, for $125 each.
4 work oxen, at $80 each.
The above animals were purchased at the prices stated, subject to proper inspection.


WHARF AT COLE'S POINT, N.B.
Mr. DANIEL asked :: What is the total amount expended, to the 1st of May, 1904, in the construction and maintenance of the public wharf at Cole's Point, Dorchester, Westmoreland county, N.B. ?
2.	What is the total amount of revenue from the said wharf to the 1st day of May, 1904 ?


Hon. C. S. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works).: 1.	$27,852.29.
2.	No returns received at the Marine and Fisheries Department.
NEW WHARF AT HOPEWELL CAPE, N.B. Mr. DANIEL asked :
1.	What is the total amount expended, to the
first of May, 1904, in the construction and maintenance of the upper or new public wharf at Hopewell Cape, in the county of Albert, N.B. ?	.
2.	What was the total amount of revenue from the said wharf to the first day of Mav 1904 ?


Hon. C. S. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works).: 1.	$25,466.25.
2.	Fifty-four dollars.
OLD W'HARF AT HOPEWELL CAPE, N.B. Mr. DANIEL asked :
What is the total amount expended, to the first day of May, 1904, in the construction of the old public wharf at Hopewell Cape, county of Albert ?


Hon. C. S. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works).: 1.	$11,162.24.



ASSISTANCE TO PEAT INDUSTRY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TOLTON asked ;
1.	Have the government decided upon giving any financial assistance to the peat industry, in the form of a bonus or otherwise ?
2.	If so, to what extent ?
3.	If not, why not ?
William Stevens Fielding: No decision has been come to in that matter.



PIER AT ARISAIG, N.S.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LANCASTER-by Mr. Taylor-asked:
1.	What amount was expended on the repairs to the pier at Arisaig, N.S., from June 30th to the end of the season of 1903, for labour, superintendence and supplies ; and to whom paid ?
2.	What amount was accounted for to the department by the wharfinger, in the fiscal years ending June 30th, 1902, and 1903, and for the past year, to the end of season of 1903 ?
Hon. C. S. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works).: 1.	$899.81. Full details of expenditure with names of carpenters, carters, labourers, and parties who supplied materials, can be seen in Auditor General's Report (1902-3), page 166 part Y.
2.	Total collections for fiscal year
ending June 30, 1903	 $ 75.92
Less commissions	 18.98
Received by department....	$ 56.94
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1903. No returns received.
Returns received for past year to December 31, 1903.
Total collections	 $52.57
Less commission and postage. . . .	13.23
Received by department....	$ 39.34



HARBOUR MASTER AT MONTAGUE BRIDGE.

Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 1.	Was W. Porter harbour master of Montague bridge ?
2.	Has he been discharged from the service and another appointed in his place ?
3.	When was he dismissed and when was his successor appointed ?
4.	Was Mr. Porter dismissed for cause ; and if so, what charges were made against him ?


Hon. R. PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	By Order in Council of the 5th May, 1904.
4.	The services of Mr. Porter were dispensed with on account of age and inefficiency in the discharge of his duties.



TENDERS FOR LICENSE TO CUT TIMBER ON BERTH No. 1158.

Mr. W. J. ROCHE asked :: 1.	How many tenders were received by the government for a license to cut timber on Berth No. 1158 ; and from what parties ?
2.	What was the bonus offered by each party ?
3.	Who was the successful tenderer ?


Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of the Interior).: 1.	Three tenders were received-J. W. McIntosh, J. H. Lamont and Samuel McLeod.
2.	J. W. McIntosh, $2,100 ; J. H. Lamont, $2,050 ; Samuel McLeod, $100.
3.	J. W. McIntosh.



FAIR WAGES TO WORKMEN.

Mr. RALPH SMITH asked :: 1.	What contracts for public works have been entered into by the government which required the contractors to pay their workmen fair wages, in accordance with the fair-wage resolution agreed upon by parliament in the session of 1900 ?
2.	What were the amounts of money covered by these contracts ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I will have to ask my hon. friend to move for a return.
G.TJ?.-EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS.


Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	Has the government appointed counsel to conduct the investigation now being held by Judge Winchester, in connection with the employment of American and other foreign engineers on the proposed line of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ?
2.	If so, what is the name of such counsel ?
3.	Will instructions issue to Judge Winchester and to said counsel to examine * de novo ' the witnesses who were examined in Montreal at the beginning of the investigation ?


Hon. C. S. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	H. M. Mowat, K.C.
3.	The government will adopt whatever steps it deems necessary in order that the inquiry be thorough and complete.
.LETTER CARRIERS-TORONTO.


Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	Is the Postmaster General aware that in the city of Toronto certain superior officials of the post office department, in Toronto, are, or have been, canvassing letter carriers who haVe not taken advantage of the provisions of the Post Office Act, chapter 28, 1902, and amending Act, to induce them to petition the government to further extend the time under which letter carriers or other officials may avail themselves of the provisions of the foregoing named Acts ?
2.	Is it a fact that since the first of May, 1904, a petition has been presented for signature to Toronto letter carriers or other officials who have not taken advantage of the provisions of the Acts hereinbefore named, praying for an extension of the time for availing themselves of the provisions of said Acts ?
3.	What is the name or names of the officer or officers canvassing and soliciting such signatures ?
4.	By whose instructions, or by what authority is such officer or officers making such solicitation or canvass ?

5.	Is tlie officer, or are the officers, who have engaged in this work ot canvassing or soliciting, officers who come within the class of officials whose salary or salaries may be affected by their taking advantage of the Acts hereinbefore named ?


Hon. C. S. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	No.
2.	No. The department has no knowledge of any such petition being presented for signature.
3.	The department is assured that no officer has canvassed or solicited signatures.
4.	The question is irregular in stating that there has been such solicitation or canvass. No instructions or authority of any kind have been given to any one to make such solicitation or canvass. .
5.	The question is irregular in asserting that officers are engaged in such work.
With general reference to the whole question it may be said that certain letter carriers being badly advised failed to take advantage of the Act in question within the prescribed time and have recently sought the advice of some experienced clerks in the Toronto post office. These clerks being wholly dis-interested themselves, but taking an interest in the welfare of the letter carriers, have, it is said, expressed to the letter carriers asking such advice, that the Act was to the advantage of the letter carriers, and that they, the clerks in question, if in the letter carriers' position, would have gladly availed themselves of its provisions. In this way the department understands some of these letter carriers have reached the conclusion that they made a serious mistake in not coming in under the Act, and are now petitioning, asking for such legislation as will permit of their doing so.



THE DOUKHOBORS.

Mr. WILSON asked :: 1.	Has Professor James Mavor, of Toronto University, been commissioned to investigate or settle a dispute between the Doukbobors and the Dominion government ?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the dispute ?
3.	Has Professor Mayor's report been received ?
4.	If so, what are it's findings ?


Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of Interior) :: 1.	No.
2.	2, 3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

Thomas Chase Casgrain: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I ask the attention of the Minister of Militia to a return which he brought down the other day in connection with the investigation held into a complaint against one of the officers of the 9th battalion. The report is incomplete in that it does not contain several letters Mr. CLARKE.
which were referred to in the testimony, and which were produced at the investigation as exhibits ' Q,' ' R,' ' S,' ' T.' I would like the minister to supplement the report by bringing these exhibits down.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: I will take the hon. gentleman's statement from ' Hansard,' and have the matter looked into.



CANADIAN FISHERY REGULATIONS.

Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, if he has any announceent to make now in reference to the statement I made in the House yesterday ? The letter I referred to then has been published in the newspapers of the United States and it is doing great harm.


Mr. PREFONTAINE.: I will give an answer to the hon. gentleman to-morrow.



VENTILATION OF THE CHAMBER.

George Taylor: May I call your attention. Mr. Speaker, and the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the fact that at the present moment the thermometer in the chamber registers seventy degrees ? When formerly the windows upstairs were open, we could get fresh air and now that the hot weather is coming on, I do not see why arrangements should not be made to keep the windows open. I do not know whether or not it is the intention of the Minister of Public Works to roast us out, but I can remind him that he and his friends will have to take then- share of the roasting. These new fan wheels are in operation only when the House is not in session, but with the galleries crowded as to-day and the windows closed, and several hundred little stoves in here heating up the atmosphere, it is simply unbearable.


Charles Smith Hyman: I regret exceedingly that we are making it too warm for the opposition, but I will immediately consult the architect of the department to see if it is possible to give relief.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Since I have been appealed to, I would like to say that I have frequently called for fresh air with almost as much earnestness as at times I have to call for order, but I regret to say that it is almost as difficult to secure one as the other.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding :
That the Speaker do now leave the chair, for the House to go into committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.
['I have no desire to press the Bill. I only moved the third reading in the absence of the promoter (Mr. Ganong). I suppose it will come up again on Friday evening.\nOrder allowed to stand.']
Rt. Hon. Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT (Minister of Trade and Commerce).: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) who preceded me in this debate, was good enough to put a number of very explicit questions to me last evening. He was also good enough to Introduce sundry quotations from speeches of mine into his own. So far as I could gather they seemed to fit in very badly, but that is a matter of detail. The hon. gentleman's thirst for knowledge is great; the hon. gentleman's need for knowledge is greater still. It will be my endeavour and my pleasure to satisfy the craving of the hon. gentleman. Before 1 sit down, I trust to be able to furnish him with full information on all matters as to which he has asked information, and likewise to supply him (and possibly some other gentlemen), with a good deal of other information for which he has not asked, but which it is very desirable that he should become acquainted with. In the meantime,
I may observe that I have but one quotation to make, and there is but one thing that I desire to know at this moment in particular. If you will do me the honour, Mr. Speaker to refer to ' Hansard ' of 1897, page 2177, you will find the following paragraph :
I consider the argument of the free trader unanswerable. I believe at this moment that if Canada took a liberal step in the direction of free trade, it would gt>
a long way to place her upon the road to the greatest prosperity. The reasons why I consider Canada should turn about and adopt a free trade policy are, (a) that we may free ourselves from the dominating influences of the United States ;
. (b) on account of the failure of the national policy ; (c) because of the startling revelations of the census.
I am advised by an hon. friend of mine now sitting in this House, that this particular paragraph is an extract from a newspaper report of a speech delivered in the town of Pictou, in the year 1891 or thereabouts, by a gentleman of the name of Adam Carr Bell.
Mr. Speaker, I am filled with a burning and consuming anxiety to know : (a) Whether the said Adam Carr Bell is a namesake or possibly a godchild of the hoh. member for Pictou ; (b) whether it is possible that some pestilent Grit may have succeeded in procuring the habilements of the hon. member for Pictou, and have masqueraded before the good citizens of Pictou as the only true, original and reliable old Adam ; (c) I desire to know from the hon. member for Pictou who the fellow is anyway, and what he thinks of the statements and sentiments contained in the paragraph which I have just read. The hon. gentleman does not appear disposed to gratify my laudible. curiosity.


John William Bell: If the hon. gentleman will permit me-I thought he was going on with his speech-I may inform him that he has read a garbled report of a lecture delivered by me upon the subject of speculative free trade, the opening paragraph of which announced that no reference whatever to practical free trade as a policy for Canada would be made. It was a lecture, not a speech, and was given from a strictly academic standpoint. I may say further that I never made a free trade speech in my life on any hustings or in any county.
I took part. I am glad to say, in the campaign of 1878 in favour of the protectionist theory, and have supported that view on every occasion on which I have appeared in public from that day to this.


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: The form of words the hon. gentleman used in the paragraph I have just quoted is singularly open to misconception if he intended it to be regarded as the statement of a purely speculative opinion, but if I have not been further misinformed, the hon. gentleman about the year 1891 was rather coquetting with the Liberals in that country-


John William Bell: No.	.
Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT-which may possibly have influenced to some extent his speculative views on the question of free trade.
Sir, I am happy to say that there were several things said by the hon. gentleman last night with w'hich I am able to agree. They were, so to speak, some nuggets picked out of the flood-what shall I call it ?-of alluvial matter poured forth by the hon. gentleman. For instance, the hon. gentleman was good enough to state that the present tariff is a great revenue-producing tariff, a statement which I entirely endorse and concur in. The hon. gentleman was further good enough to state that our imports are paid for and limited by our exports-another statement with which under normal conditions and with certain limitations, I entirely agree. In the third place, the hon. gentleman declared that you can easily increase taxes while diminishing revenue-a statement in which I entirely concur. He was likewise good enough to warn us that surpluses are dangerous things-a matter on which, considering the experience of himself and his friends during the three years immediately preceding the year 1896, he was of course well qualified to speak. Lastly I may add I heartily and most unqualifiedly endorse the statement of iny hon. friend that after men have been in opposition for a certain period, say six or eight years, they are likely to talk unmitigated rot; and the hon. gentleman not only made the statement but proved it to the hilt. It may be that the hon. gentleman did not entirely see what all these statements and admissions involved ; and on that point, before I sit down, I shall have a word or two to say.
But although there were these points of agreement between myself and my hon. friend there were also points of difference

between ns. The hon. gentleman said that we increased the taxes. I want to call the hon. gentleman's attention to a little confusion of mind. Taxes and revenue are not the same thing, as he seems to have supposed. We did not increase the taxes ; we greatly increased the revenue and greatly reduced the taxes. The effect of the British preference was far-reaching ; it was enormously to reduce the rate of taxation in this country, both nominally and still more really. Then, Sir, for the first place as hon. gentlemen opposite now appear to admit, it went a very long way indeed to convert the entire tariff into a revenue tariff. It did Canada a great deal of good indirectly by creating the best possible feeling towards us in the minds of our very best and largest customers, and indeed it may be said in many cases to have secured for us a substantial though not a legal preference in the English market. For myself I have always advocated the preference as being much more in the interest of the Canadian consumer than of the English producer, though I was quite willing to benefit the latter also if the opportunity should occur and I admit frankly I was very sorry that it was found necessary to make any change in it. The hon. gentleman declared that at this present moment all the world was prosperous, and that our prosperity was merely a part of what was being enjoyed all over the world. Sir, I was under the impression that the people of England at this moment were suffering from a rather serious depression. I was under the impression that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had recently found it necessary, in a time of peace, to increase the income tax, and to bring it back almost to the limit of the old and very heavy war tax. I was under the impression that English consols had fallen from 113 or thereabouts before the war to something like 85 within the last few months, about the lowest figure which those great securities have touched in the last 50 years.
The hon. gentleman talked about Germany also. I was under the impression that Germany for two or three years back has been suffering from a very severe commercial depression, from which it is only beginning slowly to recover. He talked of the United States. The merchants and the manufacturers in Canada have been dinging into our ears for some time past that there is great danger of a very severe depression in the United States, and have been begging us to take precautions to guard against such a depression. He might have added that the great commonwealth of Australia has been suffering from a most .prolonged drought and other depressing circumstances for an unusually long time. As England. Germany, the United States and Australia are by far the best customers we have $420,000,000 out of our whole trade of $460,000,000 being done with these countries, it does not appear to me that the argument that all Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
the rest of the world with which we have dealings is prosperous fits very well in the mouth of the hon. gentleman at the present time. Sir, the exact reverse is the fact while these great countries have been suffering from serious reverses and depressions, it has been the good fortune of Canada, and Canada alone, to maintain her progress.
The hon. gentleman-and I must take issue with him here-went some distance out of his way to condemn the proposition of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to issue a commission to investigate the condition of the tariff. The hon. gentleman misapprehended, I think, the statement of the Minister of Finance. What the Minister of Finance had in his mind-and I thought he made it sufficiently clear-was not to relegate the duties and powers of this government to any commission at all, but to appoint, as we did several years ago, a committee of our own'number, to visit as many as possible of the cities and towns of Canada and see for ourselves how we could best deal with the industrial conditions of the country. But, Sir, the hon. gentleman is perhaps not very well acquainted with the fiscal history of Canada for the last eight and twenty years. If he had been, it might have occurred to him that the condemnation which he attempted to level at v my hon. friend applied with far greater force to those gentlemen who in 1878-1879, when they came into office, did not endeavour to settle the tariff themselves, but employed several paid commissioners sitting in Ottawa many months to draw up a tariff of which the Finance Minister of the day was but the mouthpiece ; and I will tell the hon. gentleman this further fact, which he is perhaps not aware of, that that commission, though nominated by the government of the day, was appointed by a certain committee of manufacturers, and that that committee of manufacturers, in one instance at least, paid their deputy for his services a great deal more than the government paid him.
Sir, there was one point slightly alluded to by the hon. gentleman, on which I am disposed to agree. I do not advise the people of this country to count on a continuance of the most remarkable unbroken prosperity which we have enjoyed the past few years. No man in Canada has had better cause to know than I that, as a rule, cycles of good years are succeeded by cycles of bad years. No man knows better that a series of fat years is generally followed by a series of lean years. I can tell my hon. friend also this. I have never contended that the tariff is the sole factor in creating or maintaining prosperity. There are many factors which go to make up national prosperity. You may have a good tariff and a bad land system, and you may have a good land system and a bad tariff.
Or you may have both good together, and

yet, by tlie operation of causes oyer which yon have no control, by being involved, for instance, in war with your neighbours, or by a hundred other conflicting influences which may militate against your prosperity, you may not have such a satisfactory condition of affairs as you would desire. I know also that this country iof ours is not very easy to govern. No country probably, under federal rule, is. And I do n'ot pretend to say that you can govern for seven or eight years a country like Canada and give no cause for criticism. Mistakes may be made and may have been made. Experiments may have failed. Faults or follies may have been committed. The government do not pretend to be infallible. It is even conceivable that men who have never sat in cabinets, who have never known what it was to be responsible for the good conduct, administration and development of a country extending from ocean to ocean- it is even conceivable that such gentlemen may at times commit errors, and may say things that they will afterwards have occasion to regret, and commit themselves to policies which they may afterwards find out to be absurd.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman is talking from experience.


Richard John Cartwright: No, I am [DOT] not. I have very little to withdraw, unless indeed it may be that at one time-a long time ago, and probably before the hon. gentleman had much to do with political life-I had certain affiliations and dealings with the Conservative cause. But unless I am entirely mistaken, there was a time when my hon. friend himself was a highly respectable young man, when he taught in the Sunday school, and took the chair for his worthy relative the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden), and even canvassed the county for him. 1 agree with my hon. friend from Pictou that this is a proper time for us to take stock, to examine our resources and to see how far we are justified in committing the country to the great undertaking into which the government are proposing to embark. Now, I notice that my hon. friend from Pictou-and therein my hon. friend only did as most hon. gentlemen on the other side do when they rise in this House-did profess great, even extreme delight, at the extreme prosperity of the country. Like the others too, he gave thanks to Providence that he was not as other men-not as those wicked Grits who could never find a good word to say for what-how did he call them?-our illustrious predecessors did who held the reins of power before us. Bht after having professed his extreme delight in our present financial condition, I notice, that, following the example of those other gentlemen, he proceeded to the best of his power to detract. belittle and minimize the prosperity of tlie country. The truth is, I fear, 141
that the prosperity of the country at this present moment is gall and wormwood to those hon. gentlemen. I did watch their faces attentively, as the hon. gentleman did me the honour to watch mine, when my hon. friend the Minister of Finance was unfolding word by word and step by step every proof, every indication men could well ask for, of the extreme prosperity of this . country. And if they were delighted I can only say they are the most admirable experts at concealing their feelings in their countenances I have ever seen. I fear much that the hon. gentleman and his friends are a good deal in the same frame of mind as that in which the habitans of Lower Canada were in the year of grace 1837, when the St. Lawrence would not freeeze, and the government were able to make use of that great river to transport their troops from point to point. Le bon Dieu, they said, n'est pas un bon patriot. I am inclined to believe that in like manner every hon. gen-man opposite, if he spoke the truth, would say : it is very hard of Providence to be so kind to these demoralizing Grits. The adjective that they usually couple with the substantive Grit is, I think, somewhat shorter and stronger and less parliamentary than the one 1 use, but nevertheless I think that my expression, ' demoralizing ' perhaps describes the whole situation a little the better.
The hon. gentleman took me severely to task because, as he said, while he was calling my attention to certain things, which I ought to have laid seriously to heart, I was smiling. Sir, the impeachment is true.
I was smiling. Certain recollections had occurred to my mind, and I shall tell him what they were. I remembered two remarks made by two very eminent men with whom I was formerly acquainted, which,
I think, were admirably descriptive of Conservative feeling and methods ; and when the hon. gentleman was ' rooting and routing,' to use a Scotch phrase, among our surpluses, and proving to his own satisfaction that it was a great iniquity for us to have $57,000,000 surpluses when they had none, I could not but recollect the remark made by the late lamented Jos. Rymal namely, that he would rather meet a she-bear robbed of her whelps than a Conservative out of office. There also occurred to my mind, when my hon. friend was lamenting the enormous amount of surpluses going into such unworthy hands, another remark made by the late lamented Sir John Macdonald on a certain occasion when, addressing an appreciative audience, he likened himself to a boy who was throwing down acorns, and in his own picturesque language observed to his hearers that if they wished to save their bacon they must divvy up and share the acorns. Sir. I can well understand how the sight of my hon. friends' surpluses and the spectacle of those golden acorns rolling on
revised edition

tlie ground-and none for tliem-must have harrowed the minds of lion, gentlemen opposite. And then to see them garnered Into the public treasury instead of being generously distributed among the faithful. It was not what they were used to-and they felt it.
The hon. gentleman's mode of arithmetic is simple and in a certain sense effective.
I listened attentively to his review of the financial position, and I can say this for him, that the rule he applies certainly saves a great deal of trouble. It is a simple rule. You have only to debit everything and credit nothing and report the result. The hon: gentleman's argument matched his arithmetic. His criticism was a belated criticism. It might have been pertinent-ten, twenty or even thirty years ago. But it is liable to this grave objection, that it ignores the most patent facts, it ignores the complete change of conditions. Sir, I have to tell the hon. gentleman that Canada to-day in 1904 is further apart from Canada as we found it in 1896 than the Canada of 1896 was from the Canada of 1866. And that is no idle rhetorical flourish. Sir the growth of the last eight years, in many ways far exceeds the growth of the thirty years preceding.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are, to my mind three great indicia by which to judge the prosperity of a country like Canada. All others are relatively insignificant-I do not pretend to say they are not of importance in their way, but, in my judgment, they shrink into insignificance beside these three. The first of these indicia is :	How
rapidly is the population, occupation of new and large areas of land advancing in the country. Next, what is the growth of the volume of trade ? Next, what Is the growth of the revenue of the country ? I will'add a fourth, which applies more particularly to my own province of Ontario ? What is tlie condition of the farmers ? What Is the condition of the agricultural class ? How many chattel mortgages remain on their farms '? How7 many mortgages have been paid off ? How as to the value of their lands'? Still more important : How as to the saleability of their lands? The question I put to hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House is this: Were the farmers of Canada ever, within the memory of living man-at least, since the Crimean war-as prosperous as they are to-day '?
Now, I will proceed to analyse each of these indicia to which I have referred. I will take, first, the population. Here-and :t is one of the few points on which we differ

here, I do differ, I differ very considerably, from some of the calculations submitted by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). He erred, it is true, on the right side. In his position, it is better, if he errs at all, to err on that side. But he has under-estimated, I think Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
considerably, even seriously, the growth of population in Canada since 1896. I have here a rather curious and interesting statement which hon. gentlemen will find on page 450 of the first volume of the census of Canada of 1901. That statement gives in detail, not merely the number of immigrants, but the date on which the immigrants came to Canada and settled in Canada. And it is a curious and most significant fact that tlie number of immigrants who settled in Canada, and have remained here, in the last half of the decade included in the census, that is from 1896 to 1901, were nearly 100,000 more than those who came to and remained in Canada in the first half or the decade, or from 1891 to 1896. The precise actual facts are that in the decade from 1891-1901 234,000 immigrants came to Canada and remained there. Of these about 160,000 came in the latter half from 1896 to 1901 and 74,000 in the first half from 1891-1896. Sir, that is a pregnant and significant fact. It proves, in the first place, one thing to which I have called attention in this House more than once, and that is that, since this government came into power, the population of Canada has increased in ratio altogether greater than it did in the five, or even fifteen, years before. It proves another thing ; it proves that tlie report of my hon. friend the Minister at: the Interior (Mr. Sifton) as to the number of immigrants who have settled in Canada during that time was almost literally and absolutely correct. And it proves, by inference I think, this-that if you are able to bring 100,000 more immigrants into the country, and keep them there, during tlie last half of the decade than during the first half, there is the strongest presumption that you have, at the same time, been able to retain in Canada your own people who, in former times, were leaving the country iu such numbers. The self-same causes that enabled you, as I have said, to keep
100,000	more immigrants in Canada, contributed most powerfully to prevent any great exodus from Canada during those five years. There are other matters in connection with this table to which, on another occasion. I may refer, matters of importance, matters of interest. But I have a word or two to say in that connection with respect to the other matter of which I spoke, and that is the enormous area of new land and territory which, within the last few .years, has -been brought into cultivation or into occupation. But, first, let me call attention to the fact that, in the three years that have just elapsed, the years 1901, 1902 and 1903, we have brought into Canada, and, there is every reason to believe we have settled in Canada, and retained in Canada, 244.892 immigrants. Sir, I am not blind to the fact that quantity is not everything. I am happy to be able to inform the House -and that is a point on which also I shall



[Stage Direction]
have something to say later on-that the quality of these immigrants is equal to the quantity, and Canada may congratulate herself, not only on having the largest immigration she has ever known, but by far the best immigration, composed of the best class, composed of the wealthiest class, we have ever seen come into Canada. As to area being occupied and likely to be brought under cultivation- another matter to which I attach great importance-kon. gentlemen will see that, in the' three years referred to, 64,005 homesteads were taken up, equal to an acreage of 10,240,000 acres, 'mere were sales made by various corporations during the same three years of 7,051,S33 acres, without counting the large amount known to have been purchased from private parties. This means that over 17,250,000 acres, mostly new and virgin land, have passed from the control of the companies or of the Crown into the hands of actual settlers. I would like the House to consider what that means, and what justification it affords for what might otherwise be considered the too roseate views which gentlemen on this side of the House have expressed as to the future of Canada. I find that by the last census the total amount of occupied land in the great province of Ontario was very little over 21,000,000 acres, and of that, less than 14,000,000 were improved. So that, practically speaking, we have, within the last three years, added to the available area of Canada an extent of land equal, and more than equal to the whole cultivated area of the great province of Ontario. Sir, I say these are most pregnant facts. And, if you will compare the influx of immigrants and the magnitude of the sales which have been made in the period from 1896 down to the present time, with the actual results of homesteads that were taken up and of the sales that were made during the period from 1885 to 1S95 then, those *who choose to study the history of this country with something like a pretense to fairness will understand why it was that we who then sat on the other side of the House found little to admire or commend, found little ground to talk of the prosperity of Canada in those days.
_ Sir, I say again these are most pregnant facts and although I shall have more to say on the point of policy nereafter, still at the same time the mere circumstance that we have been able, as this return shows, to keep in Canada with scarcely an exception the immigrants that were brought there during the last half decade, is a very conclusive evidence of the soundness of the policy we are now pursuing and of the great results that may be expected to accrue from it. I have looked into this matter with some care. I believe that the exodus, if not completely stopped is at any rate balanced by the number of repatriated Canadians re-1414
turning to Canada year after year. I have not the slightest doubt in my own mind that taking the average of the last seven or eight years, partly owing to the cessation of the exodus, partly owing to the large number of immigrants who have been brought in, the average up to this year of 1904 will, in all human probability equal an increase of 150,000. Some years it may be less, some years it may be more, but on the whole eight years I believe on the present calculation that our present population is fully up to 6,000,000 or at any rate will be by the conclusion of the current year. Further than that, we have effectually wiped away the disgrace that the best and the flower of our population were leaving us to seek their homes in a foreign land.
Now Sir, as to the increase of trade,- and here I ask pardon of my friends because owing to the lines taken up by the lion, gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Bell). I must go over ground already traversed by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding). In seven years I said that the growth of trade of Canada had increased more than double what it had increased in the thirty years before ; it is a mere matter of arithmetic. In the interval between 1866 and 1896 a period of 30 years, the growth of trade was a little over $100,000,000, if indeed it was over that at all. In the interval between 1896 and 1904 is well up to $220,000,000, being, as I said more than twice as much as the total growth in the 30 years before that interval. Some of the hon. gentlemen opposite take a different view from myself on this question of exports and imports. I for my part am of the opinion that it is highly desirable that the imports of a country- should balance or thereabouts with its exports, and I am not frightened if the imports should occasionally exceed the exports. In my judgment the fact that the imports and exports are very close together is not a proof that we have been losing but rather a proof that the people of Canada are getting good value for their money, rather, a proof that trade is in a wholesome condition than anything else. But for the benefit of these hon. gentlemen, of whom I dare say there are some, who may conscientiously believe that it is a matter of the greatest importance to the country that the exports should exceed the imports, I desire to present this table of figures. I have here a table of the total imports into Canada and the total exports from Canada during the seven years beginning on the 30th of June. 1890. and ending on the 30th of June, 1896. Sir, deducting settlers' effects which cost us nothing as you know', we imported in round numbers $834,469,000 in seven years.
We exported during the same time goods to the value of $779,871,000.
That Sir, was under the national policy, under a highly protective policy.
[Stage Direction]
In the seven years from 1897 to 1903. both included we imported, less settlers' effects, $1,230,000,000 of gross imports.
We exported during the same time $1,286,000,000.
In other words under the last seven years of the national policy our imports exceeded our exports by over $50,000,000. Under the seven years of our policy our exports exceeded our imports by an equal sum. Personally I do not attach any great importance to that but as some lion, gentlemen opposite appear to do so, it is well that they should be made acquainted with the actual state of the case.
Now Sir, I come to an interesting point, a doubly interesting point, inasmuch as on it depends, to a very considerable extent, the justification of this government for proposing to you to engage in an enterprise that may well be supposed to tax the utmost resources of this country I refer to the growth of revenue. The growth of our revenue during the past seven years has been far greater than it appears on the surface. Sir, the gross revenue is but an imperfect test. An increase in gross revenue may very well coincide with a loss of net revenue. The true test that I propose to apply is the growth of the net revenue in the last seven years. How stands the account to-day ? It is a curious and instructive statement and for reasons which will presently appear,, in order to make it more complete and perfect, I have gone back to the year 1871.
In 1871 the gross revenue of Canada was $19,335,000, and what may be called the fixed charges, the charges for interest of debt, the subsidies to provinces, the sinking funds and collection of revenue, amounted to $11,012,000 leaving a net revenue in 1871 of $8,322,000 in round numbers. The exact figures are as follows :
Total revenue for 1871	$19,335,000
Interest on debt	 5,591,959
Subsidies to provinces	 2,624,949
Sinking Fund	 421,666
Collection of revenue	 2,374,114
Fixed charges	$11,012,688
In 1896 our gross revenue had increased to $36,616,000, and our fixed charges of the same sort as those to which I have alluded had increased to $26,333,000, without taking into account payments to Indians, which are chiefly a treaty obligation, and called for $880,000 more.
In the 25 years from 1871 to 1896, therefore the total net revenue of Canada, beginning at $8,322,000 had merely increased $1,000,000 to $9,405,000.
Sir, how stands the case to-day ? In 1903 the gross revenue of Canada had grown to $66,037,000 ; the charges of a fixed character amounted, included payments to Indians, to $33,400,000 in round numbers.
Richard John Cartwright: In other words we had a net revenue of $32,000,000 in 1903 as against a net revenue of $9,400,000 in 1896.
The gain in our net revenue in those seven years amounted to $23,000,000.
It is' true our expenses had increased. Our gross expenses has increased $14,000,000. Our gross revenue had increased $30,000,000. Our net expenses, to which I shall come presently had increased $7,000,000 and our net revenue $23,000,000.
The hon. gentleman appears to think that all this is blameable. It may be or it may not he. The hon. gentleman quoted speeches of mine quoted speeches of the late Hon. Mr Mills, quoted speeches of the Minister of ' Customs (Mr. Paterson) and divers others, and he appeared to think that the fact that in 1S96 we considered that it was expedient to retrench and practice economy was sufficient reason to condemn the expenditure now made without entexing into any comparison or inquiry as to why the expenditure was incurred. I have to tell these hon. gentlemen that if, which God forbid, Canada should fall hack into the slough from which we rescued her, the slough of stagnation, of depopulation, of disgrace and disohonur, if the time should come when you see the' people of Canada leaving her by the million, when you see afterwards the immigrants who come to our shores leaving her bv the million, when you find that it is doubtful if the increase in the population of Canada amounts to one-half of one per cent, and that in a country well able to support 50 or 100 millions, when that state of things returns, then I will say to these hon. gentlemen that they will be justified in quoting the speeches that we made under such a condition of things and saying that it is our bounden duty to exercise the strictest economy. I have several questions to ask these hon. gentlemen and I have several questions to ask the people of Canada in respect to this' expenditure. First , of all I have to ask :	Is the expenditure
justified ? Is it out of proportion to the increase in the wealth and population of the country ? Has it caused extravagance ? Has it produced undue taxation ? Why, Sir, these hon. gentlemen, during the seven years thgy sat opposite to us, have never that I can recollect, moved to reduce _ one single item of taxation that we have imposed on the people of Canada. They have done nothing more, it seems to me, than clamour to put more taxes on. Let us consider how much of this expenditure is justified by the growth of Canada, how much is justified *by the increased cost of wages and material and how much of it is directly profitable. First of all, I would like to clear the deck. I would like to settle how much the government is really answerable for in this j matter. I have here a statement of the ! receipts - and expenditures in 1896 and a statement of the receipts and expenditures in the year of grace, 1903. I say, Sir, that

if you choose to deduct the cross entries which do not cost the people of Canada one penny, and which can merely be regarded as a matter of book-keeping you will find that the total 'Result is that there is an increase in the expenditure not of $14.000.000, but of $7,000,000. for whch I shall be prepared to render account. The whole expenditure on the Yukon of $1,500,000 is defrayed and well defrayed by the additional receipts which we obtained from that territory and will not cost the people of older Canada at any rate, one cent. Nor was that an expenditure for which there was any equivalent in 1896. The expenditure for railways and canals and collections on public works, amounted in 1896 to a total of $3,594,000. To-day we have to pay $3,-
750,000	more but we have received on the other hand, an additional revenue of $3,500,000, the difference being due to the fact that we have made our canals free and no revenue is received any longer from that quarter. We spend on the post office $440,000 more than we spent in 1896. We receive from the post office -$1,430,000 more than we received in 1896.


Mr. CLANCY.: By increased postage.


Richard John Cartwright: By increased postage ? By increased postage ! By increased postage ! I do not know what kind of business my kon. friend (Mr. Clancy) who interrupted me carries on, but if he pays increased postage he is an exception, to everybody else in Canada. For sinking fund, which is really in all conscience a cross entry, we paid $565,000 more in 1903 than we did in 1896 and we receive from interest on our investments $650,000 more. Our customs cost us no doubt $335,000 more than they did, but our revenue from customs has increased by about $17,500,000. In miscellaneous items of various kinds we expend $700,000 more and we get very much nearer to a million than $700,000 more in return. If hon. gentlemen opposite will do me the favour to add these together-


An hon. MEMBER.: It is not worth while.


Richard John Cartwright: I am quite sure hon. gentlemen opposite do not want to do it, but I am glad that I am able to bring these facts to their notice, because they will never from reading their newspapers, or from listening to their leaders lihve the slightest chance of realizing what they mean. Our cross entries amount to $7,290,000 on the debit side and $7,780,000 and more-if I choose to take a strict account-on the credit side. There remains $7,000,000 to be accounted for. I am prepared not merely to endure, but to invite the strictest criticism from these hon. gentlemen as to the way in which we have laid out these seven additional millions. How has it been done ? Half a million has been expended as these records show, in the increased expenditure for immigration another half million more and the cognate services of agriculture and quarantine. Half a million has gone to improve the lighthouse service' in the St. Lawrence so as to make that great channel of commerce safer and more commodious than it has hitherto been. Half a million has gone- and it never could have been better spent- to provide the people of the Northwest Territories, into which about 400,000 people have gone within the last four or five years, with proper facilities for carrying on the government in a reasonable and fair manner. All these are not merely justifiable, but they are highly productive expenditures. I take first of ail the sums spent for immigration. You will add to that sum the expenditure for additional government in the Northwest Territories. We have been repaid ten fold : I venture to say that we have been repaid one hundred fold for all the additional expenditure which is incurred by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) or by the government at large for either of these particular purposes. Take settlers' effects for the last five years, mere settlers' effects which are to all intents and purposes a free gift to the people of Canada. Settlers' effects in these five years were received as follows :-
Year.	Value.
1899		$2,800,000
1900		 3,065,000
1901		 3,740,000
1902		 4,580,000
1903		 6,442,000
Being a total roughly of some $20,000.000 of a free gift to the people of Canada in the shape of settlers' effects, brought in by the people for whom we have been expending this trifling sum, and mark you that amount is probably not one-fifth of the capital which these people are bringing into this country. One of the most hopeful features of the present immigration is that it is very largely composed of people well to do in "their own country, who not merely bring in settlers' effects, but a large amount of capital to promote the settlement and development of our country. But, that is a trifle. What of the immigrants themselves ? What cash value will the honourable House put on the annual addition to our population of 100,000 immigrants ? What annual addition to our income would it represent ? What does it mean if we get 500,000 settlers and most of these of the very best class? It is indeed particularly interesting when you consider the class of immigrants which is now going into the United States to examine the returns of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior in respect to the nationality of the men who are now settling in Canada.
I have not time to go through them as fully as I would wish, but I will take simply this last year in which 128,000 immigrants were settled in Canada. Of these 128,000, there

came from Great Britain 41,000, from the .United States 49,000 ; about 10,000 from the Scandinavian countries, from Germany and from France and from Belgium ; first-class immigrants all of them. Out of that 128,000 over 100,000 were immigrants from countries of the highest standing in the world. How does that compare with the immigration now pouring into the United States ? I have here the Statesman's Year-book for 1904, and I see that while eighty per cent at least of the immigrants coming into Canada belong to the northern races, the best races of Europe ; of this total of 850,000 immigrants to the United States last year scarcely more than 180,000 or twenty per cent came from the British Isles, Germany, Sweden, Norway, and other countries I have spoken of. We get eighty per cent of immigrants of the first-class, and our friends on the other side of the border are receiving about twenty per cent of an equally valuable class of immigrants. I may add further-and having reference to the value of these immigrants it is a matter of first-rate importance-that the returns which I have also here, go to show that an enormous proportion of these immigrants which we get ; for more than the average proportion in an ordinary country, are able bodied young men or abled bodied young women. That is the true way to increase the wealth of this country. If you can put 100,000 such families in the Northwest; if you can give them lands ; if you can provide the facilities for transport, it is almost impossible to estimate how much you will add to the national income, and how much you will add to the volume of trade, domestic as well as foreign.
The wheel has revolved. We are getting back to-day what we lost in the eighteen years from 187S to 1898 ; we are getting bac-k what we lost and we are keeping what we get.
Now, Sir, I am about to enter on a matter which i fear will not altogether please my hon. friends opposite, and yet it is necessary to discuss it. I want to compare the number of immigrants who are coming in now and who are staying in Canada (as we have the best grounds for believing) I want to compare them with the results of the immigration between 1880 and 1890. Between 1880 and 1890, according to the reports of these gentlemen opposite, we brought into Canada 886,000 immigrants all told :
Year.	No. of Immigrants.
1881		 47,000
1882		 112,000
1883		 133,000
1884		 103,000
IRSf	 79,000
1886	 60,000
1887		   84,000
1888		 88,000
1889		 91,000
1890		 75,000


Richard John Cartwright: 
James Clancy: The hon. gentleman is himself entitled to the full credit for the whole of that.


Richard John Cartwright: it is literally true that taking into account the increased cost of labour and materials, and the increase of population, we are spending no more than was spent in proportion during the half dozen years before 189G. It is well to point out that our net income has nearly quadrupled in that interval. I may add that this expenditure differs from most other expenditures, because it does not involve an addition to our fixed charges; and is capable, if need be, of being largely reduced ; and if I may venture a caution to my colleagues. I would say that it is well that this expenditure should be kept within reasonable bounds.
Now, I want to apply the per capita test. I take the expenditure, less cross entries, for 1895 and for 1903 and the expenditure for 1896 and 1903. For reasons which I will enter into more fully shortly, T believe that the difference in population between 1895-1896 and 1903-1904 amounts to fully 1,200.000. I believe that our real population did not exceed 4.800,000 in 1896. and that our present population is now quite up to 6,000,000. I am not particularly careful about this matter, but such as it is, I will give the results. In 1895 (deducting the $7,000,000 of cross entries above referred to) the government of the day expended about $38,000,000. We expended in 1903 about $44,000,000. This would give $7.92 per head in 1895 as against $7.33 per head in 1903. A similar calculation would give $7.70 per head in 1896 as against $7.33 in 1903. I say I do not attach very much importance to this, but if hon. gentlemen want to go into these minute details, we have our answer ready for them.
I will take a larger side of the question- the debt per family ; and here again I think the Minister of Finance was a little too generous to his opponents. When we came into office we found these hon. gentlemen engaged in many costly public works which they had not completed. There were many railway subsidies to be paid, large sums to be expended to complete the canals, and a variety of public works had been undertaken which would involve a large increase in the public debt. Of these matters my hon. friend took no note, although they account for a large part of the surplus which we accumulated. But, throwing all this away, I will assume that the debt was $258,000,000 in 1896, and that the debt is $258,000,000 or thereabouts at the present time.
How stands it, Sir ? Well, on the percentage of population as I gave it, of 4,800,000 for 1896, we would have a charge of about $270 per family for their share of the national debt in that year. In this present year of grace, 1904, the charge per family could not well exceed, if my hon. friend's calculations are correct, a matter of $215 or $216. The net debt per family is. therefore, about $50 or more less to-day than it was in 1896. I am sorry to perceive that Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
hon. gentlemen opposite do not like these statistics, but that perhaps is to be expected. We know that a certain personage does not like holy water ; and it would require. I fear, very strong exorcism-and judging from those empty benches opposite, I must have been applying it-to dislodge the demons of ignorance, prejudice, envy, hatred, malice and all uncharitableness which swell the 'souls of those hon. gentlemen when they look on the achievements of this most virtuous and discreet of governments.
I wish to say now a word or two regarding this same census of 1891. Bit by bit, degree by degree, as the progress of the investigation goes on, proofs of fraud and recklessness and of the most intolerable stupidity and carelessness in the compiling of that census are accumulating and are evident throughout. Not merely was it cooked as to population, but most atrociously as to industrial statistics. I was unable, the last time I spoke on the subject, because the investigation had not gone far enough, to give the details now in my possession as regards some of the industrial statements therein. But I can give some of them now. First we will take-and a curious illustration it is-the condition of the carpet factories, or, as they are called in the volume I have in my hand, ' industrial establishments for the manufacture of carpets.' Sir, of these there were in 1881, according to the census of that year, 11 in Canada. In 1891, according to the volume I have in my hand, those 11 had grown and flourished and expanded to 557 -an absolutely abnormal growth. It may interest the House to know how these were worked and managed, how this great result was achieved. Time will not permit me to go over them all, but I will take, out of compliment to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition-who, I am sorry, is not here-the province of Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia in 1891 there was a total of 106 industrial establishments for the manufacture of carpets. The working capital of these 106 amounted to $833, being an average of $8.25 a head. To do the census enumerators justice, they seemed to have taken pains. The total amount paid in wages, the total value of the raw material, the total value of the articles produced, the amount of fixed capital in land, are all given. The amount of fixed capital in land reached the sum of $570. The wages amounted to $7,355, which would give $70 a year in wages paid by each, being an average of about $1.25 per week. I am proud to say that Nova Scotia is pre-eminent in this industry, although some of the other provinces run it close. Ontario, which is usually an extravagant province, had 344 industrial establishments for the manufacture of carpets, and it absolutely required $114,000 of working capital, being at the rate of $300 per factory. But when we come to our thrifty friends of the maritime provinces, we get

;i much better result. In Prince Edward Island there were 25 industrial establishments of this sort run by 3 men and 22 old women, giving an annual return of $2,000 among the 2^f being at the rate of $80 per year. Do hont gentlemen want more details, because if they do I can give them V


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Richard John Cartwright: Very well, I am always ready to oblige. Going a little further-and mind you, these are but sample bricks-I find that the industrial establishments for weaving in Canada amounted, in 1891, to 2,085. The total working capital Is put down at $07,000, being an average of $33 per induistriail estabffishmenHJ. These were manned by 409 men, 1,916 women and about 120 boys and girls. Carrying out the doctrine of average so dear to my hon. friends, it would seem that the 2,085 establishments may have employed each about one and a quarter man, or woman, or boy, as the case may be. But to prevent any jealousy, I may say that while Nova Scotia undoubtedly carries off the palm in the matter of industrial establlijsEhmients dor the manufacture of carpets, New Brunswick is equally distinguished in industrial establishments for weaving. New Brunswick had 371 industrial establishments for weaving, and-just think of the frugality of my hon. friends in New Brunswick-the working capital they required amounted to a total of $189, being at the rate of 50 cents per establishment. And these 371 industrial establishments, according to this same veracious volume, distributed $14,500 in wages, being an average, as nearly as I can roughly calculate, of about $38 per year, or 75 cents per week for each. That Is not all by any means. It has a most pleasant feature, to which 1 call the attention of the House. Here you have an absolutely unparalleled industrial expansion, such as I have never seen, or heard, or read of-and my studies of statistics have been prolonged for many years-and yet there is absolutely no friction between capital and labour. I am proud to say that there was a complete absence of strikes, unless, indeed, it be paralytic strikes which, considering the fact that most of these establishments were operated by ancient ladies well stricken in years, is not much to be wondered at. As to any agitation for greater wages or shorter hours of labour, the thing was absolutely unknown. Employers and employed were not merely united, but it is literally true that they were a unit in the great majority of these ' industrial institutions.' Now, I do not know who conducts the campaign literature on the other side. But if it is my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor), I have a mind to make him a sporting offer. Here is magnificent material for a campaign document. Sir, it would require a much less ingenious gentleman than my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) or my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson) to construct such
head lines as ' Rise and Decline of the Carpet Weaving Industry,' showing how that industry had expanded under the Conservative rule from a miserable 11 establishments in 1881, to 557 in 1891. And, Sir-this is a further detail not yet in possession of the House, which I feel it my duty to give- you have the further fact that under the baleful influence o>f the Liberal administration, and, I suppose, of a British preference. 550 industrial establishments for carpet making shrinking to 10 in 1901. It is true that the 10 appear to produce a great deal more than the 557 did, but that is a mere detail quite unworthy of the hon. gentleman's notice. Now, my offer is this : I think a most admirable campaign document, illus trative of the great effects of the national policy, could be produced. If my hon. friend will give me bonds that he will pay for the printing and see to the distribution, why, Sir, I will write it myself.


James Clancy: And will the right hon. gentleman send it out under his own frank?


Richard John Cartwright: I was about to say that I will arrange - with the Postmaster General, if it cannot be all distributed during the session I will frank it. On a former occasion I pointed out to the House-and laid a considerable number of documents on the table in proof of my assertion-that this census of 1891 had been conducted with such remarkable energy that the census enumerators in twenty-one counties in the province of Quebec had discovered in March in two months 40,000 more people than the parochial authorities had been able to find in January. So. you have here the great triumphs of the national policy-557 industrial establishments created out of 11. and done it so cheaply too ; and. next the discovery of 40,000 people who nad not been known to exist before. But, that is not all : there is a greater feat in store behind. In the course of my examination, and my hon. friend's examination, of the census we discovered that we had not at all appreciated utticiently the energy and ability with which the census of 1891 had been conducted. It gives me pleasure, Sir, to give to the House certain details. If my hon. friends opposite will condescenjl to look at the first volume of the census of 1891, they will find that the total average of each country is given. If they will go to the second volume which I have here, they will find the number of acres occupied in each county also given in detail. Sir, the results are very remarkable. Having added 40,000 people to the population of Lower Canada, I suppose it occurred to them that it would be only right to provide the
40,000	with a local habitation. And this is the way they appear to have done it :-According to the first volume of the census the county of Bagot contained 214,840 acres. But, in the second volume we find that the thrifty inhabitants of Bagot occupy 247,654 acresEand the details are given at great
I

length, so much in garden and so much in farm, so much in pasture land and so on. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to dispute the facts. Here are the details set out in full. I give them Bagot as an illustration. As I have said, Bagot according to the surveyor's account contained 214,840 acres. But, according to the census enumerators' account, which gives total occupied in crop, total in pasture, total in wbod and forest, and total in orchard, the areas of occupied land were 247.645-that is 191,000 improved ; 132,000 under crop, 57,000 in pasture, 56,000 in wood and forest and 1,700 in orchard and garden. And so it went on. Beauharnois, according to the surveyors had a total area of 89,280 acres and this was converted into 114,564 ; Chambly had 87,319 acres, converted into 101.105; Chateauguay had 159,840, increased to 174,216 ; Deux Montagnes had 165,187 acres, expanded into 183,402 ; Hochelaga's 51,505 became 74,800 ; Iberville's 120,960 became 139,191. And so with Jacques Cartier, Laprairie, L'Assomption, Laval, L6vig, Na-pierville, Quebec city, Richelieu, Rouville, St. Hyacinthe, St. Jean, Soulanges, Trois Rivi&res, Vaudreuil, Vereheres and Yamas-ka fall these counties received at the hands of these gentlemen an increase of something like ten per cent. The total area of these counties, according to the first volume of the census, is 2,624.003 acres, while the total area of occupied land according to the second volume of the census is 3,015,083 acres.
Now, I call that a great feat, Sir. If it be, as many have thought, a thing deserving of high commendation that a man should make two blades of grass grow where one grew before, what eulogy would be too great for the man who contrived to extract 400,000 acres in Lower Canada out of nothing ? Why, Sir, two whole counties like Nicolet or Bagot have been added by these generous persons to the total area of the province of Quebec. I know this is an unbelieving generation ; I know it is a commonplace to say that the age of miracles is past. But I say : Perish such scoffers, the age of miracles is here. All you want are the proper accessories. Given a Conservative administration, given a national policy, given a census commisioner who is a competent man and who thoroughly understands his business-and the miracle is there. You evolve 550 industrial establishments out of 11 ; you bring 40,000 people from nowhere. You create 400,000 acres out of nothing. Let my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) if he can, equal that. I know he is a zealous, a capable, a most efficient minister. I know he has added millions upon millions to the agricultural wealth of the country and I hope he will go on and add still more. But we have his census, a census which cost twice as much-as hon. gentlemen opposite have informed him-as the previous census did. But where are his 557 industrial establishments evolved out Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
of 11 ?-Where has he found 40,000 'people more than the parochial authorities had found ? Where has he discovered 400,000 acres more territory than the surveyors found in the province of Quebec.
So much for the past ;-a word or two as to the future. And here again I admit that I do not desire to count too much on continued prosperity. We have had great good fortune ; I trust we may continue to have it. But I would not desire that we should count too absolutely on that. Let us see what policy the opposition have to propose ; let us see what policy we have to propose. Sir, what have the Liberal party done in the past ? They have diminished taxes and increased revenue. What have the Conservative party done in the past ? They have increased taxes and reduced revenue. Their policy was tried for eighteen years and you have seen in what that policy culminated. What did these hon. gentlemen say, in effect to us ? This : We cannot deny, they say, that Canada is prosperous ; we cannot deny that your policy has been successful, even phenomenal ; therefore, let us change it; let us go back to the good old days, when trade increased at about the rate of one half of one per cent; when population was at a standstill, when taxes went into private persons' pockets ; when Canada was a by-word for corruption from one end of the civilized world to the other, when these men gave away an empire to a set of railway promoters for a less sum than would pay the cost of their surveys-surely if you want to go back to the good old times, these are the very men to bring that about. They think the farmers are too prosperous and they declare it is time to bleed them ; the surplus is too large, the taxes are too low ; too much goes into the Treasury, too little goes to other parties ; they wish to cut down the surplus, to increase the taxes to enrich the few at the expense of the many. Again the two policies are before the people of Canada to choose which they will have. The policy of hon. gentlemen opposite is a policy of high tariff and low revenue, a policy which was tried and found wanting during a matter of 18 years, under which we lost a million of our best people and another million of immigrants, who ought to have settled on our shores, a policy of degradation and a policy of stagnation. What did the national policy do for us hon. gentlemen opposite want to know .? I have here a curious and interesting little statement. It is known to all men that between the years 1860 and 1870 the United States were visited with a terrible and desolating civil war. That war raged most fiercely, and was most severely felt in Virginia, Tennessee, the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Texas, Mississippi and Missouri. Sir, what was the result in ten years in those 12 or 15 states that I have enumer-

ated. In 1860 their population was 9,849,000. In 1870 their population was 11,166,000. They had increased therefore, in that period by nearly 1,316,000. The point to which I desire to call attention is that in these 13 southern states, which for four years bore the brunt of a desolating civil war. which for 6 years thereafter were handed over to the tender mercies of negro-legislators, and carpet-bag administrators, the rates of growth-even admitting, which 1 do not admit, that the statement in our census for 1880 and 1890 is correct-was considerably larger in those four years of civil war, and 6 years of negro rule, than it was in the Dominion of Canada after 10 years of Conservative mis-government. Sir, do hon. gentlemen want to restore that condition of things or does the country desire to restore it ? Yonder are the very men to do it.
Nowr Sir, what of the Liberal policy ? How do we propose to perpetuate this prosperity and to keep up the stream of immigration ? Let the hon. gentlemen hear and listen and learn if they can. How do we propose to increase the national wealth of this country ?


An hon. MEMBER.: Taxation.


Richard John Cartwright: No, our policy was to reduce taxation.


David Henderson: It was a failure.


Richard John Cartwright: Does the hon. gentleman know or do any of these hon. gentlemen know that the result of the British preference last year was to reduce the rate of taxation from about 30 to 18 per cent, and remember that this reduction affected not merely the goods imported directly from Great Britain but had also a most powerful effect in regulating the price of other goods w'hich the people of Canada had to pay' for those imported from other countries and those produced by our own manufacturers. If they do not, let them consult the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce and they will see.
Our policy is simple, sensible and straightforward.	.
First of all we desire to bring in large immigration and to make vast areas of territory available for settlement. Next we desire to arrange for continuous settlement, a most important point; we desire to bridge the obstructive gaps which separate the settled portions of the country We desire to provide fair railway competition so that the settlers may get fair value for then1 products and we desire above all to put the taxes into the public exchequer.
What will this railway policy do for us ? It will throw open 300,000 square miles, one way with another, I grant not all good but even the bad has its resources. I grant that much of it is probably not profitable, but much remains which is very valuable and available for settlement.
Now a word as to the risk we are taking.
I want to show our probable outlay, taking the most unfavourable possible view, compared with our resources and with the resources w'hich the Conservative party possessed when they engaged in a similar undertaking three and thirty years ago. These hon. gentlemen are never weary of telling us that Sir John Macdonald did wisely in 1871 in accepting the risk which he accepted. There may be two opinions as to that. I will state presently what risk he took, and compare that with the risk which we ourselves are taking. Now I will suppose that we have to do the whole work ourselves. I will suppose, although there is no just ground for any such supposition -that there is no return. I will suppose that this road is to cost one hundred, one hundred and twenty or one hundred and fifty millions, if you will. Sir, it w'ill do no such thing, the interest on the great bulk of the outlay will be provided in a few years, directly by the Grand Trunk, indirectly through settlement. I point out that if we succeed in opening up 300,000 square miles, one single family per square league will pay for our outlay ; one person per mile will pay us many times. How does our risk compare with the risk run, as they say with so much wisdom and foresight, by ov.fr Conservative predecessors ? If hon. gentlemen will look back to the figures I gave a little while ago, they will see that in 1871 Sir John Macdonald's total net income after deducting charges over which he had no control, was very little over $8,000,000. Our net income is over $32,000,000. Sir John Macdonald, if his bargain had been carried out as proposed, risked at the very least $7,000,000 out of his $8,000,000 in the enterprise. That amounted to at least 90 per cent of his whole income. At the outside we propose to risk a matter of 10 per cent or 12 per cent of our income. I do not believe any thing like that will be risked. I do not believe there is the slightest fear that the Grand Trunk will abandon the enterprise in w'hich they have joined us. I do not believe that there is the least doubt that a very large part of the interest on our expenditure will be repaid to us long, long before the next decade has closed. More than that I have pointed out that our net income to-day in 1904, is fourfold the net income of Canada in 1871. I point this out further that although there is a temporary rise in the rate of interest there is a very strong probability that in all human likelihood the rate of interest will fall again long before we shall require to become extensive borrowers, and then we will obtain our money at a rate about one half what Sir John Macdonald had to pay. Then too the facility of construction is vastly greater now than it was then. I remember perfectly well the conditions under which that enterprise commenced in 1871, and as I recollect there

was not a single railroad on tire American line within 300 miles of the Manitoba frontier or within about 400 miles of the proposed route of railway proposed to travel.
Sir, we have provided from the start for a large traffic on this road. We have a great corporation enlisted as supporters in this enterprise and the movement of population in that direction is now as well established as anything can well be, and lastly there are no onerous concessions attached to this road, by whomever it may be built ; there is no monopoly of the rights of building roads, no exemption from taxes, full control over freight rates. But hon. gentlemen call these trifles. I would like to hear my hon. friends from the west state what is thought there as to the importance of the concessions to the people of this country. The great drain has been stopped, the new blood is pouring in. We have a very considerable surplus to assist us. The risk we run as compared with the risk run with the full approval of these hon. gentlemen is [DOT] almost absolutely insignificant. There is the very best reason for believing that the influx of settlement into the region we shall open up will far more than repay to our revenue all that we can possibly lose thereby..
And now. Sir, in conclusion what shall I say to my hon. friends opposite ?


An hon. MEMBER.: Nothing.


Richard John Cartwright: Oh ye of little faith, ye strainers at gnats and swallowers of alternative camels, blind leaders of the blind, you gentlemen who will pose as Conservative statesmen and lend yourselves to policies which a demagogue might be ashamed of; you gentlemen on the opposite side who are everlastingly deafening our ears with your zeal for British connection, although you never held up your little finger to help British connection, you gentlemen who admire British institutions in theory, and not in practice, and who have proved yourselves the most successful imitators of the worst Yankee tricks that were ever invented, from tariff abominations to gerrymanders of sorts you never learn. Must I apply to my hon. friend the Speaker for permission to bring to this august hall a blackboard on which I may prove to these hon. gentlemen that two and two make four, that 1871 is not the same thing as 1904, that between 1890 and 1904 there is a great gulf, a gulf almost as wide and deep as that which separate the innocent lambs on your right from the goats or Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should more correctly say the wolves in sheep's clothing who gnash their teeth on your left. These hon. gentlemen for so long have shut their eyes to the plainest facts that they have lost the power of vision. They have been so politically colour-blind that they cannot tell black from white, or right from wrong, or truth from falsehood, and what makes the case sadder still is that Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
when benevolent parties like myself hearing of this bad case of political cataract, have tried in a spirit of the purest philanthropy to let in a few rays of light to their darkened minds, and still more darkened consciences, the patients are apt to use bad language, and rear and bite the hand that would heal them. You know, Mr. Speaker, from your researches in Holy Writ, and I know from my personal experiences the fate that is apt to befall reformers who in an evil moment east economic pearls of truth before a certain description of animals. To my Liberal friends I have also a word or two to say. Remember what befell the children of Israel, when they had come very close to the borders of the promised land. They had trounced the Midianitish men, but thereafter they were in imminent danger of falling victims to the wiles of the Midianitish women, and it required very sharp and drastic remedies to save them from disaster. I say to them to beware of those Delilahs, with whom our camp has been swarming since 1890, who will take all they have and give them nothing in return, who will make a mock of them who will shear them, strip them and sell them exceedingly cheap. For myself I think I may say tha'c I am immune, and that I can defy the craftiest daughter of Eve who ever wore scissors at her girdle to shear my locks. Delilah may get my scalp but she never could get my hair. I say to my hon. friends that they have builded better than they knew, and that when they go to the country, they will go with a record that was never yet Approached. Sir, it is a simple fact that the record of the Liberal party from 1897 to 1904, let hon. gentlemen say what they will, is not merely the best in the history of Canada since confederation, but it is the best in the commercial history of the world for the last seven years. Sir, they have wiped out the reproach which for 30 years we have had to endure. It was said :	You Canadians boast that you
possess a magnificent territory, a territory of vast resources, a territory of unsurpassed fertility in great part, a territory of great area, a territory which is able to contain and support in prosperity fifty million or one hundred million of people and yet you have only 5,000,000 of inhabitants and you have not been able to keep your people in your own territory. You have become a little better than a mere breeding ground for the people of the United States. For 30 years the record with which you were faced was that every third person between the age of 18 and 40 born and reared in Canada, found his way into the United States and of the immigrants that came into the country you are only able to keep ten per cent. All that was true, all that was deplorably true, but I am glad to say that we have changed all that. In the present decade there is very good ground to hope that we will gain a million to be added to our own popula-


S, 1904
[Stage Direction]
tion, and Instead of losing half a million, and those, too, the flower of our own population, we are gaining the flower of theirs. Now, I say to my hon. friends that I advise them not to be mock modest about these things. I advise them to claim credit for all that they have a right to claim credit for. I admit that we have had great good fortune, but the greatest opportunities will come in vain unless these opportunities are well used. It is true that we have had a good chance, but it is not true that we have gained population in the ratio we have lately done from the United States without great and long continued exertion. The ground was ploughed, the ground was harrowed. the seed was sown and we are now reaping the crop of the exertions of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior in' the last seven years. Sir, it is not true that our increase in trade, especially in the matter of thd increase in agricultural products. has been obtained without exertion and without careful provision on the part of this government. Least of all is it true that the overflowing treasury that we are now possessed of and which we have filled at greatly reduced rates of taxation from those which prevailed before could have been gained * without adopting what was substantially a revenue tariff, as an hon. gentleman opposite was forced in spite of himself to admit the other evening. That is what I claim for the Liberal party ; no more, no less. Let our opponents juggle as they will, let them mis-state, let them misrepresent and detract as they please, they cannot alter these great facts that in the last seven years the net revenue of Canada has quadrupled, that in the last seven years the increase in the volume of trade is double that which took place in the past 30 years, that our population is increasing to-day in all probability at the rate of
1,000	per cent, certainly at the rate of 500 per cent faster than it was in the decade before. Now, Sir, I do not pretend to say that I or anybody else can undertake to guarantee this country against reverses. We may have to face a world wide depression, as other countries have had to face it. We may have a succession of bad harvests. There mav be difficulties, dangers and disappointments. There may be financial troubles, wars and rumours of wars. We may have a chapter of adverse accidents to encounter, but if my hon. friends of the Liberal party are only half as constant to good government and good principle as these hon. gentlemen opposite have shown themselves to evil ones, Sir, I believe that the close of the next decade will see Canada still standing where Canada is to-day, and that is not merely amongst the foremost but the first, primus inter pares, of all the nations, not only of those with whom we trade, but of every considerable nation throughout the civilized world.
Air. RUFUS H. POPE (Compton).: I have listened with particular interest to the hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright). He is an old parliamentarian and an old politician ; he has retired to some extent from active work in his political party, and having found himself on the shelf, and it being a year since we heard from him last,
I thought that possibly during the intervening twelve months he might have discovered something new to talk about. I was disappointed. We heard the old speech of last year from the Knight of South Oxford. We will probably hear it again. At his time of life and in view of the great exertion that it is for him to speak, I think it would be permissible that in the future his speeches be reprinted from year to year in ' Hansard ' of sessions to come. The gallant Knight from South Oxford, evidently on false information supplied to him, charged my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) that in a moment of weakness he had spoken words that might be interpreted as indicating views favourable to free trade, and he told the member for Pictou that he would give him information on that subject as well as on others. Well, there is no man in this House, who from his experience of having jumped from one political party to another, is better able to give advice on 'that score than is the member for South Oxford. I was carried back many years in memory as I listened to the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I cannot resist the temptation of referring to some of the things which were brought to my mind in connection with his public life. Before the general elections of 1896 when the Conservative party was beaten in the country, there was one lonely politician travelling his native province, forsaken and unattended. Somebody called attention to his solitude, and the member for South Oxford replied :
Wolves hunt in packs but lions hunt alone.
The lion of course, was the right hon. gentleman himself ; to-day the lion is in his den. Here is another sample of oratory from a speech which Sir Richard Cartwright delivered at Norwich in 1895 :
He declared if the Liberals won he would be called upon to take the difficult and dangerous post of Minister of Finance. He said it was a post which I will neither seek. nor shirk. It is not one which any man who understands the situation is likely to court for some years to come, and as far as I am personally concerned It may very well be you will render me a service by keeping me out of it.
He thought he would be Finance Minister, and so also apparently the Prime Minister thought, but when the hour came to select a Minister of Finance the member for South Oxford was rejected and another found in his stead. They probably had discovered in the meantime in the diagram with which they have supplied us, this

statement of the trade in Canada [DOT] between 1S75 and 1879 when Sir Richard Cartwright was Minister of Finance, and they feared that experience again. Even this Liberal administration that has broken every pledge it has given to the people, that has rejected every plank of its own platform to adopt the platform of its political rivals : that is constantly stealing other people's clothing and casting off their own ; even that party cannot find it in its heart of hearts to make Sir Richard Cartwright Minister of Finance. But this was not the first time Sir Richard Cartwright was rejected ; he had another bitter experience of the same kind in days gone by. This letter will explain as to how he felt on the occasion of his first turn down.
(Copy.)
Kingston, Oct. 12th, 1869. My dear Sir John,-I notice with great regret that Sir F. Hincks has been gazetted. From the tenor of my former note of the subject you will probably not be surprised to learn that I fear I cannot support that gentleman. Of course as in duty bound I will await your explanations of the grounds of this appointment, but it is so unlikely that they wrill be such as to enable me to concur in it that I think it only fair to notify you at once that however well disposed I was and am towards yourself and the rest of your colleagues, I cannot feel the same confidence as heretofore in the administration in which Sir F. Hincks holds office.
So far as you are concerned I do not suppose one supporter more or less matters much just now, and so far as I myself am concerned I am thoroughly alive to the gravity of the step I am taking, but this is a matter in which 1 have no option.
.	Yours very sincerely,
(Sgd.) RICHARD J. CARTWRIGHT.
Sir John Macdonald, K.C.B.
Well, Sir, from a gentleman who there announced such high principles, I would expect to find that after 1896 he would retain some shadow at least of the principles set forth in this letter to Sir John A. Macdonald. At a banquet given to Sir Richard Cartwright not very many years ago the Prime Minister took occasion to pay compliments to Sir Richard Cartwright and here is what he said about him :
In the days of Mr. Mackenzie, when the country "was much depressed, there were many who believed that if the tariff was increased, that policy would be justified by the necessities of the revenue, and that it would be a valuable policy for the country at large. I can give you the story without betraying the secrets, because these things happened before my day, but if the voice of Richard Cartwright had prevailed at that time this policy would have been adopted. If it was not accepted it was on account of other influences which prevailed with the government of the day, and for sixteen or twenty years Sir Richard bore the brunt of the obloquy of not having responded to public sentiment, w'hereas


Rufus Henry Pope: | the truth was, he was ready to respond to public sentiment. For eighteen years he bore the brunt of all the obloquy, and never whispered a word. ... It is not every day you can find such abnegation, and such loyalty to the party, and I have reason to believe and repeat to you-I not only repeat it to you, my colleagues, but I wish my words to be heard all over Canada-that Canada little knows the debt of gratitude it owes to Sir Richard Cartwright.
Here is a statement by the Prime Minister that while Sir Richard Cartwright was not true to his principles, he still continued a minister of the Crown hanging on to his salary, advocating a policy he did not believe in, and throwing Canada's trade into a depth of depression the like of which was never witnessed before. And if to-day we have the prosperity which the hon. gentleman can boast of, it is due to the policy of the Conservative party, fought against and denounced as it was for twenty years by the party now in power. The hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) complained that the Conservative party had been true to themselves, and that while they attended to the constituencies represented by their friends they neglected the constituencies which returned opponenrs. Well, there is no fear that the Minister of Trade and Commerce will forget his friends. No one who reads the public accounts can charge him with ingratitude.
As I was looking through the pages of history, I could almost fancy that all the Canadian public were named Cartwright.
I found F. L. Cartwright, with $1,000 ; Col. R. Cartwright, with $2,890 ; secretary Cartwright of the Railway Commission, with $4,000; Rev. Cartwright, of the Kingston penitentiary, with $1,200; Henry George Cartwright, with $550 ; the secretary of Sir Richard Cartwright, nephew, with $2,200 ; and, last but not least, the salary of the gallant knight himself ; making a total of $20,250 a year that the people of this country pay for the privilege of having the Cartwright family in Canada, If the gallant knight for South Oxford wants to publish the literature of the Liberal party, let him take the sheet which I have just read ; and if he feels that he cannot circulate it I will reciprocate the kind offer he made to this side of the House, by having it printed and circulated for the benefit of the Liberal party, in order that the people of Canada may know the great financial sacrifices which the Cartwright family have mad * for the country. Alexander Mackenzie said that Canada does not care for a rigid adherence to principles of government. I wonder what that hon. gentleman would say now if he were here to witness the giving away not only of principles, but, what is more sacred, the very life of the gallant member for South Oxford, a man of such wonderful abilities that he selected himself

to be Minister of Finance before he gained power. I listened to-day to the old chestnuts which the hon. gentleman was telling us. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be charitable. There is a time in every man's life when the mind ceases to operate on the present and future, and only applies itself to the past 'Consequently th;e hon. gentleman is confined to those two or three old stories on this subject which he* has given us so many times in the past.
In regard to the hon. gentleman's position in this House, every man's history or position in Canada is what he makes it. If he found himself driven from the Liberal party in 1896, wandering about alone in the province of Ontario-if the party to which he belongs and which he had been affiliated all those years could not afford to tolerate him as one of their associates on the political platform-if he had achieved such a failure as that, I want to ask what was the result of his labours in those years when he was deriding Canada, and applying to it all the bad names and adjectives that he could find in the English language. The only effect of it was to turn away from our shores hundreds of thousands of people who would have come here to make homes for themselves. We on this side of the House had to fight for our great western country, and none knows it better than the hon. gentleman himself, whose articles defaming this country were published in magazines and sent broadcast by American railroad companies throughout the known world. Under these circumstances it is not to be wondered at that the western states were settled before western Canada.
^ There was a true patriotic people and no Richard John Cartwright in the United States. At that time we had to fight for ihe building of a railroad into our western country, against the opposition of the right hon. gentleman both in this House and in the country, and against his threats to the farmers that it would mortgage their farms for the rest of their lives. The hon. gentleman's course tended to prevent the people of Canada learning the real truth as to our western country, so that when the railroad was constructed, and the time for settling the country came, and we applied to our own people what did we find ? We found that the speeches delivered by hon. gentlemen opposite and their resolutions moved in parliament had the effect of turning the tide of immigration to the western states instead of to western Canada. So we had to begin to convert our own Canadian people to a realization of the wealth and the future possibilities of that great western country, as well as to remove the prejudice against it which had been created in the minds of foreigners. At that time the United States had no surplus population, while they had plenty of territory, and they were bringing in millions of foreign people to settle upon their vacant
lands. It was not until a later period that the Canadian Northwest began to fill up* and during the later years of the Conservative administration we began to send immigration agents into the western states and into eastern states as well-and some of these men continue to be employed by the present government and are doing good work-and in that way we laid the foundation of that influx of population into that country which has taken place in recent years, including the return from the United States of many Canadians ; and the members of this House will not complain if every Canadian who went to the United States learns of the true value of our great Northwest, and returns to the land of his nativity. We will welcome every one of them. With regard to settlers' effects, that question is confined chiefly to the west. No settlers' effects to any particular extent comq, into eastern Canada. The law with regard to them has been the law of the land for many years, and it may continue to be for some years to come, so that no special credit can be taken for it by one party or the other.
No hon. gentleman on the other side can say that he, and he alone, or the policy and the party to which he belongs, created that inflow of people. It is the natural overflow of the United States, and England, and of eastern Canada, that is beginning to come into Canada instead of going abroad, as it did in all those years I have referred to. But if you take settlers' effects, you will find that in 1902 the value of $1,500,000 went from Canada Into the United States. That would be almost altogether from Eastern Canada. You can run down through a period of several years, and you will find each year -settlers' effects to the value of t million and a quarter dollars have gone into the United States, so that when the hon. member for South Oxford (iSir Richard Cartwright) claims that the exodus from Canada to the United States is a thing of the past, he cannot, if he has any sincerity or truth, base that claim on anything except his own belated imagination. The right hon. gentleman only gave one set of statements. When I heard him give quotations from the Bible, I began to hope that he had been imbibing in his heart of hearts the truths of that great volume, and that we would have no more one-sided statements presented by him, but in this I was sadly mistaken.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 89) to incorporate the Cedar Rapids Manufacturing and Power Company.-Mr. Guthrie.
Mr. BRODKUR.: I understand that the promoters are not anxious to go on with the Bill, and move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


OTTAWA RIVER RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 78) respecting the Ottawa River Railway Company.-Mr. Ethier.
On section 4,
Section 13 of the said Act is repealed.
Mr. CHRISTIE.: I move that this section be struck out.


Mr. ETHIER.: As I am promoting the Bill I think it but right that I should furnish some explanation concerning the motion of the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Christie). Last year this House granted a charter to the Ottawa River Railway Company. In that Bill, which was sanctioned on the 24th of Qctober, there was an unusual -I might say an extraordinary-clause. That is the section 13, which this Bill proposes to repeal, and which reads as follows :
The company shall deposit with the government. within six months from the passing of this Act, plans of the main line between Grenville and Montreal, and on the approval of such plans shall deposit with the government the sum of $25,000 as a guaranty for the construction of the line.
Within six months from the 24th of October the company had the surveys from Montreal to Grenville made and the plans deposited in the hands of the Railway Commission, and these were approved on the 25th of May -last. In the meantime the company obtained legislation from the legislative assembly at Toronto for a charter from Hawkesbury to Georgian bay. Now it is la;pplying to complete its system from Hawkesbury to Ottawa, and is asking thaL this condition requiring a deposit of $25,000 should be withdrawn. The Railway Committee decided in favour of withdrawing it, but at the instance of the hon. member for Argenteuil, we are disposed, in order to show our good faith and sincerity, to have the section amended in this way :
That section 13 of the said Act is amended by striking out the words ' within six months of the passing of this Act ' on line two thereof, and substituting therefor the words ' on or before the 1st of October, 1904.'
If my hon. friend will withdraw his motion, I would propose that section 4 of the Bill be struck out and that in its place be substituted the clause I have just read.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Does the hon. member for Argenteuil withdraw bis motion ?


Thomas Christie: Yes.
Amendment (Mr. Ethier) agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported, read the third time and passed.


Rufus Henry Pope: 


SPRAGUE'S FALLS MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
On the order.
Resuming adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Henderson for the third reading of Bill (No. 42) respecting the Sprague's Falls Manufacturing Company, Limited.	.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I ask that this Bill be allowed to stand in the absence of the Minister of Labour (Sir Wm. Muloek). That hon. gentleman intended to look into this Bill, and I do not know whether he has had an opportunity to do so or not. I' would ask that the Bill be allowed to stand until his return.


David Henderson: I have no desire to press the Bill. I only moved the third reading in the absence of the promoter (Mr. Ganong). I suppose it will come up again on Friday evening.
Order allowed to stand.


SECOND READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 126) respecting certain patents of Siegfried Gironcoli.-Mr. MacKinnon.
Bill (No. 129) respecting certain patents of Edwin R. Cahoone.-Mr. German.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding:
That the Speaker do now leave the chair, for the House to go into committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be presented to His Majesty.
["I am very sorry to say there are not many. But when Canada gets big enough to sustain an industry of that kind, such an industry will survive and not till then. There are other reasons which I might give to the hon. gentleman, but I do not need to mention them now. However, here is some information which will be interesting to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith). In the Brantford newspapers we find that the following manufacturers want the following number of labourers, and the statement is given of the wages to be paid.\nBuck Works :\n12 labourers at $1.50 per day.\n12 moulders (piece work).\n12 stove plate moulders.\nCockshutt Plough Works :\n12 labourers at $1.35 per day.\n*\t3 blacksmiths at $1.50 to $2.\nVerity Works :\n20 labourers at $1.35 per day.\n2 blacksmiths at $1.50 to $2.\n6 hammermen, $2.\n12 handymen at $1.40 to $1.75.\nWaterous Works :\n6 labourers at $1.45.\n6 blacksmiths at $2 to $2.50.\nMassey-Harris Works :\n24 handymen, $1.35 and over.\nSchultz Bros. :\n12 carpenters, $2 to $2.50.\n6 bricklayers, $4.\n20 plasterers, $3.50.\nCockshutt Road Company :\n15 shovellers, $1.75,\n15 cement men.\n\nA summary of the above table shows that the following workmen are required :-\nLabourers\t   50\nMoulders\t 12\nStove platers\t 12\nBlacksmiths\t 11\nHammer workers\t 6\nHandymen\t 36\nCarpenters\t 12\nBricklayers\t 6\nPlasterers\t 20\nShovellers\t 15\nCement men\t 15\nTotal\t195\nHere we have 195 men advertised for in Brantford, and there is a further advertisement for 100 more men to work on a new railway. And yet they tell us that Canada is not prosperous. Why, the city of Brantford is only a specimen of what is going on all over the country. The same thing is going on in Peterborough, in Hamilton, and in other cities, and it is gong on under the present tarff. These gentlemen opposite told us that twenty per cent was too low a tariff on harvesters. But is was high enough to drive the Deering Company over here to establish a factory in Canada and to invest millions of money and give employment to hundreds of working men. The tariff is big enough to drive one industry after another from the United States over to this country. It is adequate for that purpose. And have we not the statement of the leader of the opposition, that, when he was asked whether or not if the Conservative party came into power they would raise the duty on agricultural implements, his reply was :\nI said if it were necessary for the purpose of preserving that great Canadian industry, I would be prepared to raise the duty.\nIf the industry can be preserved it is not necessary to raise the duty, and the best evidence that it can be preserved is that the Cockshutt Plough Company has enlarged its factory three times in seven years, and that the Verity Plough Company, and Goold, Shapley and Muir have done the same thing, and all of them have largely increased the number of their employees during that seven years. That is a specimen of the development in Canada to day, and yet some people want to change the 'tariff under which such things are accomplished, and introduce a high tariff which might bring about the conditions which exist in the United States. I am quite satisfied that when this commission examines into the various industries, the government will be able to revise the tariff once more in the interests of the people of Canada, so that there may be continued to us that prosperity inaugurated seven years ago, under which our people are so happy and so contented. I believe in the tariff changes made by the government so far as I can understand them. I 1434\nbelieve these tariff changes will bring about a certain degree of prosperity to the woollen industry, and I am satisfied that those interested in that industry are content with the change. If the announcement of the Finance Minister is carried out, and when that commission investigates the existing conditions, I am satisfied that a tariff suitable to the changed conditions will be given to the people by this government, and that the fiscal legislation of the Liberal party will redound in the future to the welfare and prosperity of the people of Canada, as it has done in the past.\nOn motion of Mr. Vrooman the debate was adjourned.\nOn motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.", 'Thursday, June 9, 1904.']
Rufus Henry Pope: Mr. Speaker, before we went to dinner, I had had a half hour's pleasant occupation in discussing matters connected with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) and something of his record in relation to the public affairs of Canada. I am not disappointed that that right hon. gentleman has not returned this evening. I can excuse him owing to the condition of his health, and I believe it is not altogether too pleasant for the gallant knight to listen to the truths set down in his own record. We had discovered, during our discussion this afternoon, a certain page of Canadian history which may be called the Cartwright page ; and on that page are engraved the names of many Cartwrights, who are being paid for their services-good or bad-to this country at the rate of about $20,000 a year, I take it for granted that these gentlemen have been occupying for the last seven or eight years the positions they now occupy. For I know that the gallant knight is of charitable, friendly, family-loving disposition and would not allow any children who bear his name to he out in

the cold a moment longer than is necessary. And so, we find that the occupancy of these positions by these gentlemen has cost the public about $160,000. And what do we get for all that, besides the odd services that may be rendered by these gentlemen, tlje foundation of whose influence in securing the position that they occupy is the name they bear. It is that the right hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) delivers us a speech once a year-and the same old speech. It seems to me that this is a little hard even for a speech from such a great authority as the gallant knight from South Oxford is estimated to be by the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. We also this afternoon spent a few moments in reading a letter which he had written to the late Sir John A. Macdonald in days gone by, telling the great statesman that it would be impossible for him to occupy a position in the government or support him further if Sir Francis Hincks were taken into the administration and made Finance Minister. In those days the people would have expected the right hon. gentleman to act upon a higher plane than the mere consideration of salary. However, he saw fit to stamp his record, even in those early days, with the principle that ue could not belong to a party in which he was'not permitted to dictate his occupancy of the position to the Finance Minister or member of the cabinet, and so he left his former party. He had not then an opportunity to show his great ability as Finance Minister. But that opportunity came to him later on, and certainly his record as Finance Minister of Canada is not one that he can be very proud of, especially when he looks at the diagram to which I took occasion to refer this afternoon. In that diagram appears the great monument, the high tower, of dismal failure in Canada which was the production of his genius as Finance Minister.
Then it can be said that he has twice as high a tower as any one else in the financial world has1 ever been able to build when dabbling with the finances of Canada. I do not know that there would be any better place for the hon. member who at other times has offered us free epitaphs to have his written than on the top of that very tower which he. through his financial genius, has constructed as part of the financial history of this country. I also referred to that lonely march of that hon. gentleman through Ontario previous to 1896, which the Prime Minister will remember. I have no doubt that the heart of the Prime Minister who was known to be a sympathetic man went out on many occasions when he thought of his old colleague wandering about in his native province- from place to place when nobody even would have him speak. I understand that history is repeating itself and that now he is wandering around for a constituency.
I also gave the Prime Minister's testimony as to the great suffering of the right hon. gentleman during the eighteen years that he occupied that position of smothering his true feelings for the benefit of a hypocritical party. It is a sad sight indeed to think of a man, such a lion as he represented himself to be in his wanderings through Ontario, a lion of force and energy, of honesty, economy, and of purity and all those elements that should make a man attractive in this country. Suffering in that way, it was hard to feel that after eighteen long long, long years he was pent up and had to act that double life which I am sure a man of his stern integrity would feel to be irksome. We can forgive him, I and older men on this side of the House, can forgive him for those vindictive adjectives which he used to hurl against us. It was his only relief, his only possibility of remaining alive ; his very existence depended on his having some ventilation, and he used to pour it out on us, volume after volume for eighteen years. Now that his party is in power he is wandering in search of a constituency and is only utilized in this House once a year to repeat a speech that has been repeated so often that it has become buffoonery and serves only for amusement for the man who utters it. It is a sad come down and is poor encouragement for younger men to enter public life, to suffer eighteen years, to be true and faithful and struggle on, under that terrible load of suffering and at the end of that time to have no constituency and be a poor old man like a wanderer going from door to door no one willing to have him. I do not suppose that any man could be more humbled or humiliated than the gallant knight of South Oxford, when he was not offered that position which he said he was going to have, the position of Finance Minister, which his leader had said he should have. When they went away down by the sea and picked out that secessionist and made him Finance Minister, it must have been an unkind cut to the man who thought he had always been loyal. The gallant knight stated when we thought of establishing the Department of Trade and Commerce that it was absolutely useless, that it was the fifth wheel to a coach and of no possible utility. In order to humble him that was the place selected for him by his colleagues. Of all political histories, taking his record as found in resolutions in the 1 Hansard ' of Canada, one way one year and another way the next year, looking at his fights against the industries that are to-day being endowed or bonused or given increased protection, like the woollen industry, which within a year he has denounced as being run upon old fashioned ideas, and having to suffer from that rather than from competition-looking into all these things I know of no life that is so sad as that of the gallant knight of



South Oxford-driven from party to party from constituency to constituency, driven from his constituency into the open road among the thistles and the weeds, and there left wandering until allowed to find a little rest in the department which he had said was of no use on earth, and goodness knows where his final resting place will be among the gentlemen who have him in charge.
The gallant knight took an opportunity to lecture this House for five or ten minutes last year as to the purity of the party with which he was associated, and the infamous corrupt character of the party on this side of the House. I thought that perhaps his memory had lost itself ; I was not surprised at that, age does have that effect, but it was astonishing to me that he didn't remember some of the history of the other side of the House. I thought that the gallant knight himself bore a reputation for electoral purity, and that he had fought his fights with an honest purpose, an honest desire, and with honest influences. I was astonished on looking up his history, to find him to be a self-confessed corruptionist. I found, Sir, that speaking in Napanee in 1873, Sir Richard Cartwright is reported in his own paper to have said :
He knew there was a large number of men in the country who wanted to be bought. He knew that because he had bought them twice.
When I read that and read a little farther down remarks made at the Club Nationale by his leader, as follows :
I would have you rely mainly on the justice of your cause, yet I have learned by experience that we must not forget those human devices that are so essential to victory.
It was then that I discovered the thread that kept together the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister of this country. It was that which accounted for the fact that they have never absolutely separated. There was one thing that they held in common, and that was the idea that power must be had, let the cost, or the conditions, or the influence used, be what they might. I was astonished when I read that, and I could not allow this opportunity to go by without putting this part of the record of the gallant knight of South Oxford on the pages of ' Hansard,' so that he may see that I have attempted to draw a true picture of his political life, and that I have not left out the facts which be must know t possessed at the time I was speaking. There may be many things I have not mentioned, but if there are it is because they have passed from my memory, or I have not a record of them. I would not like to mention anything in connection with his political history except from documentary evidence. Anything I have said of the gallant knight of South Oxford is to be found in the printed documents and in historical records of this country and of other countries, in the courts of law and in various places where Mr. POPE.
la man's history that is so peculiar as his is can be found. Now, before I consider the question of tariffs or revenues, it would be as well that we should follow up a little further the record of the gallant knight of South Oxford as it has appeared from time to time in the pages of history and in ' Hansard.' It does seem strange that a man who is supposed to be possessed of such extraordinary ability as the gallant knight of South Oxford should be living the peculiar life that was pictured by the right hon. Prime Minister in his description of him at the banquet some year or two ago. But we find this statement so recent, and we find this utterance coinciding so well with all the utterances of the gallant knight from South Oxford during the past twenty years, that if we had not the word of my right hon. friend himself at that banquet that his colleague had led a double life we would be disposed to disbelieve him. We would be disposed to think that it was one of those things that just leak out the same as information leaked out with reference to certain [things that took place in this House the other evening. But I find the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce using the following language :
I say our protective system was a huge mistake in so far as it was honest at all, and in so far as it was not honest, it was a huge scheme of robbery. A small ring and clique of combiners and protected manufacturers, who, as I have told you, have been permitted for years past to make a prey and plunder of the people of Canada, have held sway.
He says again :
I stand by the declaration I have made, that protection is nothing more nor less than a deliberate, legalized and organized robbery ; and, more than that, if you do not stamp it out it is the very high road to political slavery first, and industrial slavery afterwards.
[Considering that, considering the speech that we had delivered yesterday, and considering the promise we had from the lips of the hon. Finance Minister that not only had he done something in the way of protection yesterday, but that he had retained in the tariff of Canada the elements of incidental protection and that he proposed to consider for the future whether he would do more or not through the investigations of the commission, I ask is it not astonishing that the man who gave utterance to these words, and did so over and over again, should be the man who was selected to second the speech made by the hon. Finance Minister yesterday '! But, Sir, that is not all :
Our policy from first to last has been to destroy the villainous system of protection by free trade, revenue tariff, or continental free trade.
Well, Sir, they have our policy and here I believe I speak for my hon. friends be-

side me. Our policy is death to protection and war to the knife to corruption.
Mind you, he had discovered that men could be bought, because he tells us that he had bought them himself. He knew that corruption had been going on.
We strike and we will strike for liberty and freedom from this system of protective taxation.
The system that the right lion, gentleman has supported and drawn his salary under as a minister of the Crown for the last seven years.
And I can tell the hon. gentleman that we will not rest until the slavery that has been imposed upon us has become a thing of the past, and until Canadians are as free as Canadians ought to be free, to make the most they can of the opportunity God has given them.
Well, Sir, the Cartwright family have made the most of the opportunities that God has given them.
/)ur policy from first to last has been to destroy this villainous system of protection which has been grinding out the vitals of this
country	We denounce the principle of
protection as radically unsound and unjust to the masses of the people, and we declare our convictions that any tariff changes based on that principle, must fail to afford any substantial relief from the burdens under which the country labours. This- issue we unhesitatingly accept, and upon it we await, with the fullest confidence the verdict of the electorate of Canada.
They waited, they got the verdict, they got office, and they maintained the system. I
I will not be satisfied until the last vestige of protection has been removed from the soil of Canada. Our great reform is to put away from the soil of Canada the last vestige of protection.
He repeats that twice in that famous statement.
If the Liberals were successful, they would cut off the head of protection at once, and trample on its body.
Perhaps if the right hon. gentleman had not been so unfortunate as to become so lame that he cannot trample, he might have been trampling on the body of protection ; but if he had been trampling on the body of protection, he would have been walking roughshod all over the colleagues who have sat to the right and to the left of him for the last seven years.
We have been attacking this policy year by year. This is an accursed system, a system accursed of God and man.
These are terrible words about a policy which he has supported for the last seven years.
The system of protection has been the bane and the curse to Canada-the bane and the curse of Canada. I repeat.
142$
I think I have read enough to show that if that right hon. gentleman had had that sincerity that some hon. gentlemen on his side of the House have had on some occasions, he would have pursued a different course. We all remember that when the right hon. leader of the government tried to induce another member of his government who did not agree with the principles of the party to remain silently in possession of a cabinet position and let somebody put through the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill, the hon. gentleman got down and out. Where did the right hon. gentleman learn that trick He has known of one hon. gentleman who had for eighteen years been passing these resolutions and making these speeches from one end of Canada to the other, enunciating doctrines that he did not believe in. What an example this is to young men in public life in Canada ! Here you have the life-history of a man like the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, who, all these years, had been teaching and preaching a doctrine that he did not believe in, and which was an impracticable and impossible doctrine to apply in this country, asking the young men of Canada to follow under the flag which he raised and to support and endorse the false principles which he enunciated. I believe it would be better for men like this to be confined to no party at all, and that they should be required to depend absolutely on public opinion, because if that were the case we would not be bothered with them in public life in this country so long as we have been bothered with the hon. gentleman. It was under the cloak of party that, searching from place to place through the great province in which he was born, he managed to pawn himself off from time to time upon the indulgence of certain political alliances which found him a seat in this House. We have something more. In 1882 Mr. Cartwright, referring to Mr. Tilley's surplus, said :
I ask bow it 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 bread stuffs and coal.
Well, there is a tax to-day on bread-stuffs and fuel, and there has been a tax on them since 1896. If that tax was infamous then, it is infamous now, and it has been infamous for the last seven years during which the hon. gentleman as a member of the government has levied it. If, Mr. Speaker, we are not to accept the word of public men in opposition ; if public men are allowed to break with impunity every pledge and every promise they make to the people, what is to become of public life in Canada. Here are men sitting on ,the treasury benches who are committed by

resolution year after year published in the ' Hansard ' and published in the press ; here are men with resolutions of the Ottawa) conference staring them in the face ; here they are to-day, the openly confessed violators of every principle they ever professed. What respect can the public have for men who profess one doctrine in opposition and practice another when in power. If such conduct goes unpunished, it will be ims possible to build up that moral tone in public life which makes a country great. And, Sir, the word of a Canadian statesman should be as good as his bond in power! or out of power. What respect can the people of Canada have for a leader of public opinion, who like the knight from) South Oxford allows himself to occupy the miserable position of being fifth wheel to a coach, as he himself said, and who for the sake of the emoluments of office goes back on all his resolutions and all his pledges to the people. If that is the price of great men they come cheap in this coun-' try. Mr. Fielding, in Noya Scotia, had this to say :
That while it is as a rule inexpedient to deal with Dominion questions in this House, in view of the obnoxious character of the duty on breadstuffs, the House must firmly protest against the imposition of such duties.


Mr. BROCK.: Is that the same Mr. Fielding ?


Rufus Henry Pope: If it is the same Mr. Fielding who thus spoke in the Nova Scotia legislature, he is to-day the Finance Minister of Canada. Are all these gentlemen on the Treasury Benches of the same kidney ? Is the Minister of Finance as great a sinner as the Minister of Trade and Commerce and are they all sinners alike 1 Mr. Fielding, referring to the coal trade said :
Referring to the coal trade he said the Liberal party would not preach one doctrine in Cape Breton and another in the rest of the Dominion. If the coal business could not be carried on without protection, then it is better not to carry it on at all. Protection was not a necessity for its welfare ; the coal business is not a pauper business.
You would hardly believe it, Mr. Speaker, that the Mr. Fielding who thus spoke and who pledged himself to free coal, is the man who to-day dictates the fiscal policy of the government which maintains a duty on coal. Again Sir Richard Cartwright said :
Now if there be a principle of political economy clearer than another, it is the principle that the worst tax which could be imposed is a tax on a necessity of life like coal. Moreover it is a tax exceedingly partial and unjust in its operation. It will fall on the poorest classes of the community in the depths of the Canadian winter. It is absolutely sectional, pressing heavily on the people of On-Mr. POPE.
tario, and not at all on the great masses of the people through the other provinces. It will form a standing grievance. It is a most doubtful benefit to Nova Scotia.
Well, Sir, the province of Ontario was not so selfish and so narrow as to endorse this statement. The province of Ontario believes that there should be reciprocity of tariffs between province and province. In view of such language from the gallant knight, and in view of his practices since he came to power, it is no wonder that he is going around to-day alone, looking for a constituency. If he had been consistent in his conrse there would have been at least some one to have gone along with him; there is nothing so faithful as a dog. The robbery which the hon. gentleman spoke of is going on to-day, and it has been going on for eight years, and the hon. gentleman has been approving of it with his vote and his talents. Sir Richard Cartwright, speaking on the Budget on April 26th, 1897, and referring to the preference of 12J per cent which he said was open to all countries, said :
And lastly, what my free trade friends will remember and lay to heart, we have turned the ship's head in the right direction and toward the open sea.
His song then was : now we are under full sail ; we have been in power for one year, we have fifty odd majority who will swallow everything we ask them to swallow, the flag of the Liberal party for free trade is floating, our barque is in full sail with Captain Cartwright on board. But she did not sail far. She struck a rock before she left harbour. I do not know whether there was any of these two cases of rye whisky on board that the Minister of Agriculture furnishes, but whatever the causes may be the ship did not sail far, and yesterday the knight from South Oxford got another slap in the face, what we call a double backer. He had told the country that one of the things that did not deserve protection was the woollen industry ; but yesterday his colleagues wiped- out the preference so far as woollens are concerned and further protected the woollen industry. So to-day the hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) gets up in the House to endorse the new condition ; he will endorse any condition that helps out the Cartwright family. I believe the hon. gentleman to be clever, notwithstanding all his faults, notwithstanding the cruelty that has been shown towards him by the party to which he belongs, who haven't the decency to point the open road for him in the future, and notwithstanding the weak character of his speech to-day ; and he must have said to himself as he sat down, thank God I have got even with you for what you did yesterday. Mr. Fielding said :

So far as protecting the industries of this country are concerned, eternal vigilance must be the price of protection.
That is what our Finance Minister said a few years ago. Tq-day he is not satisfied with one tariff or two tariffs, but he wants three tariffs ; and . he is trying to make them subject to the dictation of an autocrat who sits in the government. We shall see about that. We have had various tariffs in this country, but we have never before had a proposition to place in the hands -I will not say of one member of the government, but one citizen of Canada, the right to say what our duties shall be, when they shall be lowered and when they shall be put up. Talk of Russia ! Sir, they know nothing in Russia of the limit of legislation as compared with that of the supposed Liberal party of the Dominion of Canada-men who were supposed to be, if not the fathers of Liberal thought, at least the men expected to perpetuate Liberal principles in Canada. The Finance Minister makes this proposition in face of the fact that he formerly said that one of the absolute necessities of business was stability of the tariff, even at some cost to the industries of the country. He has laid down that principle again and again in parliament ; and here you find him proposing legislation under which you will not know from one week to another what the tariff will be. When the hon. gentleman tries to put this dumping act into effect, he will get into more trouble than the man who tries to run a monkey team in a theatre. Do you think the electors of this country are going to allow any one man to dictate when the tariff shall be changed, put up or put down ? When the people of Canada get acquainted with this proposition of hon. gentlemen opposite it will be known as the dumping tariff, because in my opinion it will dump them out of power. I find that Sir Wilfrid Laurier said :
We will get a treaty with the United States if we can ; and if England objects we will consider her objection. Let Lord Salisbury take care of the interests of England and we will take care of the interests of Canada.
The Liberal party will never cease the agitation until they have finally triumphed and obtained continental freedom of trade.
I do not know what they call a triumph. Perhaps seven or eight years of power is not considered by them as a triumph :
What my hon. friend has said as to my protection proclivities is perfectly true. ^ I do not deny that I have been a protectionist, which I am still.
The policy which we advocate, is the removal of all commercial barriers between this country and the great kindred nation to the south. The Liberal party as long as I have anything to do with it will remain true to the cause until the cause is successful.
Well, Sir, the right hon. gentleman gained power and went to Washington, and came back again ; but he did not bring anything with him except the bills of expenses. The people of this country had the chance of paying $45,000 or $50,000, I forget the amount exactly, but approximately that is correct. The only other benefit we had was that that trip to Washington taught the Prime Minister never to go there again, and he has said on more than one occasion that he was not knocking at that door any more. We are glad to hear that; but that is one of the principles which the Liberal party said they were going to put in force. We have sat in the House and heard the changes rung hour in and hour out that the Conservative party never could get anything from the United States because we did not treat them fairly-because we wanted an alien labour law, or this or that for the Dominion of Canada ;-because we were British in sentiment we could not expect to receive any benefits from the United States. So the right hon. gentleman said : Put us in power. He had never been in power ; he had been only playing politics up to that time. This is what he said :
When the Liberal party comes into power it [DOT]still send commissioners to Washington to propose a mutual agreement by which there will he free trade along the whole line.
It does not occur to him for a moment that his proposition will not be accepted. The new Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the greatest French Canadian, will be going down to Washington. So he went. He said :
There will be free trade along the whole line, doing away with restrictions and removing the customs-houses that go so far to cause friction between the two countries.
What a farce ! Mr. Speaker, the reading of that language and its comparison with the language which these hon. gentlemen have used as an introduction to the present legislation, is alone enough to drive them from power if there were enough thinking people in this country. The right hon. gentleman also said :
If we come to power on that day, I promise you that a commission will go to Washington, and if we can get a treaty in natural products and a list of manufactured articles that treaty will be. made. The policy of the Liberal is to give you a market with sixty-five millions of British men upon this continent.
We have not yet got that market. To show how little these gentlemen knew what they were talking about, and how foreign the responsibility of government was to their thought, we find them now proposing a dumping clause by which they are going to exclude, if they can, these very 65.000,000 people. Such a contradiction of policy was never before presented to any nation on

the face of the earth. They have not learned the lesson yet, Mr. Speaker. He goes on to say :
The Liberal party believe in free trade on broad lines, such as exists in Great Britain ; ani upon that platform, exemplified as I have told you, the Liberal party will fight its next battle.
They fought that battle. They put their faces towards the open sea, and all got on board. I ask you, where is free trade in this country as it is in England to-day ? What did these hon. gentlemen do ? As is well known, the right hon. gentleman went to England. He had the opportunity of his life, in the judgment of people who knew English sentiment at that time. It was previous to the Jubilee, when the whole British empire was looking for something better in the way of British sentiment than we had known in the past. That noble sovereign, Queen Victoria, was to have her great Jubilee.
All the true and honest men of the different parts of the empire-black and white- were to be present to do homage to that great sovereign. Canada, which is one of the brightest spots in the empire and which never cost the empire a farthing, sent over her Prime Minister. That Prime Minister had promised us in London or Hamilton' that the first thing he would do when he went to England would be to treat for reciprocal trade on reciprocal conditions-preference for preference-between Canada and England. Was that promise carried out ? It was not. It was broken like so many others, and what was the excuse ? The excuse given was that this government wished to give England a preference without imposing upon her the bane of protection, which had been a curse to Canada, and also they wished to give it freely as a recognition of the splendid liberty which England had given us. Certainly, Sir, England has given us liberty, but nothing more than the rights which British people enjoy everywhere in this great empire, be they black or white. The Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier stood at the foot of the throne to tell our late beloved Queen how Canada valued British liberty and British connection. But, Sir, there was a time when we were given the opportunity to show our faith and loyalty. That time was when the empire called on all her sons to give the mother country their aid in South Africa. \te had the opportunity then, and we know with what generosity of feeling the First Minister responded to this appeal to protect the British flag. We have not forgotten the stand he took on that occasion.
On the subject of a preference, we found Mr. Fielding indulging in these remarks :
England, which, after a great struggle under Bright and Cobden, has made the people's food free, was asked to turn back the hands of the clock and tax the food of the people. Eng-Mr. POPE.
land was asked again and again to accept this condition ; and just so long as that demand was made, the great journals and leaders of thought in England scoffed at preferential trade of that kind.
Well, Mr. Speaker, time has gone on and the hands of the clock were not turned back, but have gone on ticking every day from that time to this. And every day the strength of the position taken by us, not from a selfish standpoint, but from the best standpoint in the world, the strengthening of the empire, has become more apparent. Anything that strengthens Canada strengthens the empire in its most vital part. We are a highly intelligent people as compared with other people, in the world. Consequently the more of us there are in this country, the stronger will be the British empire, and the nearer to the very heart of the empire will be a people prepared to live and die for the perpetuation of British institutions. Any act, commercial or otherwise, that strengthens Canada strengthens the empire just as much as if it were strengthening the empire in London-aye, more, because we have fresh air and plenty of space and opportunity in this country for the application of men's ingenuity. And we have hope in the future of Canada. Yes, we had that hope when this country was being painted black by the oracle of hon. gentleman opposite who addressed the House this afternoon. Under those circumstances, the clock has gone on keeping time, and we have witnessed the departure from the British cabinet of one of the most able of British statesmen, Mr. Chamberlain, who has taken up this same fight, not for us alone but for all the empire, and the ground upon which he stands is no selfish, narrow, contracted ground, but broad and generous, and his policy, if carried out, will do more tor the development and prosperity of this country than all the legislation this government has passed or can ever hope to pass. It means the entry of our agricultural and lumber and the other products we send to Great Britain, into the British market under a system of preference. Hon. gentlemen opposite have adopted certain principles of protection in this country. Why should they object to the adoption of a system in England which will protect us in the very market where our goods have to be sold ? The greater price we are paid for our products, the greater value is added to every acre of land in this country. And in no part of the Dominion will greater benefit be experienced from the adoption of Mr. Chamberlain's policy than in its eastern portion. Our eastern provinces cannot compete with the great west in the raising of grain, but in the manufacture of dairy products and the fine qualities of beef, mutton and bacon, we can hold our own, and if given protection in the British market, we could distance all competitors.

Yesterday was an important Hay, as is always that on which the annual statement is made of the finances of Canada, and as time rolls on and our population increases, that day becomes more important. There may have been a few people pleased with yesterday's statement because there were some changes in the tariff, but in my judgment there were many more who were disappointed. And if you take all those to whom that speech was addressed, you will find that not one in twenty-five understands what the tariff really means. I am competent there are not ten men on that side who can tell you how that tariff, which was brought down yesterday, really will affect the trade of this country. Still, when the Finance Minister got up and said: behold this splendid combination tariff that I have created,' there was tremendous applause on the other side, and from none did that ap-lause come more fervently than from those tvho did not understand what it meant. We know that it has a disturbing element. It has a disturbing element because we cannot have a law hanging over every man's head whereby he may be compelled to pay a special duty in addition to the ordinary duty, under certain conditions, without its having a prejudicial effect on trade conditions. But that is not all. Protection as understood by hon. gentlemen on this side, means but one thing, but as expressed in the resolutions moved by the leader of the opposition on more than one occasion. Our national policy takes in all the great natural resources of this country. It embodies a great constructive principle which can be applied in the tariff for the upbuilding of the nation. But when we take up the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, we find it an unknown quantity. It may be one thing to-day and something else to-morrow.
You will never develop the great resources of Canada with any such fluctuating tariff as hon. gentlemen opposite are now proposing. I agree with the Minister of Finance that a fixed tariff is essential to the prosperity and advancement of the country. I take him at his word. He did not much improve the tariff last year. But he dared not go twelve months longer under the tariff we had. In order to avoid the difficulties which faced him last year, he did improve his fiscal policy then somewhat, by proposing bounties on silver-lead and on iron. But he dare not now come down and say : I am a protectionist, because he has been talking free trade. And so you have an exhibition of a government, a set of men acting together jfor party purposes and personal gain who cannot, announce any principle, who cannot lay down any rule of broad minded legislation that they can undertake to follow. I do not know what would have been the result if we had here the government we had seven years ago. Because, Mr. Speaker, there has been a great change in the personnel of the government. It was said to be a strong government, because it contained Mr. Tarte, because it contained Mr. Blair, because it contained Sir Oliver Mowat, Sir Louis Davies, Mr. Geoffrion, Mr. Dobell, Hon. Mr. Mills and Sir Henri Joly. These men are all gone. And whom have we in their places ? Read the history of Canada and you learn nothing of their names. A record of municipal politics might enable you to trace them, but you do not find their names in the national history of Canada. Whether, with the old cabinet we would have had this bulldozing in the trade relations,
I do not know. Whether we would have had these half-hearted changes, I do not know. But I do not believe we would. I believe that they would have made such an impression upon the Prime Minister, that they would have bolstered his courage sufficiently, that he would have come forward and said : I am now for the national policy, because the principles of the opposition in this House are the only principles by which Canada can be successfully and well governed : I forsake the pathway of the past ; I apologize to Canada, and I am now the head of a strong protectionist government. But we have now an administration of weaklings, the successors of the strong men of earlier days. And so we must accept vacillating legislation, doubtful legislation, legislation in which we find no vestige of principle, while the Conservative party stands for principle as a unit. We know how difficult' it is, even when men are agreed upon a principle, to lay it down sufficiently strong to make it work out to the development of the country's resources, to overcome local prejudices and feelings of provincialism that exist to a greater or less extent everywhere. Even if the Prime Minister and his party were united, it would be difficult enough to bring down legislation to upbuild Canada as she should be upbuilt. But when you have a party made up of here a free trader, there a low protectionist, there a high protectionist, and the other fellow nothing at all, it is impossible to get, through such an aggregation, a straightforward policy based upon sound principle.
The Finance Minister yesterday consoled himself with the fact that we are having pretty good times; not quite so good as they 'were a while ago ; they are beginning to pinch here and there a little. He mentioned one or two industries that were very promising in different parts of Canada and I suppose he thought he had knocked the. last spots of the sun, by the changes in the tariff that he now proposes. But let him look at Sydney and the condition of the industries there and read the quotations. Let him look at the Soo and the industries there. Let him look at the cotton industry, look at the price of butter and cheese : let him look where he will and see if he cannot find a few spots still left. If there is an industry in Canada that should be in

a most flourishing condition, it is the pulp industry, of which I will speak of later on. The Minister of Finance is beginning to realize, as everybody else is realizing, that we are beginning to feel the effect of competition from abroad. Why, Sir, to look at the trade figures alone is quite sufficient. Take our total exports $214,000,000,-and our total imports-$224,000,000. There you have a balance of trade against us for 1903 of $10,410,000, exclusive of coin and bullion. Sir, we are a young nation, with lots of energy, with plenty of raw material, great fwater powers and Immense possibilities, and what we want is men and money, and especially money, in order to develop these great resources. A tariff that gives us at the end of the year $10,000,000 less money as a result of our trade than we had at the beginning is not a tariff that tends to the develpment of Canada. If the Prime Minister discovers that we have too much money, that we are too wealthy, that we have money to give to the United States or Germany more than they give to us, instead of keeping it at home, his policy is a right one. But if Canada needs money, his policy is wrong, because the figures show that we are $10,000,000 worse off at the end of the year than we were at the beginning. During the by-election in Montreal the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) made a speech on this subject. He said : Look at the volume of trade-four hundred odd million. True, more than half that is against us, or is money that we are sending away, but, at the same time, there is the volume of trade. According to that,, a man whose wage is $1.25 a day and his exxienditure is 75 cents a day would have a total volume of trade of only $2. But if you take a man whose earnings are $1.25 a day and whose expenditure is $1.50 a day you have one whose total volume of trade is $2.75-and this man, according to the Prime Minister, would be growing rich. If we were an old, completed nation, with a number of people living in luxury, following the hounds across country spending their time as ladies and gentlemen do in great centres, all this would be very well. - But you are legislating for a different kind of nation altogether. We are a bee hive ; we have to work, we are a comparatively poor people ; our history is comparatively a short one, and every man should work, word, work ;-that is the way to build up the country ; and every man should have protection for his industry and his labour. You cannot expect much good from the policy of a man who lays down the principle that the volume of trade is an indication of a nation's wealth. When our policy proceeds on that theory you may look for hard times before very long.
I have shown that the balance of trade is $10,000,000 against us. Let us look at Mr. POPE.
some of the details. In 1903 our exports to Great Britain amounted to $125,000,000. Our imports from Great Britain amounted to $57,793,000. That left a balance of trade in our favour as between ourselves and Great Britain of $67,000,000. For the year previous, 1902, the balance in our favour on our trade with Great Britain was $68,000,000. But now, if you take the figures of our trade with the United States of America you will find that our imports were $128,t 000,000 while our exports to the United States were $49,000,000, leaving a balance against us for 1903 of $79,000,000 in our trade with the United States. What we ship to Great Britain are our great agricultural products mainly. We ship, probably $100,000,000 of grain, animals and their products and other products of our farms.
It comes back to Canada, the policy of the hon. gentleman has been that when this 867,000,000 got back here they would no(^ keep it here to furnish employment for the people and encourage industries in this country where possible, but to send every dollar of that to the United States to pay for industrial life in the United States. You cannot upbuild Canada on these lines.; its an absolute Impossibility. Wlien we have the money in our own hands, why do we not legislate to keep it in our own hands, by giving prosperity, by giving profitable investment V You will find in the United States that the old farmers on the flats of the Connecticut river and other valleys' invest money in the bonds of railways and enterprises of all sorts in the United States. Their surplus, money is not sent to us, but is invested in their own country, and_ by following a policy of that kind for nearly a century they have built up the greatest nation on the face of God's earth to-day. They are adopting the same policy on the southern part of the continent of America, and does it require much argument to show that it must ultimately be adopted here if we want to upbuild this country ? We have the opportunity if we seize it; but it will not be by allowing the balance of trade to be as it is to-day, $75,000,000 against us, and going from bad to worse year after year while the hon. gentlemen have been in power.
Now they propose a dumping policy. I want to know Where they are going to begin to dump. The right hon. gentleman must 'be with me in saying that any policy adopted should be one that we can understand, and that laws should be such that a lawyer could understand and define them. The legislatiion now proposed no man can understand. You have a dumping axe, or whatever you like to call it, that comes down at 15 or 50 per cent, but can the right hon. gentleman tell me when dumping is going on V I would like to ask him how he is going to find out when dumping is going on V Let us take, for example, the case of ani-



[Stage Direction]
mals. We import $2,341,000 worth of animals to compete with the animals of Canada. Is it time to say that dumping is going on V Will he say he is going to dump now with animals coming in to that extent ? Take, for example, pork products. Last year we had from the United States $2,221,000 of pork products, ham, bacon, under the head of provisions, that could be produced, by our own farmers. When are they going to begin to dump on that amount ? Then take lumber. Here you have $4,000,000 worth of wood and its products. Are they going to begin to dump ? Take paper. We have over $2,000,000 worth of paper coming in, when we are the greatest fibre producing people in the world. We have immense forests of timber, and are they going to begin to dump on this 7 Hon. gentlemen are as silent as the grave. If the whole row of seventeen ministers sat there, you could not get a reply, because they dare not say. We have here on our statute-books a law which they cannot interpret, and they dare not tell us at what stage they are going to put it in force. That is what they mean by stability of legislation.
I should also like to refer to the question of expenditure. I find that when the Conservative party left office in 1896 we had an expenditure of $36,949,142.03, and in 1903 T find that the present administration had an expenditure of $51,691,902.76, or an increase of $14,712,760.73 chargeable to consolidated fund.
Now, Sir, if we take the total disbursements, we find that in 1896 they were $41,702,000 ; in 1903 they were $61,000,000, an increase, in round numbers, of $20,000,000, after making a proper disposition of the $3,000,000 in connection with the North Shore Quebec Railway subsidy vote.
When these hon. gentlemen appealed to the country for power, I had been supporting a government for about seven years, and since that I have been about the same number Orf years on this side of the House. They appeal to our constituents apparently in earnest that the party then in power was too extravagant, and must be turned out in order that the expenses of the country may be reduced. ~ They cried out against that tremendous expenditure of $36,000,000. All we now have from that poor old remnant of a politician, who now occupies that position of the fifth -wheel to a coach, is the eloquent statement that taxation has changed to-day, and that the thing which used to be taxation is not taxation now. Why ? Because I am now getting $8,000 and the other Cartwrights, big and small, are getting the balance of the $20,000, which makes all the difference in the world. This $20,000,000 has to be accounted for. Hon. gentlemen can pass their estimates through this House, but the time will come when they will have to face the people of Canada and show what they have done with the money ; and I do hope that some hon. gentleman will do what has
never yet been done, show the great public works that remain as monuments for the expenditure of this tremendous amount of money over and above what we expended for the government of Canada.
The total debt in 1896 was $325,000,000 and in 1903 *$361,000,000, or an increase in the total debt of $35,000,000. The total assets have increased $32,000,000, thus leaving $3,000,000 of a total increase in the indebtedness of the country since they came into power. Adding to that the $3,000,000 which have been charged to the wrong account, you get $6,416,006 as the actual increase of the debt. These are figures such as are not given to us in any cooked form. Whether that debt has increased $3,000,000 or $6,000,000 or $1,000,000 at the end of this year, as the Minister of Finance said yesterday, makes no difference for the purpose of my argument. We do not find that this wonderful increase of expenditure is devoted to the reduction of the debt. That is sure. We have not put our revenues there ; we have expended these revenues, and still have this indebtedness.
We have a total revenue for the last five years of the Conservative regime of $182, 000.000, an average of $36,000,000 a year. For the last five years of this administration we have had a total revenue of $248. 000,000, an average revenue for the last five years of $49,000,000, an average increase o<" $13,000,000, or a total increase for the five years of $66,000,000. I want the hon. gen tleman w.ho leads this government, or some of his associates, to show to this House and the people of Canada what great construction has taken place in Canada, representing that $66,000,000 of increase. They have imposed heavy burdens upon the people of Canada in the way of taxes, for which, so far as I can see, in the length and breadth of Canada we have no great public work of utility to Canada.
Now, Sir, if we do not find it there where can we find it ? When we of the Conservative party were in power, we spent money. We do not deny the fact. We increased the public debt by some hundred million dollars, but if you look at the $65,000,000 we put into the Canadian Pacific Railway, it you look at the $20,000,000 we put into the Intercolonial Railway, if you look at the $33,000,000 we put into the canals and public works of that kind, you have the accounting for a larger amount than that by which the Conservative party increased the public debt. I want hon. gentlemen opposite to show us a Canadian Pacific Railway, to show us extended works, to show us great construction representing this money that they are sucking out of us from year to year in extra taxes. This is a government composed of men who said that a dollar should not be taken from the people of Canada except to pay the mere running expenses of the administration. Is that the
[Stage Direction]
reason why the running expenses of the administration have been put up year after year ? Is it to provide a sink hole for the money taken out of the pockets of the people ? Why not apply this money to the reduction of the public debt ? Let me say to my right hon. friend that thd people of Canada are not all asleep. They have not all money to burn. Some of us have to work for our living in this world. We know what it is to earn our livelihood by honest investment, or ingenuity, or actual labour. The mass of the people want to know what has become of the money. If you will take the figures of the various departments for 1896 and compare them with those of 1903 you will find how the expenditures have increased. You will find that under the head of interest on debt there has been an increase of $565,709 and justice, $201,678. I ask you if there is any better administration of justice in Canada now than there was then. We get no better administration of justice than we have always had in Canada. Hon. gentlemen opposite may talk about the Yukon. They should reduce the Yukon somewhat. There is not so much coast line as there used to be when we left power. They have given away part of it. They have found Canada too big to govern. There was an increase in civil government of $158,164, fisheries $100,578, and the only break in the list of increases is that furnished by the geological survey. In immigration tjiere has been an increase of $522,715. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce worked at some length this afternoon upon the question of immigration. He said that the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) deserved great credit for the settlement of the west, that the hon. Minister of the Interior deserved all the credit that the records of this country would give him. I dwelt at the outset of my remarks this afternoon on the question of immigration and I wish to enter my protest against a system of immigration which fills that country with men from the slums of Lurope and gives no similar opportunity to the men of eastern Canada. I know that in the district where I live a poor man can go across the line 35 miles and he can buy a ticket to the Northwest of Canada for less money than he can buy it from his own village. I say the principle is wrong. Surely we need not put an obstacle in the way of a man who is born in Canada under our own flag. Surely he should enjoy advantages equal with those extended to Doukhobors, Galicians, Americans and everybody else on the face of the earth. We have been asking for quality and asking for quality only. We say that we do not want, merely for the sake of putting people into this country, to take any class of people who will lower the ability and standing of the people of Mr. POPE.
Canada, and we also say that the men of eastern Canada are entitled to the same consideration as if they were born in some of the lower parts of Italy or Russia. 1 would remind the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce that when we were in power and striving to put immigrants into the west he supported Mr. Somerville's resolutions proposing to strike $50,000 off the item for immigration and if he will look through * Hansard ' he will find himself and his leaders great and small on record as fighting session after session against putting any iimmigrants into our western country. For quarantine there was an increase of $168,084 and for Indians $197,407. The Indians must be growing. For the branch of the superintendent of insurance there was an increase of $4,908, lighthouses, &c., $498,086, mail subsidies $214,369, and so you will find increases in all the departments except that of the geological survey, chargeable to collection of revenue and to capital accounts making a total increase in. the year 1903 over 1896, when we left office, of $17,098,339. That accounts for some of the taxation hon. gentlemen opposite wrung out of us. The only decrease, as I have already said, is in the geological survey ; all the rest of the departments show increases, while we have in the country only half a million more population than we had when hon. gentlemen opposite came into power. I say that an increase of $17,098,339 is a misappropriation of the taxes secured from the people of Canada. It has not been applied as it should have been towards a reduction of the public debt. If hon. gentlemen opposite had been true to their promises, if they had given us some reasonable amount of retrenchment, if the enlarge-iment of the expenditure had been in proportion to the increase in population we would say nothing about it, but after adding $17,000,000 to the expenditure, I ask them if it would not have been reasonable to have expected that they would have applied $10,000,000 at least to the reduction of the public debt. I believe that the people of Canada are anxious to know something about these expenditures. One word as to the surplus. The hon. Minister of Finance glowed with surpluses. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce did not say much about surpluses. He djd not know anything about them when he administered the affairs of this country. He had no experience of handling surpluses and he denounced them every time we had them as being the result of wringing taxes out of the people. With his inexperience, with his past record and with the fact that, as he showed this afternoon, he has taken to reading the Bible, 1 believe he shows his one sincere position in order to assure the salvation of his dear old soul. There may be $14,000,000 of a surplus. I am not a finan-

cier, I am not a book-keeper and 1 do not propose to begin to be one now. But everybody looking at the items, going over the Intercolonial Railway returns, the returns of the sales of Dominion lands and the various other items, must admit that if the book-keeping was done as a financial or banking or commercial house would be obliged to do their book-keeping instead of being $14,000,000, the surplus would be about $4,000,000. For the purpose of bolstering up their statement they have charged the extra expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway and the bounties on iron and steel to capital account, and summarized these amounts to $10,000,000. If the Minister of Finance would do his book-keeping honestly, he could claim a surplus of $3,000,000 or $4,000,000, and then according to the opinion of his colleague (Sir Richard Cartwright) he should reduce the public debt by that amount.
I thank the House, Mr. Speaker, for the attention with which it has listened to me. I look forward with a great deal of confidence to the future of Canada, because like all good Conservative boys, even before I could vote I was taught that on this northern half of the American continent we should build up a great nation, worthy of the mother country and of the British flag. I have never lost confidence in my country. As I go from the Atlantic to the Pacific, I am proud to see on every hand the glorious monuments to progress and prosperity, which have been erected by the Conservative party under the leadership of that grand old man, Sir John A. Macdonald, whom the present Priipe Minister vainly attempts to imitate. I rejoice at the development of the great west, the foundation of which was laid by the Conservative party in face of the opposition of the Liberals who called it: a frozen region, a sea of mountains, and everything that would defame it. I hope that the Liberals have forgotten the wicked words they uttered in derision of that country. It would have been in the best interests of Canada that they were never uttered, it is in the best interests of Canada that they should be forgotten. These gentlemen now on the treasury benches have forfeited their right to claim any share in the great development of the Northwest. That credit belongs to the Conservative party, and to its great leader Sir John A. Macdonald, whose patriotic efforts were always directed towards making Canada a great nation.
Mr.  C. B.@: HB'YD (South Brant). Mr. Speaker, it is rather late in the evening to attempt to make a speech on this great question, but I shall shorten my address by treating, in the manner in which it deserves, that part of the speech of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pope), which he devoted to vilifying the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The character of our friend, the right hon.
knight, is too well known throughout Canada to be detracted from in the slightest degree by the attempted disparagement of the member from Compton (Mr. Pope). When! he and his shall have been forgotten, the name of Sir Richard Cartwright will be remembered with pride by the descendants of the men who now sit in this House. I shall, therefore, only deal briefly with that part of the speech of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pope) in which he pretended to treat of public questions. To strengthen his argument, that the present government was extravagant, he was forced to make the assertion that the books kept toy the Finance Department were falsified. Well, that is a ' strong statement to be made by a man who knows absolutely nothing about the matter. He might just as well have said that the books were falsified to the extent of $30,000,000 as $3,000,000, because he would have no more justification or data for the one statement than for the other. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pope) had contended that our expenditure last year was some fourteen million dollars more than in 1890, he would be near the truth, and he did not need to disparage the book-keeping of the Minister of Finance to sustain such a statement. To me it is quite immaterial what the expenditure is, so long as that expenditure has been made prudently and wisely made in the interests of the people of Canada. The hon. gentleman cannot find one item of that expenditure which he and his friends on the other side of the House dare attack. For years they have been saying in a general way that the government is extravagant, but they have never attempted to attack one single item of the increased expenditure. Had they done so, the hollowness of their argument would be apparent to all. Let us see how this increased expenditure of $14,000,000 was disposed of. Was it prudent for this government to pay $473,000 more a year for interest on the debt, for which the Conservatives were mainly responsible ? Could we help ourselves, without repudiating our honest obligations ? Was it prudent to put $514,000 more into the sinking fund, in order to enable us to meet our obligations when they mature ? Was it wise and prudent to spend $191,000 more on the administration of justice, in view of the fact that within the last eight years our population has so vastly increased, and the bounds of our country have been so immeasureably extended ? Was it wise to spend on arts, agriculture, and statistics, $1,064,000 more than the Conservatives spent ? The whole question is one of judiciousness, and when we look at the results obtained we will see that that increased expenditure was amply justified. We find that the number of immigrants who came to this country in 1896 was only 31.000, while last year it was 125,000. Was it prudent to spend more money to bring about that result ? The number of home-

stead entries in 1896 was 1,384 ; last year it was 31,000. If we can continue such development of agriculture and immigration as this wise expenditure has brought about, are we not amply justified in incurring it ?
Was it wise to increase the expenditure on militia by $824,000 ? I do not know. The military men in the House approved of the expenditure ; it was not called in question by anybody in the House ; and I am inclined to think that so long as we have a militia we might as well spend as much money upon it as is necessary to make it efficacious for the emergency if it presents itself. We spent $2,900,000 on public works. The question is, were those public works necessary 7 As they were not strongly objected to at the time, I assume that it was a judicious and wise expenditure. There has been an increase in the collection of customs of $280,000. Has that been a judicious expenditure ? Why, we collect to-day some $17,000,000 more than they did eight years ago, and the cost today is 3.31 per cent, while eight years ago it was 4.43 per cent. Therefore we are doing the labour much cheaper than they did it; and while it cost $280,000 more per annum, we are in receipt of an increased revenue of $17,000,000. I regard that as a judicious and necessary expenditure. But the hon. gentleman does not find fault with the Inland Revenue Department, where the revenue has increased from $7,900,000 to $12,000,000, while the actual expenditure has decreased by $7,000. He does not find fault with the Post Office Department, where we spent some $500,000 more, but wiped out an annual deficit of $700,000, besides reducing the postage on letters to represent $800,000 more ; so that by the judicious expenditure of $500,000 per annum the people are bettered to the extent of $1,500,000. Does he object to the increased expenditure on railways and canals of $3,000,000 when the revenue has correspondingly increased, and at the same time great benefits have been conferred upon the people of Canada 7 Does he object to the expenditure of $1,000,000 on the Yukon and an increased expenditure of $1,000,000 on the Territories. Does he object to an increased expenditure of $500.000 on the ocean service and $500,000 more on the census ? There is where our money has gone to. Have we judiciously and wisely expended that money 7 Have we derived a benefit from that expenditure That is the principal object the people of Canada have had in view. I think there is no reason for the aspersion our friend has cast upon the bookkeeping of the department. Neither is he wise in calling irr question the judicious expenditure of public money that has been made.
Our friend also falls foul of our immigration policy and the quality of the immigrants we have placed in the Northwest.


Mr. HEYD.: Hon. gentlemen opposite are a little jealous that this tremendous development has not taken place during a Tory regime ; but we have had the proud satisfaction of hearing the hon. leader of the opposition say that after a visit to the Northwest, he was agreeably surprised to find what admirable settlers the Galicians made-that particular class of people who for years have been very much abused and maligned and belittled. and pronounced unfit settlers for our great Northwest.
Our friend thought he struck something of a financial character that he could retail to the House with a great deal of gustq when he told us that the balance of trade had been against us last year to the tune of $10,000,000. Why, that is not a very serious offence. I myself do not regard it as of any importance whether the balance of trade is for us or against us. But if under the present fiscal arrangements the balance of trade against us last year was $10,000,000, what is it likely to be if we adopt that fiscal form of policy which the hon. gentleman and his friends advocate 7 The best evidence of what the results will be is to be obtained by taking a look back and seeing what they have been in the past; because what has been will be under similar conditions. Now, let us take the results of the tariff policy of the present government and compare them with the results of the national policy during the eighteen years that it was in existence. I prepared this table last year, expecting that -somebody who would want to figure as a political economist of high repute would work off that balance of trade argument when the opportunity arose, and that it would be just as well to have our powder dry. From 1879 to 1884 our imports were $572,000,000, our exports $4S0,-000,000 or a balance of trade against Canada of $91,000,000. From 1885 to 1890 our imports were $612,000,000, our exports $4S4,000,000, or a balance of trade against Canada of $127,000,000. From 1891 to 1896 our imports were $656,000,000, our exports $609,000,000, or a balance of trade against Canada of $49,000,000. During the past six years up to 1903 the imports entered for consumption were $928,000,000, while the exports, the produce of Canada, were $947,000,000, or a balance of trade in favour of Canada of $18,000,000. Now, a brief summary of the results of the past twenty-five years shows that between 1897 and 1902 the average balance of trade in favour of Canqda was $3,084,000, or a total balance of trade in favour of Canada of $18,000,000, while from 1879 to 1897 the average annual balance against Canada was $14,000,000, and the total balance against Canada for the eighteen years was $268,000,000. And yet our friend comes forward and tells us that our fiscal policy is bad, that our trade regulations are bad.


S, 1904
[Stage Direction]
The hon. gentleman spoke with great vigour on the next point, namely, that we had nailed the flag of free trade to the masthead. Why, he and everybody else who is familiar with the history of Canada must know that such a party as a free trade party never had the control of affairs in this country-that it is only a remote dream of some of the most ardent political economists of that stripe. But we did object in 1895 to the policy of our friends on the other side of the House, because we believed, and we have proved, that it has decreased the value of farm and other landed property, that it has oppressed the masses to the enrichment of a few, that it has checked immigration, that ilt has caused great loss of population, that it has impeded commerce, and that it has discriminated against Great Britain. Was not every statement made at that convention in Ottawa true ? Have they ever been controverted ? And the convention, proceed to put this opinion on record :
In these and many other ways that tariff has occasioned great public and private injuries, all of which evils must continue to grow in intensity as long as the present tariff system remains in force.
Then the convention laid down the policy of the Liberal party :
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 is the policy of the Liberal party, and for the past seven years that policy has been amply justified by its results. All we need do is to compare the conditions of the country to-day with what they were in 1896. Every statement we made on the public platform as to the evil effects of the policy of our friends opposite we have demonstrated. To-night and on many other occasions we have proved absolutely the accuracy of the Liberal contentions and the soundness of the Liberal policy. Is it not true that the adoption of the policy of the Liberal party has brought prosperity to our country ? Is it not true that it has put an end to discrimination against Great Britain ? Is it not true that it impedes commerce less than before ? Is it not true that it is preventing the loss of population, checked emigration, worked for the betterment of the masses as against the classes, and increased the value of landed property ? Our policy has in every particular done the exact opposite of what the policy of our friends did. They brought about all these evil conditions, and we have at last restored Canada to her own. I think, Sir, I have devoted as much time as is absolutely necessary to a refutation of some of the arguments of our
hon. friend (Mr. Pope), and have shown the absolute absurdity and untruthfulness of many of his contentions.
But when the Liberal party attained power under the flag of freer trade, they found a condition that required treatment- not too radical but sufficiently radical to remove some of the evils under which the people were suffering. And what has been the result ? After seven years of experience of the application of the Liberal tariff policy, we can show a progress hitherto unparalleled in our trade and commerce. Our hon. friend opposite alluded to our export and import trade. I intend to allude to it also but only very briefly, and simply to show the wonderful development which has taken place. The goods entered for consumption in Canada in 1896 amounted to $110,000,000. Last year they amounted to $232,000,000, or an increase of over 100 per cent. In 1896, among those goods which were entered for consumption, was $1,669,000 in coin and bullion. Last year there were $8,976,000 of coin and bullion entered among our imports for consumption. I am sorry the amount was not $118,000,000, because the higher we can make it, the better for the people. But while we were importing six times as much coin and bullion under the Liberal as we did under the Conservative administration, they were exporting exactly six times as much out of the country. They exported in 1896, $4,000,000 worth, while last year only $600,000 of coin and bullion went out. They also imported in 1896, $2,188,000 worth of settlers' effects, but last year we imported $6,442,000 worth. Each one can draw his own conclusions and put his own meaning and attach his own significance to that statement. And the quality of our immigration is best represented by the amount of settlers' effects. In 1896, the foreigners brought in $49,000 worth and last year only $36,000 worth. The British brought in $425,000 worth in 1896, and last year, $1,117,000 worth. The Americans brought in $1,714,000 worth in 1896 and last year $5,287,000 worth. So that almost the whole of the settlers' effects which come into this country come from the English, Scotch, Irish and American settlers. Yet, Sir, we are told that that is not anything to the credit of this country. Well, I am not one 'Of those who place too much faith in immigration. Neither would I be at all anxious to fill our country too rapidly. I would much rather that the people who are in it to-day were happy, prosperous and contented than pauperize them by doubling or making their number four times as great as it is. But, if we can induce a quality of immigrants to enter who will assist in developing our country and at the same time better the conditions of the people who are here as well as their own, then I am prepared to spend quite a lot of money to bring in that class, and I am exceedingly gratified to find, by a Careful examination of the census
[Stage Direction]
of the United States for the last ten years, that our immigrants are away and beyond superior to theirs in character and quality. Their immigrants are almost exclusively composed of that class which we on this side do not consider a desirable addition to our people.
So much for the imports. Now take the exports, and let us see what a wonderful development has taken place in Canada during the period the present tariff policy has been in existence. Hon. gentlemen opposite may attribute our development to what influence they please. They may call in to their aid Providence and good luck or anything they like. As long as we have the result, we do not care how it was immediately brought about. But the improvement is here ; and if the present government should remain in power, it is here to stay. Look at our exports. In 1896 we exported $8,000,000 worth of minerals. Last year we exported §31,000,000 worth. But the greatest development that has taken place is in animals and their products and agriculture. In 1896 we exported $36,000,000 of animals and their products. Last year we exported $69,000,000. In 1896, we exported $14,000,000 worth of agricultural products. Last year we exported $44,000,000 worth. Altogether in farm products w* exported in 1896, $50,000,000 worth and last year $114,000,000 worth. Providence may be responsible for that to a considerable extent. Providence permits the sun to shine, the seeds to germinate, and waters the soil with the rain from heaven.
But somebody is required to put his ban 1 to the plough, to plant the seed with judg ment, to exercise intelligence in the marketing of the crop-and to be assisted, as far as possible, by the present government in removing any restrictions which interfere with his marketing it to the best advantages. That is where the aid and assistance of the present government comes in. Then we have the increase in provisions-in 1896 $21,000,000 and last year $50,000,000. Cheese, 1896 $14,000,000 ; last year, $24,000,000. Butter, an increase from $1,000,000 in 1896 to $7,000,000 last year. Bacon, an increase from $4,000,000 in 1896 to $16,000,000 last year. And so, altogether we exported last year $214,000,000 worth of the produce of Canada, Where, in 1896, we exported only $109,000,000. Our total exports and imports in 1896, the produce of Canada, amounted to $222, 000,000, as against $448,000,000 last year. Is that not something to be proud of 7 Is that not something the government can take some slight credit for V We do not want to attribute all the credit to the government; we want to leave a little of it to the intelligence and industry of our people. But it is a wonderful significant thing that such a change should have taken place in so short a period of time ; that just when the affairs of our country were being managed by this new set of men this great increase of trade Mr. HEYD.
should have taken place. It is a singular coincidence. Bach man must infer from it whatever he thinks right. And how do we find ourselves at the end of the seven years 7 We find ourselves away ahead of any other nation under the sun in the increase of our foreign trade. Canada stands at the top, with an increase of 103 per cent. The United States had an increase of 67 per cent; Germany, 58 per cent; Australia, 38 per cent; Great Britain, 24 per cent; France, 22 per cent, and Sweden, 9 per cent. Why should we feel discouraged? Why should.not we feel proud of our country 7 Why should not we have faith in our government, during whose reign these things have occurred ? We have increased the revenue of the country from $36,000,000 to $66,000,000, and if we had continued the old tariff we could have increased it by four or five millions more. And how has all this affected the common people 7 You find them all sharing in the enjoyment of this era of prosperity. In the twenty-five years following 1868 the deposits in the savings banks increased from $68,000,000 to $245,000,000, an increase of $177,000,000. During the past seven years they increased still further by $225,000,000 Then take the aid that business men required in the giving of discounts. In the first twenty-five years of the history of the Dominion these increased from $86,000,000 to $224,000,000, or an increase of $158,000,000. During the past seven years the increase was $182,000,000. Take the bank assets. During the first twenty-five years these increased from $121,000,000 to $316,000,000, or an increase of $195,000,000. During the past seven years they have increased to $641, 000,000, being an increase of $325,000,000. Then take our shipping-increased from 49.000,000 to 70,000,000 tons in the last seven years. Take our railways-increased from 16,214 to 19,883 miles ; passengers carried, from 13,000,000 to 20,000,000 ; railway earnings, from $50,000,000 to $83,000,000. All along the line you find an increase of 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 or 100 per cent. In only one column do we find that the figures are greater under the Conservative government than Under the present government. In 1S96 there were 2,118 failures for $16,000,000. Last year there were 1,101 failures, representing $8,000,000. The only item in which the late government excelled this government was in bringing about conditions which made it twice as likely that a man would fail if he engaged in business, and twice as many did fail before the present government came into power. Everywhere to-day we find prosperity. Every town and hamlet is prosperous. Every farm is increased in value ; every farm mortgage lessened ; every man assured of employment at increased wages. And yet our friends opposite say that we have mismanaged the (country.
But, iSir, I intend to devote myself to the question that was presented for our con-
44S1

sideration by the Finance Minister yesterday. He told us something that the member from Compton said not ten men in this House could understand. I am willing to take my place with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pope), who said he did not understand it. But, from some of the observations he made, I could understand that a much simpler problem than that presented in the financial affairs of Ithlis country would call for the use of the hon. gentleman's whole endowment of the mental powers. The thing we are particularly interested in here to-night is not the character of Sir Richard Cartwright, not the views he entertained twenty-five or thirty years ago', not the views entertained by any man when the conditions were entirely dissimilar from those we have here to-day. The question is what is best to be done under the circumstances under which we find ourselves placed. The government have considered the matter, and have given us their views in the resolution that was introduced in the House yesterday : ' That it is expedient to amend the customs tariff of 1897.' A great many people have been thinking for some years that changes in the tariff were absolutely necessary. I have come to the conclusion myself, after very careful examination of the question in some of its phases, and after having had the opportunity of accompanying different deputations to interview the government, that it would be a good thing if we could revise this tariff and better adapt it to our present conditions. A tariff that was admirably calculated to draw us out of the condition of stagnation in which we stood in 1896 might not be the best tariff under the changed conditions of to-day. And it may be, as has been represented by the Minister of Finance, that the best plan to be adopted is, before we make a general change in the tariff, to have those members of the administration who are best qualified to pursue such an investigation do what they did seven years ago-go out into the promised land and make a strict search into its conditions and report their observations to their colleagues, and, with the advice of their officers in the departments, once more present to the people of this Canada a tariff possibly better suited to its needs and its requirements even than the modified tariff of to-day. Therefore, when the minister says that this is the intention of the government, and that he had in his own mind a maximum tariff to be applied to nations that might not treat us with such favourable consideration as others, and a minimum tariff with those who are prepared to deal with us on fairer and more equitable terms, and further, to have a preferential tariff in favour of Great Britain that shall not be injurious to the people of Canada, I am heartily in accord with him. I am exceedingly glad that the government had the courage to raise the tariff on certain items,
especially to raise the tariff on woollens by putting them back on the 30 per cent list.
I think they were wise in that. The arguments that were presented in the petition of the woollen men left them no other course. I sympathize with them in the position in which they found themselves. They had given a voluntary preference to the people of Great Britain greater than under the circumstances was in the true interest of the people of Canada, and when it was found impractical, every day working that while it was beneficial to the great mass of the people it was doing an irreparable injury to one of the prime industries of the country, I am glad to say that the government could swallow their pride and remove from the statute books something that was a grievance and a menace to the woollen industry of the country. It might be said and it has been said that the woollen people did not require that relief. I am in a position to prove that the woollen industry was suffering and absolutely required this relief and I think the financial returns will best prove that.
If we take the principal items that are affected by the change in the tariff what do we find ?
In 1896 there were imported of cashmeres, cloths and doe skins, $1,170,000 worth.
In 1903 there were imported $2,381,000 worth.
And during the 10 months of the present year $1,900,000 worth, or during the past 10 months an increase of 50 per cent over the entire year 1896.
Take wool coatings and we find that during the same period they had increased from $488,000 to $944,000, and to $764,000 during the past 10 months, or an increase of 50 per cent.
Tweeds increased from $428,000 in 1898, to $1,600,000 during the past 10 months. This gives total import of the goods in, reference to which the woollen men complain, of $2,096,000 during the first 10 months of this year, an increase of 100 per cent. At the same time the raw wool, out of which the Canadian manufacturer makes his stuff was imported in 1896 to the extent of $1,215,000 and last year to the extent of only $1,374,000, an increase of 11 per cent in the raw material of the woollen mill while there was an increase of 300 per cent in the importation of manufactured tweeds. Why should not the owners of woollen mills participate in this grand prosperity which has come to this country. Why should their industry be singled out almost ex-elusivly as the one which should not participate. No amount of argument based on one particular woollen mill engaged in a particular line of industry, will avoid objections as apparent as this, when we realize that the importation of raw material
[Stage Direction]
used by these men had increased 11 per cent in the last seven years while the importations of the manufactured product increased by from 50 to 100 or 300 per cent. 1 say that the government was wise in making that change and I am rejoiced at it.
I need not say that 1 sympathize with the duty value which is placed upon horses and mares, and also with the duty value placed upon carriages. I felt gratified when the government introduced something that was going to remedy an evil that had long been tormenting the manufacturers of this country, an evil that only assumed its present magnitude owing to the high protective policy of our friends across the line, the policy which our frends on the other side desire to make the law of the land. Nowhere is it possible to create such tremendous corporations except in a country - where they have fattened at the expense of the producing class of the country. In order to prevent this unfair discrimination, this unfair dumping as it were in order, to wipe out Canadian industries the government have introduced what they think will, even if it is not perfect, at least to a certain extent be effective in removing these grievances. It is quite a simple proposition to any one who is willing to devote the time to it, and is quite within the power of the government to enforce to a considerable extent with the aid of the efficient appraisers and employees that they have in their departments.
I have worked this out in two or three different phases, and I find this result. If a person buys, for instance, $100 worth of goods, on which the duty is 30 per cent, he would pay in all $130 for these goods. If he has a 10 per cent cut from the American dealer and after that pays 30 per cent duty, he pays $27 odd and gets his stuff for $117, or $13 cheaper than he ought to, and our manufacturer has $13 less of protection. If he happens to be found out under the law as it was before yesterday afternoon, he would have to pay 30 per cent protection on the full value of these goods, but having paid on 90 the result would be that they would cost $120 laid down in his establishment. Under the new law, a man buying these goods at $90 would have to pay 30 per cent on the full value, but if he paid the special duty of $10 that would bring up the price he would have to pay to the original $30. This works no hardship to the individual, it takes from the American manufacturers who desire to dump goods into Canada, $10 that otherwise would go into his pocket, and puts it into the treasury of this country. I look forward with a good degree of confidence to the operation of this dumping clause. This clause which we have been informed cannot be understood by ten men in this House, will be understood in Canada within 24 hours after it became law by every manufacturer who is troubled by having his legitimate busi-Mr. HEYD.
ness interfered with this slaughtering adopted by the people on the other side of the line.
On the coal oil question I am not sufficiently well informed to pretend to speak, hut I do not see anything in any of the tariff changes that can be objectionable. The tariff on the contrary contains everything to commend it to the people of this country. I have dealt with the past and the present. What about the future ? Our friends opposite desire that we shall establish the American high tariff policy in this country. I, on the other hand, with the members of the Liberal party, do not think that the establishment of that tariff would be in the interests of the people of Canada, and I am not a free trader either, as you must all understand by this time. I am willing to go in for protection if you choose to call it that, so long, as the protection is in the interests of the people of this country, but as my ideas are so much better presented in the language of another man, I shall read' them. He says :
One object then of import duties was to raise revenue for the government. Another object was to develop a nation's home industries, as nearly as possible to the point of producing everything its people required. These have been the two main purposes of tariff laws down to the present time. Pew better objects than the second could engage a government's attention so long as wise methods were adhered to. Next In importance to security of life and property is industrial growth, which furnishes supplies for additional people to live upon, and is the chief means of developing character and civilization. The more nearly a nation produces at home every variety of commodity it needs, the more independent it may be, and the better prepared to bear the suspension of its foreign trade by war. Also, the more closely a nation utilizes its varied resources, the wider is the opportunity for choice of occupations, and the higher the development of individual skill.
The greater the variety of industries, the fewer the competitors of each person, and the greater the number of his customers.
When a protective djity on a commodity imported will induce persons to establish its production at home, the public advantage of possessing another industry, to employ labour and capital, and turn untouched raw material into wealth, unquestionably justifies the imposition of the duty if by the tax added to price, and by the stopping of exports that tends to follow stopping of imports, the people are not required to give more for the new industry than it will be worth.
That is the key to the whole situation. We can afford to protect the people of this country, but if we protect them too highly we are paying more for the benefit that will accrue than it will be worth. Have the people of the United States paid too dearly for their prosperity ? Have they anything particularly to boast of ? We look with

pride at tire wonderful development that has taken place in the United States during the past few years, but the development has been one-sided. The rich have been becoming richer and the poor poorer. Just let me read for your information something about the steel corporation : The steel corporation's total capitalization is $1,404,000,000 ; its net earnings for its first nine months ending November 30, were, $84,779,298, exceeding ten per cent on its stock. The steel corporation supports a million people counting families of employees, controls two-thirds of the American steel industry, owns 115 lake ships, 6 railroads, 80 per cent of the known deposits of Lake Superior iron, 105,000 acres of land in Penn-slyvania, and leases 98,000 acres of gas land.
This industry is controled by a few men. Look at the condition of the United States before you attempt to copy their tariff and see what you will find there :
Perhaps the most accurate count of industrial trusts is that of the national census of 1900, from *which pools and loose combinations are excluded. A summary of its figures is given by Superintendent Merriam in the ' Atlantic ' for March, 1902. The total is 183, with 2,203 plants, and with a capital of $3,569,615,808. Their total output for the census year, $1,661,000,000 shows that they absorb less of the industrial field than is commonly supposed. The total output of all manufacturing (not yet computed) is expected to reach about $13,000,000,000.
Where did these few men get this $3,059,000,000 to put into these trusts ? Where did Carnegie get his money, supposed to be worth $1,000,000,000 ? Was it the result of honest labour ? No, it was by taking from the producers of the United States more than was his fair share and that as a result of the introduction of a high tariff. Briefly then, a high tariff bears heavily upon the mass of the people for the benefit of the controllers of these great institutions. Jt may be said that I exaggerate the conditions in the United States. Well, 1 do not need to give you my opinion. Let me read you an opinion that you may very well believe in. There is being formed in the United States to-day and they will have their meeting in St. Louis, an organization for the express purpose of inducing the people of Ireland to remain at home and not submit themselves to the conditions as they exist now in that highly protected and prosperous country ? What do we find ? We find the very first man who expresses an opinion is Cardinal Gibbon, a man in whom we have confidence. He said :
I know under what circumstances people live in America. My advice to the young men and women of Ireland is to endeavour to find a livelihood in their own land. Any man or woman who could eke out a livelihood at 143
home should take my advice and stay there instead of emigrating to America to enter on the keen struggle for existence under trying circumstances that are in progress here.
We are everlastingly hearing about the tremendous development of the United States, of its millionaires, its trusts, its wealth, its development and its trade. Wre do not hear from the submerged, not the tenth, but the ninetieth that live there. Take for instance the statement of Dr. Ludden, Bishop of Syracuse, who writes as follows .
' All the places are filled, all the offices are occupied, and even a smart young Irishman coming here-an educated Irishman, full of brains and full of ability, full of muscle and full of strength-even he has great difficulty to find a position and if he is to get anything to do it must be in the most menial, common and laborious occupation. If he cannot find this, he has simply to do what we call hang around the saloons and liquour stores and descend in the social scale as low as it is possible for a human being to go. I have seen it and I know it, and hence I would like my voice and my advice to reach every young man in Ireland-if he can possibly find a competence and a decent tvay of living at home -to remain there.
What does John Redmond say ?
I have seen the Irish labourer in the great steel works. I have seen him working like a white slave, stripped almost naked in the furnace, working ten and twelve hours a day and sometimes sixteen hours for a dollar and a half, which in America is a wretched and miserable wage. These men work under conditions which make the duration of their capacity to work for any man ten years, and then they are thrown aside. They scarcely lead the lives of human beings at all ; they have no happiness, no recreation, no health, no home life, and too often, as an inevitable consequence, no religion. I say that the poorest man in Kerry is better off in Ireland than these men in America. We must put a stop to our people being deluded and seduced into leaving Ireland to find only in America conditions infinitely worse morally, physically and materially than the poorest in Ireland.
This is the picture that other people paint of the United States and our hon. friends on the other side of the House desire us to establish a tariff in this country that will inevitably have for its end the forming of combinations, the making of multi-millionaires and the sinking of the mass of our people in poverty and misery. If what these bishops and leading men in the Roman Catholic church state represents the true condition of the United States how does it compare with the condition of Canada today ? Can any one truthfully say that an irishman working on a farm in Ireland under the conditions that we think they have in that country could come to Canada and find the conditions which exist in the United
[Stage Direction]


States to-day ? They cannot be found. There is not a hamlet in this country where you cannot find work for an Irishman who is honest and industrious and Mr. Redmond and his ecclesiastical friends need not be afraid to send them to Canada because we are living under conditions and under a tariff -which will not permit conditions such as those that exist in the United States. A great many workmen are under the impression that a high tariff is of particular advantage to them and that under it they get high wages. It is a most absurd contention. High wages certainly do exist sometimes with a high tariff but low wages also exist where tariffs are high. If high wages in the United States were to be attributed to the tariff, why are wages not equally high in Germany, Russia and if no wages are to be attributed to no tariff at all, why are wages so much higher in England than in Germany or France ? Any man knows that high protection which keeps out competition will give him more work, but anybody of intelligence knows that where there is free trade in labour and a man can shift from place to place, it is this competition in the labour, market that fixes his wage and not the amount of the duty. In this country the men that are getting the highest wages, the bricklayers and the stonemasons, are the men who are not protected at all except through the influence of trades unions and the loyalty that one has for the other.
It is a great mistake for people to suppose that high tariffs better the condition of the working classes. It is true that for years the condition of the working class in the United States has been good, but that was due largely to the fact the country was full of untold wealth. In Canada the conditions are peculiar. There has never been such development in our country as there has during the past seven years under the existing tariff. And while in some high tariff and low tariff countries there are signs of approachng trouble, there is not a shadow of depression visible on the horizon of the Canadian industrial nation. I am more familiar with the conditions in my own city of Brantford, and I know what the results are there. I beg to present to the House the following statement of the employees in the several manufacturing concerns in 1903, as compared with 1890, and the result, is, it will be admitted, most satisfactory :
Employ- Employees in ees in 1896.	1903.
Massey-Harris 6o	
300	735Waterous Engine	Works..	..	240	450Verity Plow Co	
75	400Wm. Paterson Co	
130	250Wm. Buck Stove Co	
215	270Cockshutt Plough	Works..	..	70	250Goold, Shapley &	Muir	54	235
Charles Bernhard Heyd: 
Mr. E. D. SMITH.: How many are employed in the Bailey Cutlery Works.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I am very sorry to say there are not many. But when Canada gets big enough to sustain an industry of that kind, such an industry will survive and not till then. There are other reasons which I might give to the hon. gentleman, but I do not need to mention them now. However, here is some information which will be interesting to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith). In the Brantford newspapers we find that the following manufacturers want the following number of labourers, and the statement is given of the wages to be paid.
Buck Works :
12 labourers at $1.50 per day.
12 moulders (piece work).
12 stove plate moulders.
Cockshutt Plough Works :
12 labourers at $1.35 per day.
*	3 blacksmiths at $1.50 to $2.
Verity Works :
20 labourers at $1.35 per day.
2 blacksmiths at $1.50 to $2.
6 hammermen, $2.
12 handymen at $1.40 to $1.75.
Waterous Works :
6 labourers at $1.45.
6 blacksmiths at $2 to $2.50.
Massey-Harris Works :
24 handymen, $1.35 and over.
Schultz Bros. :
12 carpenters, $2 to $2.50.
6 bricklayers, $4.
20 plasterers, $3.50.
Cockshutt Road Company :
15 shovellers, $1.75,
15 cement men.

A summary of the above table shows that the following workmen are required :-
Labourers	   50
Moulders	 12
Stove platers	 12
Blacksmiths	 11
Hammer workers	 6
Handymen	 36
Carpenters	 12
Bricklayers	 6
Plasterers	 20
Shovellers	 15
Cement men	 15
Total	195
Here we have 195 men advertised for in Brantford, and there is a further advertisement for 100 more men to work on a new railway. And yet they tell us that Canada is not prosperous. Why, the city of Brantford is only a specimen of what is going on all over the country. The same thing is going on in Peterborough, in Hamilton, and in other cities, and it is gong on under the present tarff. These gentlemen opposite told us that twenty per cent was too low a tariff on harvesters. But is was high enough to drive the Deering Company over here to establish a factory in Canada and to invest millions of money and give employment to hundreds of working men. The tariff is big enough to drive one industry after another from the United States over to this country. It is adequate for that purpose. And have we not the statement of the leader of the opposition, that, when he was asked whether or not if the Conservative party came into power they would raise the duty on agricultural implements, his reply was :
I said if it were necessary for the purpose of preserving that great Canadian industry, I would be prepared to raise the duty.
If the industry can be preserved it is not necessary to raise the duty, and the best evidence that it can be preserved is that the Cockshutt Plough Company has enlarged its factory three times in seven years, and that the Verity Plough Company, and Goold, Shapley and Muir have done the same thing, and all of them have largely increased the number of their employees during that seven years. That is a specimen of the development in Canada to day, and yet some people want to change the 'tariff under which such things are accomplished, and introduce a high tariff which might bring about the conditions which exist in the United States. I am quite satisfied that when this commission examines into the various industries, the government will be able to revise the tariff once more in the interests of the people of Canada, so that there may be continued to us that prosperity inaugurated seven years ago, under which our people are so happy and so contented. I believe in the tariff changes made by the government so far as I can understand them. I 1434
believe these tariff changes will bring about a certain degree of prosperity to the woollen industry, and I am satisfied that those interested in that industry are content with the change. If the announcement of the Finance Minister is carried out, and when that commission investigates the existing conditions, I am satisfied that a tariff suitable to the changed conditions will be given to the people by this government, and that the fiscal legislation of the Liberal party will redound in the future to the welfare and prosperity of the people of Canada, as it has done in the past.
On motion of Mr. Vrooman the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Thursday, June 9, 1904.