1904-06-07

Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to bring

to the attention of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who,
1 regret, is not in his place, a matter which affects large interests in Canada. This letter was placed in my hands yesterday by the proprietor of a large summer hotel at Oananoque. It is dated Rochester, N.Y., May 31st, 1904, and is as follows :


Mr.  W. L.@: Day,
Gananoque, Ont.
Dear sir,-Your favour of the 27th, and also the booklets received. We surely will do all we can to send our people your way, but we want to say right here, unless you make a move immediately to disabuse the notion that has got abroad here in the city that your fish laws have been changed so as to make them very restrictive, that a number of people who contemplated going over into Canada and spending their vacation, and leaving lots of their money, are. contemplating going in other directions. It is unfortunate that such a notion got started, for it will be difficult to overtake it. We would suggest that if you can have it denied authoritatively in some of your local papers, and send us copies so that we can have it copied in our papers, it would he the most effective way.
You will do us a great favour if you will keep us advised of the transfer boats from Gananoque-the hour they leave Gananoque for other points and when they return. Send us some time table, if you can.
With kind regards, we remain Very truly yours,
P. J. AMSDEN & SON.
I have also a clipping from the Rochester ' Post,' of Thursday, June 2, and the information contained in this item seems to be official. The item is as follows :



CATCH MUST BE LEFT.

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Authorities Demand Everything but the Pleasure.
Nothing said as yet about Seizing Piscatorial Photographs and American Fishermen are still permitted to bring home their rods. Information of importance to Americans intending to visit Canada this year to enjoy the fishing is contained in the following communication from S. T. Bastedo, deputy commissioner of fisheries, Canada, sent to Frank J. Amsden, of this city ' We are having regulations prepared, and, among other things, perhaps the one that will interest you most is that a number of bass this year which any one will be allowed to take shall not exceed eight, and ten inches is the minimum size. I do not think there would be any charge at the customs office where you are carrying your rods with you, but no fish may be taken home. We allow you to come here and enjoy our fishing and charge you nothing for it ; but in former years where a certain amount of the catch has been allowed to be sent out of the country, this privilege has been abused. Parties have sent fish away by the barrel-in fact, we are informed, made a business of this in order to defray their expenses while here. Of course, there is only a certain class of fishermen who would do this thing, but 1381
the abuses have led to the privilege being denied to all.
iSome years ago an) arrangement was made between the American authorities and the Canadian government that certain districts west to Kingston and east as far as Ogdensburg, covering what is known as the Thousand Islands resort, should be a free international park, that the American Alien Labour Law would not be enforced so far as it applied to this district, and that Americans could fish there in Canadian waters and Canadians could come and go as they pleased. That has been acted upon for years. The Americans were to put up a certain number of pavilions and docks and make common pleasure resorts on their side if the Canadian government would do the same.
The improvements were carried out on the Canadian side, but the Americans have not carried out their part of the arrangement. This Mr. Bastedo is the assistant commissioner for the province of Ontario, he writes this as an official letter, and the result will be to prevent thousands and thousands of Americans from visiting the Canadian waters of the St. Lawrence this year because they are given to understand that if they come here to fish they cannot take the fish out of Canada. I do not know what arrangement exists between this government and the Ontario government in reference to fishing in Lake Ontario and the River St. Lftwrence, whether this government has jurisdiction or not; but I think when Mr. Bastedo sent out a document of that kind stating that Americans can come here and fish, but cannot take any fish home, he should have been sure of his ground. Of course we know that fishermen do not take any fish home, except perhaps when a gentleman takes a large fish which he may desire to express to his friends in New York, or take it to his hotel on the American side, as Canadians do who catch fish on the American side. I think the government should make an official announcement upon this matter so that the Americans may be notified that they can come and fish and spend. their money in Canada, and if they choose to take half a dozen fish, they are at liberty to do so. I hope the Prime Minister will discuss this matter with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and let this pronouncement go forth to contradict the statement that has been published broadcast in all the papers of the United States to the great inj'ury of Canada.

Mr. URIAH WILSON.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to renew my question to the Prime Minister with reference to the printing of the voters' list.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: With reference to this subject to which my hon. friend (Mr. Wilson) has more than once called my attention, some few days ago I wrote down to the King's Printer, and this is the information which was sent to me :
Since you last reported to the House upon the state of the printing of the voters' list we have been going on with the maritime province lists. Out of thirteen New Brunswick constituencies, twelve are done, and out of 17 Nova Scotia constituencies eight are done. No more of Quebec or Ontario have been done since your statement in ' Hansard.' The maritime province lists will all be done shortly, for they are nearly all in hand. Then I propose (if I get no orders to the contrary) to take up such of the Ontario lists first as will be valid for the longest time. Quebec province is half done as it is, and I propose to bring up Ontario to the same position and then go on ' pari passu.' The lists are taken up as the current work permits. The inclosed extract from my last report (which has been presented to the House) gives a good idea of the 1 state of the business.


Uriah Wilson: The New Brunswick list has been printed twice since I have had one for Lennox. When I spoke before I had a New Brunswick list before me for 1904. I do not think this is fair treatment as I have not had any list since 1900.



THE ALIEN LABOUR COMMISSION.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I would ask the right hon. gentleman whether he has any answer to-day to the question I have submitted to him three or four times with regard to the constitution of the commission appointed to inquire with respect to alien labour. The right hon. gentleman has always said he would answer on some other day. I would like to know whether counsel had been appointed, and what was the mode of procedure before the commission.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCIC (Postmaster General).: Mr. H. M. Mowat, ICC., of Toronto, has been appointed counsel.


Robert Laird Borden: Was he appointed at first ?
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK No. He is in Winnipeg with Judge Winchester at the present time.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

['Mr. Speaker, I believe the House was occupied to a rather late hour last night, and after listening to two such speeches as we have had to-day, they will be disposed to thank', 'me for moving the adjournment of the debate. I therefore move that the debate be novr adjourned.']
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved :: That the House go into committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.
He said :	Mr. Speaker, in presenting my
eighth budget. I rejoice that I am in a position to congratulate the House upon the continuance, in a very large degree, of that prosperity which Canada has enjoyed for ' Mr. WILSON.
a long time. Some recent conditions have-not been so favourable as some might desire. The severity of the winter, the unusually heavy snowfall in central Canada, the lateness of the opening of navigation-on our inland waters-all these things ha veto some extent operated to disturb our ordinary business conditions ; but any disturbance of that kind will of course only be temporary. Far from complaining of the influence of winter, we should recognize the fact that we have compensation in other directions, for the steady cold season lends itself to that great lumbering-industry which is so important to Canada. .Tack Frost continues to be one of our best friends, and the Canadian winter one of Canada's most valuable assets.
There is some anxiety in the industrial world, among our manufacturers not because of any conditions which exist in Canada, but rather because of conditions-which it is feared do exist, or are likely te exist, in other countries, and particularly in the great republic to the south. There is an opinion in the minds of our manufacturing people that the signs of depression which have already appeared across the border will continue, and that there may be a period of severe depression in that country the effects of which would be bound to cross the border in the shape of an increased and perhaps an illegitimate competition. We are not at liberty to ignore considerations of that kind, in the fixing of our own fiscal policy we are bound to take note of these things. Nor should we fail to point the moral of a depression that prevails in the most highly protected country in the world. There is a tendency in the minds of many who are strong advocates of a high tariff policy to believe that such a policy is the best guarantee of prosperity. Yet we have the remarkable fact to-day that our manufacturers in Canada are chiefly alarmed lest there should be a great depression in the very country where depression ought to be impossible, if high tariffs are a guarantee of prosperity. Indeed I think it would not be a mistake to say that as between the two countries today, the condition of business is better in Canada with a moderate tariff than it is in the neighbouring republic where they have the highest tariff known throughout the world.
There is much in the outlook to-day which calls for serious consideration, for careful thought and for careful action, on the part of men both in public and private life.. But while there is need for thought and for caution, there is no need for discouragement. The business conditions of Canada generally, I believe to be sound, and our crop prospects are all that could be desired. There is no reason why we should not look forward with hope and confidence to a continuance of that great and growing prosperity for

*which Canada has been so noted during the past few years.
Our last session of parliament was so protracted that before the close we were able to have presented to the House the outlines of the condition of the finances of the Dominion for the year which had then recently closed, and since then the public accounts have been laid on the table, so that only a passing allusion is needed to the finances of the year which ended on the 30th June, 1903. My estimate for the revenue of that year was $05,000,000. The actual revenue was $66,037,068.93, an increase of revenue beyond my estimate of $1,037,068.93. The estimate of the expenditure proved to be a very close one. The estimate was $51,650,000. The actual expenditure of the year was $51,691,902.76, being an increase of expenditure over the amount which I ventured to speak of in my anticipations in the last budget to the extent of $41,902.76. I estimated that we would probably have on the operations of the year a surplus of $13,350,000. The out-turn of the year gave us a sur-l>lus of $14,345,166.17. The surplus thus was nearly $1,000,000 more than the sum at which I placed it in the last budget speech. That surplus was the largest in the history of Canada. The revenue increased over 1902 by $7,986,287.90, while the expenditure increased by $932,510.79. Too often it happens in relation to the affairs of government and of public bodies charged with the administration of affairs that where you are blessed with an increase of revenue you also have a corresponding increase of expenditure, but we are happily able to point out that this is not the experience of this government in recent years, for in the figures which I have presented to you I have shown you that while in the year 1903 we increased our revenue by nearly $8,000,000, we only increased our expenditure on consolidated fund account by $932,510,79 :
FISCAL YEAR ENDED 30th .TUNE, 1903.
-	Actual.	Estimate.	Increase.


Revenue ...: Expenditure.	$ ets. 66,037,008 93 51,692,902 70	$ cts. 65,000,000 00 51,650,000 00	$ cts. 1,037,068 93 41,902 7614,345,160 17	13,350,000 00	995,160 17Revenue underestimated by	S 1,037,068	93Expenditure underestimated by. . .. 8	41,902	76Surplus	814,345,160	17
Surplus estimated in Budget Speech,
1903	$13,350,000	00Results better than estimate by	$	995,106	17
I have a statement of the principal sources of revenue during the year from which it will be seen that there was a comfortable increase all along the line. It reads as follows



[Stage Direction]
Details of Revenue as compared with 1902.
Service.	1901-2.	1902-3.	Increase.$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.Customs	32,191,978 47	37,001,720 90	4,809,748 43
Excise ... .: character in the postage to Great Britain. Notwithstanding all that, we find that at a time when we might reasonably look for a deficit, at a time when, if my hon. friend the Postmaster General had come before parliament and admitted that he had a deficit of a large amount he would still have had a splendid record in comparison with the record of his predecessors, but we have a different condition from that, and my hon. friend the Postmaster General is in a position to point out that while granting these reductions, he is able to have a larger revenue than ever before, and not only a larger revenue, but to wipe out his deficits and to convert them into surpluses. The deficit in the year 1896, as stated in the public accounts, was $700,997. There was an inquiry afterwards by a commissioner which resulted in some re-adjustment of the accounts, and I think that in the post office accounts, the figures differed a little from the figures in the accounts of the Finance Department, but, figuring one year with another, the statement will be found to be correct, and so I take the figures which are found in the accounts in the Finance Department. In 1S96, as I have said, there was a deficit of $700,997. There were also accumulations of deficits not provided for which had to be dealt with by a special vote, and which are not referred to here. In 1897, the deficit was reduced from $700,997 to $586,539.


Mr. SPROULE.: That was by a special vote ?


William Stevens Fielding: The special vote simply dealt with these accumulations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That special vote provided for that deficit.


William Stevens Fielding: No, my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is wrong ; the special vote simply wiped out the accumulations of deficits which had accumulated in previous years. The accounts of the Post Office Department showed from year to year certain deficits, and these are the figures that I have quoted; but over and above that there were found these accumulations of arrearages, debts due by the post office which had not been dealt with, and my hon. friend the Postmaster General took a special vote to wipe these out and start afresh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is what I say.


William Stevens Fielding: That special vote was for the payment of past deficits and it had nothing whatever to do with the later deficit to which I refer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That special vote provided for the deficit up to that date.


William Stevens Fielding: 


William Stevens Fielding: It was not the deficit that I am speaking of, but the deficits prior to 1896, the deficits that my hon. friend the Postmaster General had nothing to do with except to provide for them and wipe them out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I say that is what he did.


William Stevens Fielding: The following statement will show the operations of the Post Office Department for several years :


POST OFFICE.
[Stage Direction]
Year.	Revenue.	Expendi- ture.	Deficit.	Surplus.$	$	9	$1896 ...	2,964,014	3,665,011	700,997	1897...	3,202,938	3.789,478	586,539	1S98....	3,527,809	3,575,411	47,602	1899....	3,193,777	3,603,799	410,021	1900....	3,205,535	3,758,014	552,479	1901....	3,441,504	3.931,446	489,941	1902. ..	3,918,415	4.023,636	105,221	1903....	4,397,832	4,105,178	292,654
In 1899 there was a deficit of $410,021 that was the year when the reduction of postage took place.
As my hon. friend the Postmaster General has pointed out, if you compare service with service and omit the items for the Yukon and Atlin districts, there was in the year 1902 an actual surplus ; but I am taking the figures as they appear in the public accounts, and the total expenditure, including the Atlin and Yukon showed a deficit in 1902 of $105,221. In 1903, not taking into-account service for service ; making no comparisons as respects the degree or service rendered at one time or another-though we know that these comparisons show very favourably to the present Postmaster General-but simply taking the results as we find them in the public accounts ; in the year 1903, instead of having a deficit of $700,000 as we had in 1896 with the three cent rate ; in 1903 we have a two cent rate (involving as Sir Charles Tupper said a gift of $1,000,000 to the people) and besides that we have a clear surplus in the Post Office Department of $292,000.
It will be found convenient for comparison to have a statement side by side for the two years as to all classes of expenditure, and therefore I present the following statement.﻿4337

[Stage Direction]
Service.
Consolidated fund	
Capital.
Railways	
Canals	
Public Works	
Dominion Lands	
Militia	
Canadian Pacific Railway	
Total, capital	
Special.
Railway subsidies	
South African contingents and Halifax garrison.
"Bounties on iron and steel, lead, &c	
Total, special	
Total, capital and special	
Total expenditure of all kinds..
1901-2.	1902-3.	Increase.	Decrease.$ Cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.50,759,391 97	51,691,902 76	932,510 79	5,102,838 99	3,083,680 86	2,019,158 132,114,689 88	1,823,273 Cl	291,416 272,190,125 09	1,268,004 51	922,120 58370,837 97	449,542 20	78,704 23	299,697 43	428,223 40	128,525 97	448 70	448 7010,078,638 06	7,052,724 58	3,025,913 482,093,939 00	1,463,222 34	630,716 66247,741 45	130,469 53	117,271 92791,089 38	1,408,252 60	617,163 22	3,132,769 S3	3,001,944 47	130,825 3613,211,407 89	10,054,669 05	3,156,738 8463,970,799 86	61,746,571 81	2,224,228 05
In the year 1902, our expenditures of all kinds amounted to $63,970,799, and in the year 1903 our expenditures of all kinds were $61,746,371. The House may be surprised to learn that at a time when we might naturally look for an increase of expenditure, the gross expenditure for all kinds for the year 1903 was less by $2,224,228, than it was in the preceding year.
With regard to the fiscal year which will end on the 30th of June next, the year has so far advanced now that we are in a position to make a fairly close estimate as to what the actual outcome will be.
Robert Laird Borden: May I ask whether the statement is correct that you credit the income from Dominion lands to revenue and charge the expenditure to capital ?


William Stevens Fielding: There is no change in the method of dealing with that item. I am not sure but perhaps there is some room to debate as to whether those two items are dealt with properly, but however that may be, they" have never materially altered the
situation and no change whatever has been made by us in the method of dealing with them.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the fact ?


William Stevens Fielding: Well, certain portions of the expenditure in connection with Dominion lands arising out of the opening up of the Northwest and the development of the country are charged to capital account. That practice has been continued, although the receipts from the Dominion lands go into the general fund. There is possibly room for fair criticism as to the method employed in former years and at the present time :n respect to that account, but it does not materially alter the general result which I am presenting.
I am glad to find that the revenue for the current year, of which the greater part has now expired, has continued very buoyant. The following table will show the revenue for the eleven months of this current year as compared with the eleven months of last year.

Statement of Revenue to Mat 31, 1904, Compared with Revenue to Same Date, 1903.
-	1902-3.	1903-4.	Increase.	Decrease.$ cts.	$ cts.	8 cts.	$ cts.Customs	33,062,156 75	36,807,063 74	3,744,906 99	Excise.. 	10,945,061 82	11,915,964 77	970,902 95	Post Office	3,833,269 28	4,167,398 20	334,128 92	Railways	6,009,990 67	6.030,787 26	20,796 59	3,874,904 88	3,796,903 42	78,001 46
Total	 		57,725,383 40	62,718,117 39	5,070,735 45	78,001 46
			78,001 46	
Net increase				4,992,733 99	
It will be noticed that there has been a gratifying increase in customs, excise, and post office ; while there is a small decrease in miscellaneous revenues. There is on the whole a net increase of $4,992,733.99 in the general revenues up to date. There is a small increase of something over $20,000,000 from railways, but I am afraid when the time comes to present the statement of expenditure, it will be found that the showing is not so favourable, because the severity of the winter made all railway operation expensive, and in connection with the Intercolonial Railway there has been a very large increase of pay to the working men all over the line which will of course affect the statement for the current year. While the railway revenue shows some increase there will not be as gratifying a statement as we might desire bn for the operation of the year. Our total revenue up to the 31st of May is as follows :
Revenue.
Total revenue received to 31st May, 1904	$62,718,117 39
Estimate for balance of year.. .. 8,311,685 53

Or, say in round numbers.. ..$71,000,000 00
In reaching this estimate of $71,000,000, I am taking the receipts to date and for the balance of the year I am not allowing for any increase. There has been perhaps some little check in business owing to the causes I have mentioned, and I am not going to assume that for the balance of the year we will have an increase of revenue, although I am hopeful we may. I am assuming we will hold our own, and therefore on the basis of the receipts to May 31. and the continuance of the revenue for the remainder of the year to correspond with that for the Mr. FIELDING.
same period of last year, I estimate that we shall have a revenue of $71,000,000. The total expenditure chargeable to consolidated fund to May 31, 1904, was $41,623,560.67. My estimate for the balance of the year is that in closing up the accounts we shall probably expend about as much as we did a year ago, namely, $12,731,931.12. This will bring the total expenditure chargeable to consolidated fund to $54,355,491.79 ; or say in round numbers $54,500,000.
I anticipate, then, that for the current year we shall have a revenue of $71,000,000 and an expenditure chargeable to consolidated fund of $54,500,000, leaving us the magnificent surplus of $16,500,000.
On capital account I estimate that we shall spend during the current year $11,-
500,000.	If, then, we take into account the expenditure on consolidated fund, the expenditure on capital account, the surplus, the sums which we shall set aside as sinking funds, and which merely pass from one hand to the other and go to swell our assets, the result will be, I anticipate, that at the close of the current year we shall have reduced the net debt of Canada to the extent of $7,500,000.
It has been my happy privilege to present from time to time statements of prosperous years in which we have had many surpluses ; and I have thought that it would be well to summarize the surplus account during the eight years that this government has administered the public affairs of the country. In the year 1896-7, the first year that this government was in power-a year during which we had not full control of affairs, because we had taken largely the estimates of our predecessors-there was a deficit of $519,981.44. That was the last deficit, the end of deficits so far as we had anything to do with them. We find, then, the statement for the eight years to be as follows :

Surpluses for the Eight Years, 1896-7 to


STATEMENT OF NET DEBT.
[Stage Direction]
1903-4.
-	Surplus.	Deficit.
	$ cts.	$ cts.
1890-7			519,981 44
1897-8		1,722,712 33	
1898-9		4,837,749 00	
1899-1900		8,054,714 51	
1900-1		5,648,333 29	
1901-2	 		7,291,398 06	
1902-3		14,345,166 17	
1903-4 (estimated)		16,500,000 00	
Total for eight years..	58,400,073 36	519,981 44
Less deficit for 1890-7.	519,981 44	
Total net surplus for		
eight years		57,880,091 92	
Average surplus per		
year		7,235,011 49	
It was the good fortune of our predecessors in the eighteen years during which they managed the affairs of the country to have some surpluses and some deficits. Taking them together and striking the average, we find that during the eighteen years of their administration they had an average surplus of $544,539.61. while during our eight years we have had an average surplus of $7,235,011.49.
The question of the public debt is always an important one. In a country like Canada, a comparatively new and young country, it would not be surprising if we had to show large increases of the public debt. I have on several occasions, in referring to decreases which we have been able to show, pointed out that no finance minister in a country like Canada need be ashamed if he has to come before parliament and acknowledge that he is increasing the public debt. That ought to be the normal condition in a young country like ours, with vast resources to develop, with improvements all around us waiting to be done, and with courageous men ready to do them ; but happily we are relieved from any such necessity. The following shows the net debt of the Dominion, beginning with the year 1896, and continuing down to the present date :
-	Net Debt.	Increase.	Decrease..Tune 30	$ cts.	$ cts.	§ cts.1896	258,497,432 77	1897	261,538,596 46	3,041,163 69	1898	263,956,898 91	2,417,802 45	1899	266,273.446 60	2,317,047 69	1900	265,493,806 89	779,639 711901	268,480,003 69	2,986,196 80	1902.	271,829,089 62	3,349,085 93	1903. ...	264,912,439 11	6.916,650 511904 (Est.).	257,412,439 11	7,500,000 0014,111,296 56	15,196,290 2214,111,296 56Redu	ction in eight y	ears	1,084,993 66Average reduction per year	135,624 20
Thus we shall have this happy statement to present to the public, that we have carried on the public affairs of this Dominion for a period of eight years, during which we have engaged in large ventures and great improvements ; we have spent money liberally, our hon. friends opposite sometimes say lavishly ; we have generously provided for all demands for the public improvement of the country ; and we shall be able at the close of the eight years to say that we have not added one dollar to the debt of Canada. On the contrary, from these figures we shall probably be able to show that there has been a reduction in the net debt during the eight years of $1,084,993.66, or an average yearly reduction in our eight years of $135,624.20, against an average yearly increase in the net debt in the preceding eighteen years of $6,563,075.
In these statements respecting the public debt, I am confining myself entirely to the actual operations of the government, and the affairs with which we have had ourselves to do-those for which we are responsible and for which we may take credit, if credit there be, or blame, if the reverse be the case. There is however an item in relation to the public debt which I have ignored here. It will be remembered that at an early stage of the session a question arose as to the relation of the adjustment of the accounts of the provinces with the Dominion to the public debt, and I asked the House to suspend judgment on that point, because I had formed the impression that the method of treating that account in its relation to the public debt was not correct. After fuller inquiry, I am satisfied that an erroneous view was taken as to the effect of that settlement on the public debt. I do not wish to enter fully into that matter to-day. Later, however, I shall bring down a memorandum
[Stage Direction]
from the officers of my department showing the position of the accounts. The question however arises, I may say, out of the appropriations made in 1884 by the parliament of Canada as allowances to the various provinces. Certain sums were set apart to the credit of each province, and while, as respects most of the provinces, these sums were immediately carried into the debt of the Dominion, in the cases of Ontario and Quebec they were dealt with ih another form. They were not entered up as part of the debt hut treated in another way to- produce the same result, but I think it would have been more correct, as a matter of book-keeping, to have dealt with them as we did in the case of the other provinces. There has been from time to time discussion as to whether these sums constituted a capital sum of money belonging to each of these provinces, or whether they simply created an annuity. I have always considered that these sums were capital placed to the credit of the province of Ontario and Quebec, properly chargeable to the Dominion, and so long as they remain in the hands of the Dominion, of course they yield revenue to these provinces. It appears however that in the making up of the recent statement of affairs as between the Dominion and these provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the idea that these sums created an annuity ran into the minds of the officials. While they took into account the annuity or annual interest, they ignored the principal sum, and I am satisfied now that in a proper statement of the accounts, the best way would be to charge up that sum against the debt of the Dominion and credit whatever there is on the other side. However, I do not propose to dwell on that feature, but simply call attention to the erroneous view taken by the officials of the Finance Department, for which of course I am responsible, and by the Auditor General when these accounts were prepared.
Mr. E. D. BOEDEN.: Is this the matter which was discussed somewhat earlier in the session, about two months ago, and is the statement to which the right hon. gentleman refers the one he then promised to bring down ?


William Stevens Fielding: My deputy was absent in England and I stated that on his return I would have him investigate the matter and prepare a memorandum. He is doing so, and I will submit it to the House, though not perhaps-in connection with the Budget, but I refer to it to show why I claim credit for less dimunition in the public debt last year than the public accounts show. In that respect the public Mr. FIELDING.
accounts were in error, but the matter will be made right in the accounts of the present year.


Frederick William Borden: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will see that it is brought down as soon as convenient. Two months have elapsed since the promise was made.


William Stevens Fielding: I have stated the substance more fully than I intended when I began. I am giving an explanation now almost as full as the one my deputy will be able to give in any memorandum he can make.


Mr. BELL.: The matter, as it has been treated, would seem to decrease the public debt. As it is to be treated, will it have the effect of increasing the public debt ?


William Stevens Fielding: A certain sum, about $3,000,000, was found by the adjustment of accounts, to be payable by the provinces to the Dominion and was placed to the credit of the Dominion. The other item should have appeared on the other side of ,tha accounts, but assuming it was an annuity, it was not treated as a principal sum. It will not materially disturb the figures 1 have given. I am confining my remarks to-day entirely to the operations of this government without reference to that item, which is a book-keeping entry relating to affairs of bygone years. In the statement we submitted we have drawn the line clearly between the reduction of debt brought about by our own operations and that which was assumed to be brought about through the operation of these accounts, so that the public accounts, while not strictly correct, in the matter, are correct in this respect, that we have drawn the line distinctly between the operations of this government and what is the result of a mere bookkeeping entry. Whatever the result may be, it will have to be carried into the public accounts of the present year. The statement I have made deal with the income and expenditure of the government for the whole period of eight years and the result will be as I have said.
It will be interesting to have a statement showing how our interest account stands in view of this change in relation to the public debt. The manner of computing the interest on the public debt is by taking the gross receipts from our sinking fund and other investments. In 1896 the gross interest on our debt amounted to $10,502,429.90. Deducting from this the interest on sinking funds and other investments, amounting to $1,-
370,000.56, left a net amount of interest of $9,134,429.34. Following the figures down we find the following result :

Interest paid on Debt.	Interest on Sinking Funds and other Investments	Net amount of Interest.1897	10,645,663 27 10,516,757 90 10,855,111 84 10,099,645 20 10,807,954 65 10,975,935 15 11,068,139 17	1,443,003 84 1,513,654 58 1,590,447 91 1,683,050 51 1,784,833 79 1,892,224 09 2,020,953 04	9,202,659 43 9,003,103 32 9,264,663 93 9,016,594 69 9,023,120 86 9,083,711 06 9,047,186 131898	
1899	1900	1901	
1902	1903	
So that our net interest account for the year 1903 was $9,047,186.13 against $9,132,429.34 in 1896. Equally agreeable is a statement of the net debt per head.
Any statement of the general debt fails perhaps to convey a very adequate meaning to the mind unless we see what relation it bears to the ability of the country to pay it. As the country increases in population, we might have a considerable increase in debt without any increase in the burden, because the rate per head would not be advanced. The statement I am about to present differs a little from one of the same character which I presented on a former occasion, because the dates chosen are not the same I thought it well to have a statement showing the population on the same date as the debt is fixed, that is the 30th of June in each case. The census date was April. Take census figures for April and apply them to the debt of June 30 and you will lack some of the accuracy which is desirable. I have therefore had the statement of population made up in the Census Department as on the 30th of June of each year and of course the net debt statement is the 30th of June each year. The result is this, beginning with the year 1891 :


NET DEBT PEE CAPITA.
[Stage Direction]
-	Population.	Net debt.	Per capita.	$	s	cts.Jline 30,	1891	4,845,323	237,809,030	49	08,,	1892	4,896,739	241,131,431	49	24,,	1893	4.948,701	241,681,039	48	841894	5,001,214	246.183,029	49	221895	5,054,285	253,074,927	50	071896	5,107.918	258,497,432	50	611897	5,162,121	261,538,596	50	661898	5,216,899	263,956,398	50	60ii	1899	5,272,258	266,273,446	50	.)<)1900	5,328,205	265,493,806	49	831901	5,384,745	268,480,003	49	861902	5,441,885	271,829,089	49	951903	5,499.632	264,912,439	48	16it	1904	5,557,991	257,412,439	46	31
We are so near the end of the year 1904, that we can make the estimate closely, and we anticipate that on June 30, 1904, the net debt of Canada will stand at $46.31 as stated in the above table, as against $50.61 on the 30th June, 1896.
My hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) thinks that I have hardly been liberal enough in estimating the population of Canada to-day ; I have taken the figures as they have been furnished by the Census Department, thinking that was the best way.
During the past year we have had some loan operations, the nature of which should be stated to the House although they have been in part already communicated to the House.	'
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask my hon. friend whether in his statement of interest on the public debt he takes into consideration temporary arrangements of overdue loans.


William Stevens Fielding: 
TOTAL TRADE.
[Stage Direction]
1813	$217,801,203
1883	 230,339,826
1893	 247,638,620
1903	 467,064,685

[Stage Direction]
1873	$128,011,281
1883	 132,254,022
1893	 129,074,268
1903	 241,214,961

[Stage Direction]
1873	$ 89,789,922
1883	 98,085,804
1893	 118,564,352
1903	 225,849,724

[Stage Direction]
1883	$13,266,255
1893	 22,003,599
1903	 47,373,417
DEPOSITS IN THE POST OFFICE AND GOVERNMENT SAVINGS BANKS (30th June).
1873	$ 6,121,490
1883	 26,219,107
1893	 41,849,6561903	 60,771,129
30th April, 1904	 60,445,322
DEPOSITS BY THE PEOPLE IN CHARTERED BANKS IN CANADA (30th June).
1873	
1883	
1893	
1903	
30th April, 1904
! 57,509,823 98,308,436 170,817,433 378,937,458 405,157,450
DISCOUNTS (30th June).
1873	
1883	
1893	
1903	
30th April, 1904
William Stevens Fielding: These figures, which will be found in very much more detail in the diagrams which will be distributed, give very gratifying evidence of the great increase in trade and wealth which has taken place in Canada and of which hon. members on 'both sides of the House are, I am sure, equally proud. While the condition of the country generally has been good, we have reason to be particularly grateful for the splendid prosperity which has come to the great Northwest. All portions of our Dominion have equal demands upon us, and all portions are, I trust, receiving from the government and parliament their fair share of consideration ; but all portions have not equal inducements to offer to the immigrants who are seeking for homes. The vast territories of the Northwest offer inducements to the land hungry such as the eastern provinces cannot be expected to hold out, and naturally the efforts of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) and the officers of his department are chiefly turned to the important duty of filling up the vacant lands of the Northwest. 4I wonder if we are able to appreciate the vast extent of land still available in these Territories. Canada is a country of such magnificent distances that sometimes it is difficult for us to understand and appreciate the vastness of that territory.
Dr. Wm. Saunders, of the Experimental Farm, in an admirable article in the April number of the ' Canadian Magazine,' has discussed the question of wheat-growing in Canada, and he has given some estimate of the available land in the Northwest Territories for that branch of farming. The figures that he gives are as follows :
Acres.
Manitoba	 27,000,000
Assiniboia	 50,000,000
Saskatchewan	 52,000,000
Alberta	 42,000,000
Total	171,000,000
It is thus estimated-
Says Dr. Saunders,
-that there are within the limits referred to, after making allowance for lands unfit for agriculture, about 171,000,000 acres suitable for cultivation, by which is meant land of such degree of fertility as to admit of profitable farming.
Further on Dr. Saunders deals with the question of the ability of Canada to supply food for the mother country, and the statement he makes on that question-perhaps hon. gentlemen have had their attention already drawn to it-is well worthy of being-repeated. It is headed in the publication I have mentioned, ' A Reasonable Prophecy ' :
The total imports of wheat and flour into Great Britain in 1902 were equivalent in all to about 200,000,000 bushels of wheat. Were one-fourth of the land said to be suitable for cultivation in Manitoba and the three provisional

territories under crop with wheat annually, and the average production equal to that of Manitoba for the past ten years, the total crop would be over 812,000,000 bushels. This would be ample to supply the home demand for 30,000,000 of inhabitants (supposing the population of Canada should by that time reach that figure) and meet the present re-uirements of Great Britain three times over. This estimate deals only with a portion of the west, and it leaves the large eastern provinces out of consideration altogether. Prom this it would seem to be quite possible that Canada may be in a position within comparatively few years, after supplying all home demands, to furnish Great Britain with all the wheat and flour she requires and leave a. surplus for export to other countries. With a rural population on the western plains in 1902 of about 400,000, over 67,000,000 bushels of wheat were produced. Add to this the wheat grown in Ontario and the other eastern provinces and we already have a total of over 93,000,000 bushels. These figures are full of promise for the future of Canada as a great wheat-producing country.
It is natural to conclude that, with such-i territory to offer to the people, all that is necessary is that its resources and character be made known, when it must attract people from all parts of the world. For a long time the hopes of the Canadian people with regard to the Northwest were hardly realized, although they had spent vast sums in opening up that territory, and every effort was made no doubt to bring people in. But for one cause or another, whatever it may have been, the rate of progress for some years was slow and unsatisfactory. But in recent years we have nothing to complain of on that score ; there has been a very gratifying increase in the influx of immigrants to that territory. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior has spent money freely in advertising Canada, and the time has come when the Dominion is reaping a rich harvest, and when all will admit that the money he has expended for that purpose, and which, at one moment, some were disposed to look upon with doubt, is now bearing rich fruit for the building up of this Dominion. I find that the arrivals of immigrants into Canada during the past eight years appear as follows :
Years.	Number.
1896	(calendar)	
16,8351897	"	
21,9141898	"	
31,9001899	"	
44,5431900	(1st	6	months)	
23,8951901	(fiscal)	
49,1491902	"	
67,3791903	"	
128,3641903	(calendar)	
134,370
The origin of these immigrants for the calendar year 1903 appears as follows :
British	50,141
Continental Europe	 48,046
United States	46,183
We are glad to know that the immigration work continues actively during the present year, and no doubt at the end of the season a very gratifying story can be told.
Glance now for a moment at the extent to which homestead entries are being taken up :
Calendar Year.
1896		
1897		
1898		
1899		
1900		
1901		
1902		
1903		
1,857
2,407
4,848
6,899
7,850
9,108
22,215
32,682
As an evidence of the growth of that country, look now at the sales of land by railway companies who have had land grants, and by the Hudson Bay Company :
Year.	Acres.	Amount.1896..	..	..	..	108,016	361,3381903 (fiscal)..	..	1,229,011	14,651,757
Last year, Mr. Speaker, we introduced, in connection with our tariff legislation, an important change, which we believed was rendered necessary for the defence of Canadian interests. We thought that one of the great nations of the world had not treated us as fairly as we ought to be treated, and in self defence we adopted what was called the German surtax. I have nothing now to add on that subject, except to call the attention of the House to the effect that that surtax has had upon trade between the two countries. Prior to the adoption of the surtax the imports from Germany to Canada were increasing ; under the operation of the surtax, not only has the increase been arrested, but there has been a very considerable diminution. For the ten months from the 1st of July, 1892, to the end of April, 1903, the total dutiable imports for consumption from Germany amounted to S8,-
048.000,	while for the corresponding ten months of the current fiscal year they only amounted -to $5,367,162-a falling off of $3,281,438, or a decline of 38 per cent. To illustrate in a concrete way the result of the surtax, the importations of raw sugar might properly be referred to. During the last fiscal year 174,000,000 pounds of this commodity were imported from Germany, but since the surtax was applied not a pound has been imported under it from Germany. All that trade has been diverted to the British West Indies, including British Guiana. The importations o-f raw sugar from the British West Indies, including British Guiana, for the ten months ending with April of the current fiscal year, amounted to 188,000,000 pounds. For the corresponding period of the previous year the imports from the British West Indies amounted to 46,515,355 pounds ; estimated from British Guiana, 23,000,000 pounds-in all, 69,000,000, as compared with
188.000.	000 pounds for the same period of the curi'ent fiscal year. Statistics show that

the surtax has resulted also in reducing the Importations of woollens, cottons and silk goods, and articles of iron and steel. There is nothing new to be said on that question. We regret that we felt obliged to take that step, and we think that on the whole it has operated to the advantage of Canada, and it has certainly commanded the attention of the wide world. I think that the almost universal opinion has been that the action of the government of Canada was fully justified.
It is now seven years since we had a revision of the tariff. Some changes have been made, but nothing very material. That tariff, I venture to say, has on the whole proved most satisfactory. It has proved a good revenue tariff, as we are bound to conclude from the figures I have given to the House. It has included a considerable measure of incidental protection, and in that respect it will command the admiration perhaps of some hon. gentlemen opposite, who are more anxious for protection than some of us on this side of the House.


Mr. CLANCY.: What an abomination that measure of protection is.


William Stevens Fielding: be unseemly on our part if we were to attempt to throw ourselves between the two political parties over there, and take	any active part in the movement. We must be content with stating our position, as it has been stated in the past. We on this side of the House accept the principle of preferential trade. We believe that, while differing in some details, hon. gentlemen opposite will not differ from us on the principle, and therefore we say to the English people that Canada is practically a unit in support of the principle of preferential trade. We must be content to leave the matter at that for the present.
We have some tariff changes to propose this session, but we have no intention of making any extensive tariff revision. Many items in the tariff, I might be almost justified in saying that almost every item in the tariff, bears a relation to some other item, and it becomes necessary to have a very careful inquiry before any detailed revision be undertaken. Before the last revision of the tariff, a commisison composed of members of the administration held a very extensive and thorough inquiry among the business men of the country ; all interests were heard and I am sure much valuable information was obtained. Before we could attempt to deal with all the details of the tariff, it will probably be the part of wisdom to have that commission or some such body make some such inquiry. The ministers in one way or another will have to make a thorough investigation before any detailed tariff revision can be undertaken.
But, while we may not be prepared to deal with the details now, there is no reason why we cannot foreshadow the lines upon which the tariff revision might take place. We have to-day practically three tariffs'. We have the British preference, we have our general tariff and we have the Gen-man surtax. I think it would be found wise in any revision of the tariff that may take place, to continue these distinctions, and to perhaps deal with them more in detail. I think it would be the part of wisdom that we should still have separate tariffs to apply to separate countries, in order that we may be able to deal fairly with the countries that want to trade with us, and to deal less generously with those countries which pursue a somewhat hostile course towards us. We have to-day practically a maximum and a minimum tariff if I may so describe it, and then we have the British preference below that again. It would be well that in the revision that may take place, we should adopt that principle as it now exists and deal with it more in detail. I| think it would be well for us to have a maximum general tariff and a minimum general tariff, and the British preference below that as we have it to-day. The maximum tariff would only be applied to those countries which pursue, if I may Mr. FIELDING.
so call it, a hostile policy-I do not mean to say that they have any hostility to us, but simply that in the carrying out of their own affairs they adopt a trade policy which discourages trade with us. In that case, they cannot complain if we have a maximum tariff, and though we should guard against having an extreme tariff, we would be justified in saying that this tariff should be materially higher than the tariff which we are prepared to extend to other countries which are willing to trade with us on fair and reasonable terms. The minimum general tariff, which would correspond to the general tariff to-day, would apply to such countries as do not legislate commercially in a spirit of hostility to us-perhaps that is not happily expressed ; let me say, to countries that adopt more moderate tariff views; low tariff countries. Of course where there are favoured nation treaties in existence they have to be considered, but the principal nations which to-day adopt a high tariff policy have not any favoured nation arrangement, and therefore I think our Hands will be free in that respect. So, we would have a maximum tariff as we have the German tariff to-day, to apply to such countries as do not manifest a disposition to trade with us. We would have a minimum general tariff to apply to countries that are disposed to trade with us, and then below that we would have the British preferential tariff to apply to the mother country and to such colonies of the empire as it may be expedient to extend the benefit of that tariff to. I think, Sir, that on this line, guarding carefully against extortionate duties, but also making a distinction between the countries which wish to trade with us and the countries that do not wish to trade with us, I think we can devise a tariff which will be in all its details fairly satisfactory to the country.


Frederick William Borden: I do not know whether I quite follow the hon. gentleman. Is it his suggestion that we should apply a higher tariff to other countries which have high tariffs against us, although they may treat us exactly in the same way they treat all other countries.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, I think we should do that. Although, if there be special cases of countries which treat us with exceptional unfairness, we would still have to deal with them by special legislation as we have done in the past.
One advantage which we might derive from the treatment of the question as I have suggested, is, that we could deal with separate articles. Very often a general rule will work out some disadvantages when applied. Under our present system, our British preference is one-third off everything, and there may be cases in which that works unequally. There may be cases in which we could afford the one-third off ; there may be cases in which we can afford more than

435S
one-third off. There would consequently be some advantage to us in having in our tariff columns a maximum general tariff, a minimum general tariff and a preferential tariff; with each individual item stating in each case what the preference should be, and what the difference is to be. This would strike me as being the line upon which a tariff revision might properly be undertaken.
But, Sir, though we speak of that as an outline of the method by which there might be a detailed tariff change, w>e have to consider the question of things as they are today. We desire to deal with certain things as they present themselves to us to-day ; we desire to deal with matters of urgency, reserving the question of a more general and more detailed tariff revision until an early date-I would say hopefully next session, but at all events as soon as a proper inquiry can be made.
As I said, we propose to deal with some, articles to-day. One of the first matters to which I wish to make reference is the wool industry. Very much of the criticism of the tariff respecting the wool industry, is, I am inclined to think, unjustified. What I mean is that as respects some of these industries no amount of tariff could save them from trouble. From the information I have received, I may say that in every one of these industries there has not been the perfection of management which is necessary in these days of keen competition. I am afraid that they are not all equipped with the most modern machinery ; I am afraid that they have not all put themselves in a condition which would enable them to fully enjoy the benefits which the tariff already holds out to them. But, while .there may be cases of that kind-and my information is that there are such cases-still the representations that have been made to us lead us to the belief that the woollen industry is suffering severely from competition, and we propose to deal by a special item in our tariff with that industry.
The complaint is made very largely by our woollen manufacturers and by various public men who sympathize with them that although on the better grades of goods they can fairly compete with all persons, even the British manufacturer, a very large proportion of the imports of British woollen goods coming into Canada are really shoddy, goods of an inferior character, against which we ought to legislate ; and it is alleged that any increase which we might make in the woollen duties would have the effect of shutting out, not the purer woollen goods, but the shoddy goods. That is argued with much force, and I am inclined to believe that there is something in it. However, we propose to deal with the matter in this way. Our present duty on the class of goods which I may describe as cloths, tweeds, overcoatings, wearing apparel, and goods of that character, is 35 per cent, subject to the preference, which 139
brings the duty on British goods down to 23i per cent. We do not propose to increase the general tariff, but we propose to put a limit on the extent to which the preference shall apply to these goods. We propose to fix a minimum tariff of 30 per cent on this class of goods coining in under the preferential tariff. This change will apply to all woollen goods mentioned in the tariff item 394, with the exception of blankets, flannels/ bed comforters and counterpanes, which are placed in a group by themselves.
We deal in a similar manner with the item of twine and cordage. These goods to-day are subject to a 25 per cent tariff, subject to the deduction under the British preference, which brings the rate of duty down to 16f per cent. This is a lower rate of duty than even the most moderate tariff man usually is willing to impose, and we propose to fix a minimum duty of 20 per cent ad valorem, on that class of goods coming in under the British preference. That refers to twine and cordage, but does not touch the privilege already granted to fishermen, and does not touch binder twine.
While in the items I have mentioned the degree of preference we have been giving may work inconveniently, and it may be convenient to grant a less preference than one-third, in other items it may be equally convenient to grant more preference.
On table ware of china, porcelain or other clay, the duty at present is 30 per cent, with one-third off when imported from Great Britain, bringing it down to 20 per cent. We propose to reduce this to 15 per cent, so that in that case the British preference instead of being one-third will be one-half.
We deal in like manner with window glass, the duty on which at present is 20 per cent, with one-third off when imported from Great Britain. We propose that the duty on window glass imported from Great Britain shall be reduced to 7-J per cent. In these two cases the preference to Great Britain is increased, in the cay: of the woollens it is decreased.
In item 330, schedule A, there is a group of articles from which we want to strike out pails and tubs of wood. The effect of that is to throw them into the general classification of wooden goods, so that they will be dutiable at 25 per cent instead of 20 per cent, as they now are.
In item 323 of schedule A we propose to add a qualification. The item refers to the duties on carriages. We propose to put a minimum value of $40 on an open buggy and a minimum value of $50 on a covered buggy.
We propose to insert in the list of prohibited goods an item to exclude stallions and mares of less value than $50 each.
In item 203 of schedule A we deal with the duties on glass imported in certain conditions. At present there are three rates on that class of goods. I am referring


Mr. HENDERSON.: Theoretically. '


William Stevens Fielding: Not only theoretically, but absolutely certain, because if the price

comes down in the one and not in the other, the other will not be consumed, so that the effect of this reduction will be an Immediate reduction in the price of oil at the refineries in Canada, and from the refiner to the various distributing companies, and from these to the shop-keepers, and in due season it will reach* the consumer. If it be true that the consumer pays the duty, I presume he will pay this as well as others, and there is not much doubt that the consumer pays an increased price, under the present system, not only on the imported oil, but on the Canadian as well. We have a consumption in Canada of 25,755.450 gallons. The saving to the people of 24 cents per gallon on that quantity will amount to $643,886. We will pay a, bounty only on the crude oil produced in Canada, which amounted last year to 16,852,640 gallons. Observe that the bounty being paid only on the Canadian crude will apply only to a limited quantity, whereas the reduction of price will applv to the whole consumption, whether Canadian or American. We find then the saving to the people by this policy of $043,886 in the shape of reduced price on oil. On the other side of the account, the people will pay out through the treasury, $225,789 in the way of bounties. Deducting the amount which the people will pay from the sum which they will receive, there is a net gain to the consumer on the year's operations of $390,097. Besides, the people will receive further advantages by having fuel oil placed on the free list, and that is an important item to manufacturers who use oil as a fuel. There will toe a further advantage in a reduction of the duties on all the products of petroleum. Thus, paraffin wax candles are reduced from 30 per cent to 25 per cent ad valorem, and paraffin wax is also reduced from 30 per cent to 25 per cent ad valorem. Illuminating oils of the highest grades are reduced from 25 per cent to 20 per cent ad valorem. Crude petroleum of the highest character, the duty on which is now 24 cents per gallon, will be reduced to 14 cents pe1 gallon, while petroleum in the cruder forms will be on the free list.


Mr. OSLER.: Will oil used by gas companies for the manufacture of gas be on the free list ?


William Stevens Fielding: or kind not made in Canada for drilling for water or oil : this is not to include motive power.
We made provision last year for the placing on the free list of certain machinery of a kind not made in Canada for use exclusively in alluvial gold mining for one year; we propose to extend that fo'r one year.
There are one or two changes which do not affect the duties but relate solely to the administration of the department. In item 608 we propose to strike out all the words after the ' United Kingdom ' in the third line. The item refers to the importation of tea. It now requires that there shall he an English certificate as to the character of the tea. We are advised that this certificate is of no substantial value, but impose-; some charge upon our importers, and our own Customs regulations for the examining of tea are ample. We therefore propose to strike out the requirement for the English certificate.
There is an amendment to the item in the tariff respecting the duty on spirits. It does not. however relate to the rate of duty in any way ; it is simply a matter in the administration of the department, an amendment to the form of the item, and therefore I shall pass it over.
Item 462 of Schedule ' B,' that is, on the free list, related to philosophical apparatus, for the use of universities,, schools, &c. We repeal that item, and re-enact it in a larger and more ample form as follows :
462. Philosophical and scientific apparatus, utensils, instruments, and preparations, including boxes and	bottles	containing	the
same, of a class or kind not manufactured in Canada, when specially imported in good faith for the use and by order of any society or institution incorporated	or established
solely for religious, philosophical, educational, scientific or literary	purposes,	or	for the	encouragement of the	fine arts,	or	for the	use
or by order of any college, academy, school, or seminary of learning in Canada, and not for sale, subject to such regulations as the Minister of Customs shall prescribe.
We have had some representations from the manufacturers of neckwear who have made it clear that they suffer some disadvantage, very much of the same nature as that which I have mentioned in connection with certain classes of imports, that is to say that the finished article comes in under the British preference while they are obliged to get the raw material from countries to which the British preference does not apply. We therefore propose to provide a special rate of 10 per cent for silk fabrics when imported by manufacturers of men's neckwear for use in their factories under regulations to be made by the Minister of Customs.
I have now given you. Sir. a statement of all the details wherein we propose to change the tariff. But we have some fur-Mr. FIELDING.
ther proposals to make which although they may not relate to details are of the utmost importance. As time rolls on, changing conditions arise, and it is the duty of the government and of all men in parliament to observe these changing conditions and adapt their tariff legislation to the conditions jvhich may confront us. In the world's trade, many new conditions have grown up, and we are particularly interested in the conditions which have arisen in the great high tariff countries. We cannot meet these by mere academic discussions of the principles of free trade or protection. Mr. Cleveland, on a memorable occasion, used an expression which is very frequently quoted, ' It is a condition and not a theory which confronts us.' We recognize that fact in tariff matters as in many other matters, and we say that many new conditions have arisen and are arising of which we are obliged to take notice. In low tariff countries or in free trade countries, Great Britain for example, these disturbing conditions seldom exist. England conducts her business generally upon rational lines. She sells at a profit, and what is known as the system of dumping or slaughtering is hardly known in connection with British trade. But, Sir, in the case of all High tariff countries these objectionable conditions arise. It seems, to be the inevitable result of high tariff policy that monopolies, trusts and combines will flourish. They may possibly exist in low tariff countries, but they flourish under a high tariff policy as they could mot possibly flourish under other conditions. We find to-day that the high tariff countries have adopted that method of trade which has now come to be known as slaughtering, or perhaps the word more frequently used is dumping ; that is to say, that the trust or combine. having obtained command and control of its own market and finding that it will have a surplus of goods, sets out to obtain command of a neighbouring market, and for the purpose of obtaining control of a neighbouring market will put aside all reasonable considerations with regard to the cost or fair price of the goods ; the only principle recognized is that the goods must be sold and the market obtained. I quite realize that what I may call the extreme free-trader, that is the theoretical free trader, if there be such a man, who attaches more importance to a theory than to the practical things of this life, may ask:	'Why should we
care about that ; do we not get the benefit of cheap goods ? Well, if we could be guaranteed for ever or for a long period that we would obtain cheap goods under that system the question would be a very fair one. If these trusts and combines in the high tariff countries would come under obligations, with sufficient bonds, to supply us with these goods at the lowest prices for the next 50 years, it would probably be the

part of wisdom for us to close up some of our industries and turn tlie energies of our people to other branches. But surely none of us imagine that when these high tariff trusts and combines send goods into Canada at sacrifice prices they do it for any benevolent purpose. They are not worrying about the good of the people of Canada. They send the goods here with the hope and the exirectation that they will crush out the native Canadian industries. And with the Canadian industry crushed out what would happen ? The end of cheapness would come, and the beginning of dearness would be at hands. Artificial cheapness obtained to-day under such conditions, at the expense of dearness at a very near day in the future, is not a system of which we could approve or which any of us on either side of the House could encourage. This dumping then is an evil and we propose to deal with it. Perhaps it would not be too much to say that ninety per cent of the complaints that are made to us by our manufacturers are not that the tariff is too low, speaking generally, but that this dumping and slaughtering condition exists, and that the tariff under such conditions fails to give them the protection they would desire. Well, if ninety per cent of these grievances result from dumping, we shall be prepared to deal with it to-day. We think it is in the interest of legitimate trade that this question should be dealt with. It is not the first time that Canada has set an example in matters of this kind and possibly the step we are about to take will be followed by other countries.' Our friends on the other side of the House will recognize this dumping evil as fully as and perhaps more fully than even gentlemen on this side of the House. We differ from them as to the manner in which it should be dealt with. Their remedy is a general increase of the tariff all along the line. Perhaps the}' would not go quite so far as to increase all duties, but that is the principle they suggest. A high tariff is their remedy for this evil. We object to that because we think it is unscientific. The dumping condition is not a permanent condition, it is a temporary condition and therefore it needs only a temporary remedy, that can be applied whenever the necessity for it arises.
We propose therefore to impose a special duty upon dumped goods. That special duty, subject to a limitation which I will mention, will be the difference between the price at which the goods are sold, the sacrifice price, and the fair market value of those goods as established under the customs law of the country. But this is subject to a qualification, they are subject to a limitation. If an article is sold at a lower price in Canada than it is sold in the country of production, then that will be the evidence of dumping, and the difference between the fair market
value in the country of production and the price at which it is sold-or if bon. gentlemen prefer, dumped-that difference shall constitute the special duty, within the limitations. As regards certain articles upon which our duties are low and upon which we grant protection in the form of bounties as well as in the form of duties, as respects certain of these items in the iron schedule chiefly, the limitation shall be 15 per cent ad valorem ; that is to say, that special duty shall be the difference between the fair price and the dumping price provided it shall not exceed 15 per cent ad valorem. The additional duty over and above the present duty I call the special duty, and it is so called in our resolutions. Then in case of other articles, the limit is 50 per cent of the present duty. It is a duty over and above the existing duty, and it is limited by these two conditions : In one case, or in a few cases of like character, the limitation is that it shall not exceed 15 jier cent, and in the other case it shall not exceed one-half of the duty.


Mr.   I@: Will the hon. gentleman state what the law is now V I thought there was some provision as to charging a duty upon the regular price in the foreign country. I am not familiar with that, and I only ask for information.


William Stevens Fielding: I shall be glad to explain to the hon. gentleman the difference between the present law and what we propose, There is a provision in the existing law that where there is ah undervaluation you can levy duty upon the true valuation. Suppose, for illustration, that	an	article of which	the	'truevalue is if 100 is entered at $80. you can impose	the	duty on the whole	$100.	Youget therefore an extra duty in that case, if you care	to	look	at it in	thatway, to the extent of the rate of duty on the difference in value. In what we propose, you	get	the whole difference	itself. Ifthe article is sold at $80 and if the fair market value	is	$100,	under the	lawas it stands to-day you get your duty of say 30 per	cent	on	that extra	$20.Under what we now propose yon not only get	the	duty on the full	one	hundred dollars, but an extra duty, which means the $20 itself, subject to the limitation that it shall not be greater than one-half of the duty. Thus, if the duty is 30 per cent, the extra duty, or the special duty as I describe it, cannot exceed 15 per cent, and the whole duty could not exceed 45 per cent. The principle is that we will impose as a special duty the difference between the true value and the unfair value. But we put a limitation on that, as limitations are put upon all forms of taxation. Our information is that the average of dumping in Canada represents about 15 per cent. There are some cases in which the dumping may be more and some
in which it may be less ; but from the best information we can obtain we think that the dumping averages a cut price, an unfair-price, an illegitimate price, to the extent of about 15 per cent. With the limitation that we are putting on. it is a special duty corresponding with what we believe to be the average amount of dumping. I may say there is also a special clause with regard to a possible evasion of the provision by the consignee of the goods. Under the first clause of the resolutions we empower the Minister of Customs or the collector of customs, or any other officer-my hon. friend the Minister of Customs suggests that I had better read the provision so that it may go on the ' Hansard ' at once :
That whenever it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Minister of Customs or of any officer of customs authorized to collect customs duties, that the export price or the actual selling price to the importer in Canada of any imported dutiable article, of a class or kind made or produced in Canada, is less than the fair market value thereof, as determined according to the basis of value for duty provided in the Customs Act in respect of imported goods subject to an ad valorem duty, such article shall, in addition to the duty otherwise established, be subject to a special duty of customs equal to the difference between such fair market value and said selling price :	provided, however, that the special
customs duty on any article shall not exceed one-half of the customs duty otherwise established in respect of the article, except in regard to the articles mentioned in items 224, 226, 228 and 231 of schedule A, the special duty of customs on which shall not exceed fifteen per cent ad valorem.
The expression ' export price ' or ' selling price ' herein shall be held to mean and include the exporter's price for the goods, exclusive of all charges thereon after their shipment from the place whence exported directly to Canada.
The foregoing provisions respecting a special duty of customs shall apply to imported round rolled wire rods not over three-eighths of an inch in diameter, notwithstanding that such rods are on the customs free list : provided, however, that the special duty of customs on such wire rodsi shall not exceed fifteen per cent ad valorem.
I have mentioned that there might be an attempt to evade the effect of these provisions through what is called a system of consigning goods, that is to say, the manufacturer would not actually sell his goods but he would consign them perhaps to himself or to an agent in Canada. He would comply for a moment with the conditions of the customs law, and then later on the dumping process might be completed. It is thought well to guard against such a contingency from the beginning ; so while we propose in the' first clause that the customs officer shall have the power of levying this extra duty to which I refer, we * have a special clause to provide that if there be any attempt to evade these duties by the Mr. FIELDING.
method of consigning the goods, there may be an inquiry, and the Minister of Customs may be authorized to deal with these as the circumstances may require. That clause reads as follows :
If at any time it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council, on a report from the Minister of Customs, that the payment of the special duty herein provided for is being evaded by the shipment of goods on consignment without sale prior to such shipment, the Governor in Council may in any case or class of cases authorize such action as is deemed necessary to collect on such goods or any of them the same special duty as if the goods had been sold to an importer in Canada prior to their shipment to Canada.
If the full amount of any special duty of customs be not paid on goods imported, the customs entry thereof shall be amended and the deficiency paid upon the demand of the collector of customs.
Provision is made that regulations concerning that matter may be made by the Minister of Customs, and there is a clause providing that it shall not apply to articles subject to excise duty, because they do not properly come under the conditions to which I am calling attention.


Mr. HAGGARD.: Before the hon. gentleman leaves that subject I would like him to answer this question. Supposing an importer goes into the States and buys goods, say $100 worth, for $75. He enters them for customs duty in Canada at $100. He has bought these goods at $75, we will say, or $50. How are you going to reach that case ?


William Stevens Fielding: In that case we will inquire "what is the ordinary selling price in the United States for the consumer in the United States. The ordinary selling price in the United States will demand the true value, and the $75 that he pays will be deemed the sacrifice value, and we will tax him on $25 up to the limit I have mentioned, not exceeding one-half the existing duty.


John Graham Haggart: The minister does not understand me. The importer has bought those goods at a proper price, at one-half the value in the United States. How are you to know that he has purchased them at that price when he enters them here at their full value ?


William Stevens Fielding: I suppose no system we could possibly devise would not be open to some criticism. There are a thousand things in the Customs Department about which these questions might be asked, but we find the Minister of Customs and his officials have ways of discovering these things. I do not imagine that a clause of this character can be administered without some difficulty, but that is no reason why the clause should not be enacted.
I have now presented to the House all the provisions which we propose to make in relation to the tariff. The tariff is a delicate

and complicated piece of machinery which requires careful handling. It would be very easy by rash and ill-considered changes to create a serious disturbance in the business affairs of the country. We believe that in the changes -we have made, we have dealt with the matters of greatest urgency. We believe that we have gone far to meet the legitimate demands which have been presented to us for revision of the tariff. As respects the other articles in the tariff with which we have not dealt, and of course there are a great many, all I can say is that we do not claim for a moment that the tariff is perfect, but we do say that before we should enter upon a policy of numerous changes, there should be a careful inquiry and that inquiry we are prepared to make so that if there are inequalities or other defects in the tariff we shall be able to remedy them in due course.


John William Bell: In what way is it intended to make the surtax operative ?


William Stevens Fielding: Does my hon. friend refer to the special duty that I am speaking of ?


John William Bell: No, I do not refer to that, but to the general tariff.


William Stevens Fielding: We have made no change regarding the surtax. It remains as it is at present.


John William Bell: That is the German surtax ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


John William Bell: But I understand that the hon. minister stated that he is going to have a maximum tariff imposed on certain imports, maximum tariff and a general tariff.


William Stevens Fielding: No ; I said that in the working out of the general revision of the tariff to take place later, I thought it would be well to set forth each individual item and set forth the difference in rates which we might see fit to establish. In that case there would be a maximum general tariff, a minimum general and British preference. But, that does not refer to any thing that is to be done at the present time. It is simply an indication of the lines upon which we should proceed in regard to the fuller revision of the tariff. As to how we shall deal with the surtax that will depend on what the state of matters may be at the time. If there be a special state of things we shall have to get special legislation concerning it.


John William Bell: I thought that in the earlier part of my hon. friend's speech in which he was referring to the tariff, he stated that he was about to adopt practically what would be a maximum, a minimum and a regular tariff.


William Stevens Fielding: No, that all refers to the manner in which the detailed revision of the tariff will be brought about later. It had no reference to anything we propose to-day.
We have practically that system to-day because, we have the German surtax, the general tariff and the British Preferential tariff. The change that I was suggesting was that it would be well to set these forth in separate columns, dealing with each item separately. I have submitted to the House all that the government have to propose on this great question. We quite realize the difficulties connected with tariff changes ; we quite realize the difficulties which business men experience in regard to the tariff ; and while we have been willing to consider all reasonable requests, while we have been anxious to meet the legitimate demands for changes we have always had a strong opinion that there was a great deal of merit in a policy of tariff stability. I have met many manufacturers, who, while they wanted some particular change, frankly said that rather than go into any broad changes in the tariff policy, they would submit to what they considered a disadvantage for a little while longer, because they recognized that frequent tariff changes are not desired by business men. Our tariff has been in operation since 1897 with a very few changes. It would not be surprising if changed conditions should necessitate changes in the details of this tariff. We believe that in what we have proposed to-day we have met the most urgent matters which have been presented to us. We believe we have met to a very large extent the complaints which have been made by our manufacturers by the introduction of this policy in regard to dumping or slaughtering. We believe that in the form in which the tariff will stand when these amendments have been adopted, as I trust they will be by parliament, the tariff will be in a condition which will give general satisfaction to nearly all classes in this country, but as respects the items with which we have not dealt, we do not for a moment assume that the tariff is perfect. We admit that in a number of instances circumstances may have arisen under which, after proper investigation, it may be necessary to make further changes. We are prepared as I have said to make a careful inquiry into all these things, such a careful inquiry as every business man must desire should be made before sucll policy is introduced into this House. But, I think we are justified in saying that in the main, we have, by introducing and devising tariff measures to meet the conditions of the country, given a reasonable assurance to the country now and in the future that this government can be relied upon, while guarding against monopolies, trusts and combines, to give reasonable aid to the legitimate industries of the country, and to adopt a tariff policy which will not only be a policy for the benefit of the manufacturers, but a policy, which, while giving them all due Consideration, will have regard also to the interests of every class and section of the


William Stevens Fielding: 
Mr.  A. C.@: BELT* (Pictou). Mr. Speaker, the speech of the Minister of Finance contains some information of a most important character ; it has furnished some admissions which to us, on this side of the House, cannot fail to be agreeable. The Minister of Finance casually told us that Sir Charles Tupper had estimated that the reduction in postal rates would represent one million dollars, and the Finance Minister represented this as a lightening of the burdens of the people to the extent of $1,000.000 a year. It occurred to some of us on this side of the House, who have looked with surprise upon the consistent course followed by the Minister of Finance in rolling up large surpluses year after year ; that the reduction of his surplus either for one year or for a succession of years, might prove a lightening of the burden of the people, because the money taken out of the people in customs duties is quite as much an exhction as is the money which they pay for their postage.
The Minister of Finance told us that both parties in this country were united in favour of the British preference, and in making that statement he assumed something. I have heard no representative man admit that the Conservative party was satisfied with the preference, granted as it has been granted. We have always thought that for it we should enjoy some quid pro quo from the mother country. Although Sir Wilfrid Laurier had promised the people of Canada to press preferential trade with a view of deriving some advantage in return for it, vet, when he met the British statesmen in England, he disavowed the idea that any one in Canada desired or expected to receive any consideration in return for the British preference. He told them in England, that the preference was given as a mark of appreciation by Canada for that splendid freedom which we enjoy, and upon one or two occasions that language was echoed by the Minister of Agriculture. I do not know that any Conservative in this country (no matter how highly he prizes the splendid British freedom which we as a British people are in possession of), is disposed to feel that we owe any consideration of a pecuniary character. or in the character of a commercial advantage to the mother country for that priceless freedom. We are disposed to make our own commercial treaties so far as possible. or at least to have a voice in their making. We have always entertained the idea-which seemed to be strong in the mind of the Minister of Finance at a later period in his speech-that we should utilize what-

ever preference favours we have to give in order to receive others in return. The Minister of Finance seemed to oscillate in the course of his speech ,between the attitude of a free trader and that of a protectionest. It almost reminds me of some of his old free trade utterances, when, speaking of the reduction of taxation upon kerosene oil, he described the amount of money which would be saved to the consumers of this country by that reduction as being about $370,000 a year. . I wonder if it occurred to the Finance Minister, how he and his party when in opposition promised year after year to remit the whole of the taxation upon kerosene oil ; I wonder if he realized, that had he and his party carried out their pledges to the people in this respect, they would have relieved the people of Canada not of $370,000 a year but of practically $750,000 a year. The attitude of the Minister of Finance in this connection, reminded me of the story of the Irishman who was advised to buy a new stove because he would save half the fuel, and he concluded that he had better buy two of these stoves to save the whole of the fuel. There was another feature in the speech of the Minister of Finance wdiicli struck me as being somewhat out of the ordinary, and that is that he made no reference at all to the finances of the next fiscal year ending June 30, 1905. It is usual for the Minister of Finance not only to review the finances of the last year and the current fis'cal year, but also the expected revenue and expenditure for the coming year. There was also a very significant failure on the part of the Minister of Finance to refer to our trade with the United States. We had a chart placed in our hands showing the development of British trade, but we had no information at all as to the expectations of the hon. gentleman in regard to trade with the United States. In years gone by, the Liberals of Canada used to attach enormous importance to that subject. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) and others were continually harping upon it in years past, but the budget speech of the Minister of Finance to-day passed over all references to that market of 70,000,000 people in the United States. Is it possible that this is one of the old songs which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) no longer sings ? There was another significant feature of the speech of the Minister of Finance wherein he called attention to the enormous aggregate surplus of some $58,000,000 which the present government has had during its tenure of office. The hon. gentleman is able to claim this enormous surplus, but in return for the $5S.000,-000 of taxation poured into the hands 'of the administration, by the willing people of Canada, all he is able to promise in return is a reduction of the public debt by about $1,000,000. The remaining $57,000,000 has been used up and has disappeared, and all Mr. BELL.
that remains to show for the enormous exactions that have been taken from the people of Canada by this government, is the reduction of the debt by about $1,000,000.
Perhaps one of the most expected announcements in the budget speech was that a commission would be appointed to inquire into the propriety and the necessity, and the course of tariff revision. This government has fairly earned the distinction of administering the affairs of Canada by commission, and it was not unexpected that when they came to deal with tariff revision they would entrust that to a commission also. Is it not extraordinary that a government comprising men of such ability ; men vaunted by their friends as being the ablest men in Canada; men collected not only from Dominion public life but from the public life of all the provinces ; men who are supplied with officials in their departments of the highest technical skill in matters of trade ; men who have been receiving delegations from manufacturers and merchants throughout the country ; is it not an extraordinary thing that such men instead of dealing boldly with the tariff, should refer it to a commission, thus gaining time and enabling themselves a little longer to keep in touch with both the free trade element and the protectionist element in this country ? In 1878, when the Conservative party came Into power pledged to tariff reform and protection, they did not resort to a commission, but dealt with the question in a bold and fearless manner assuming the responsbility of dealing with it satisfactorily and promptly. It cannot but strike the people of Canada, that this promise of a tariff commission is merely the holding out of a hope to those who are in favour of higher protection as well as to those who are in favour of free trade. The announcement of the Finance Minister on this matter is a clear indication that the coming general elections are not far off, and by the promise of this commission the government hope to leap the gap, and to secure the adhesion of protectionists and of free traders as well. It seems to me that the time has come when the government ought to have made up its mind as to what fiscal policy the country needed, and as to what it was going to do for the country. But after eight years of experience, after having themselves as a commission visited and interviewed the manufacturers and -workmen of Canada in 1896, a flier having obtained every particle of intelligence and information which the manufacturing community could give them, they are now unable to decide whether the interests of this country require more protection, or whether they would be better served by free trade ; and they are going to send a commission through this country to enable them to decide whether they should raise the tariff or lower it, and how they are to proceed to do it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it was impossible to listen to the speech made by the kon. gentleman to-day, and contrast the manner in which he seems yet to look with favour and hope on every measure of a free trade character that promises cheaper goods to the consumers with his attitude when he comes to use those arguments which are generally held by protectionists. The hon. gentleman to-day, When talking about dumping, used the argument of the protectionist as skilfully as any protectionist could. He is well aware of the nature and the effect of dumping. It is practically mercantile piracy, mercantile war ; and when the hon. gentleman turned round to his followers and said that this evil practice rather prevailed in countries which had the highest tariffs, a sentiment which might seem condemnatory of high protection, he was applauded by them ; and when shortly afterwards he went on to develop the arguments of the protectionist against this practice, he was-equally applauded. So that it would seem as if neither the government nor the party have any decided opinions on this most important subject. The hon. gentleman says that dumping is not carried on with the idea of doing any beneficial service to the country hi which the dumping is done. He says it is done for the purpose of injuring and destroying the industries of that country-that the low prices will not prevail longer than is necessary to accomplish that destructive work, and that the moment those industries are destroyed, up goes the price. That is precisely the argument held and advanced by the protectionists time after time ; and yet until to-day the hon. gentleman has allowed this dumping practice to go on, has not interfered with it, has rather endeavoured to keep himself and his government before the public as if they were still imbued with those opinions which they held when the hon. gentleman, who is now the Finance Minister of Canada, occupied an important position in the Ottawa convention. The hon. gentleman who made the budget speech today is credited, probably truly, with having had a great deal to do with the preparation of the trade resolution adopted in that historic conference ; and what does that declare ? It declares :
That the customs tariff of the Dominion should he based, not as it is now, on the protective principle, but on the requirements of the public service.
How can that declaration, possibly prepared by the skilful hand of my hon. friend and adopted by his party in convention assembled, be reconciled with the promise held out to-day of a step towards that highest development of the protective principle to which any protectionist country has ad vanced as yet, that is, the adoption of a regular minimum and maximum talriff ? Then, again, how can you reconcile the maintenance of my hon. friend's tariff and his
boast to-day of an expected surplus of $16,' 500,000, following one of over $14,000,000, with -this other sentence, also taken from that memorable document :
That the protective system of this country should be destroyed, and that to that end the tariff should be reduced to the needs of honest, economical and efficient government.
What consistency, what inspiration is derived by the party now at the right hand of the Speaker from these utterances of their past V They have blotted out every word of this, which was at one time their political catechism ; and still, by the expedient of a commission, hope is endeavoured to be kept alive in their hearts that they may succeed in obtaining the support of the protectionists of this country and of the consumers as well. This historic document goes on to say :
On this subject the issue between the two political parties is now clearly defined.
Who that heard the hon. Finance Minister's speech to-day can say that so far as protection and free trade in this country are concerned, the issue is clearly defined ? The speech made by the hon. gentleman today was practically a protectionist speech ; and as we have welcomed the conversion of that hon. gentleman to sounder views of political nationality, as we have been delighted to see him renounce the more sectional and provincial views Which he once entertained, and rise to the full stature of Canadian manhood, so we may now congratulate him upon recanting what he must have come to regard as the errors of his earlier political education, and the errors of the party with which he was associated, and upon being prepared to advance towards the development of Canadian industries as the policy to be avowed openly and maintained in its most perfect development by the government of the day.
The hon. gentleman has given to us in the course of the day several tariff changes to which I shall refer very hurriedly. Woollens have been raised from 23J to 30 per cent. That is a step in the direction of higher protection. Twine and cordage have been raised from 16* to 20 per cent, again a protectionist move. On the other hand, I suppose to compensate the mother country somewhat for interference with the preference in connection with the woollen industry, the duty on window glass has been lowered ; but that is not a free trade move ; it is a protectionist move, because the kind of glass reduced is used by the manufacturers of mirrors as raw material. Then pails and tubs are taken out of the class on which a duty of 20 per cent is imposed and are put upon the free list. But when we come to consider what has been done in the case of the carriage manufacturers, there again a certain measure of protection is accorded. A minimum value at which an open buggy can be entered for duty is $40 and a covered;

buggy $50, a measure taken in the interest of protecting the carriage manufacturers in this country. The next item is practically the adoption of a policy urged repeatedly from this side of the House by gentlemen from the west. It is a move to prevent the importation into Canada of cheap horses.


Mr. HEYD.: Scrub horses.


John William Bell: Sly lion, friend from Brant seems to think that is a good move. But how is it he has continued to support so long a government which took so long to make that move ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I knew they would when the necessity arose.


John William Bell: I should think that the gentlemen who represent the west ought to know best when the necessity arose and they have been imploring the government for years to take this step. It is satisfactory at last to see that the government in this measure is following in the course indicated by the Conservative party. Then paraffine oil is reduced and crude oil is reduced to It cents a gallon and the cheaper grades to nothing at all, as I understand it. Molasses, which hitherto paid 1} cents per gallon, is made free, a concession undoubtedly to the consumers, and when the government is so disposed to make these comparatively small concessions, one is prompted to ask why they did not make larger concessions. Why is it necessary that they should have surpluses to boast of -surpluses of from $14,000,000 to $16,000,000 ? They could get clear of a large portion by extending the reduction of duties from molasses to sugar. They could also make a reduction in the duty on tobacco, which would prove an immense boon to almost every man who contributes to taxation. But when we come to the free list, there it is my hon. friend shows his skilful hand. The first item is goats. Whether these goats are to be imported for the use of secret societies or for the improvement of the stock of goats in the country, I am not aware.


Mr. COWAN.: For the Orange lodges.


John William Bell: Or for the consumption of the tin cans, which we know are a nuisance in almost every locality, is not stated, but I presume the leading position in the government's programme is given to that noble animal the goat, from the fact that the goat is clearly an animal which can go it, if put in the front place, the rest of the procession will move along with alacrity. Then there is a great article of industry, whale oil soap largely used. I am reminded very much by these concessions made by the government to the trade of the country of another revision, when they put dragons blood, attar of roses, ice and several other articles on their free list, none of which would very much disturb the balance of trade in the Mr. BELL.
country. Then there are photographic paper and glass to be used in the manufacture of the materials of the photographers' trade. There are also printing presses of a class not made in Canada and machinery for the manufacture of linen and brass, not made in Canada, and for drilling wells not made in Canada. Then showing how the government, when it discovers that it has been false to all its principles, may feel the necessity of procuring an outfit of false teeth in order to make a presentable appearance in public, they have put artificial teeth on the free list. That reminds me that not very long ago they put artificial limbs on the free list, feeling convinced that in their limping condition regarding the tariff they would require the assistance of wooden legs. In their last revision they adopted the wooden leg reform, and they have now the artificial or false teeth reform. Then there is quassia juice. That is 'an artible which enters enormously into the trade of this country. No doubt this is an immense concession, and I only hope that the surplus to which my hon. friend looks forward next year may not be too much impaired by the amount of duty he is going to lose on quassia juice.
With reference to what my hon. friend has said regarding the advantage which the British preference has been to us in setting an example to the world, we are not going to offer any objection. At the same time if he is disposed to adopt such a cheerful tone with reference to the attitude of the government on the subject, we should not forget all that was involved in the manner in which that preference was adopted. The government very jauntily assumed that they were going to give a British preference and put it into effect at once. They made a very blind move and the British government in pity let them out of the difficulty into which they had fallen in their endeavour to gratify British public opinion in this country by a British preference. That preference practically applied not only to Britain but to every country with which Great Britain had a treaty containing the most favoured nation clause. Germany and Belgium and every other country which had a treaty with Great Britain containing the most favoured nation clause was enabled to demand the admission of its goods under the preference and did so. So that instead of its being a well-considered move, it was a move made without a proper knowledge of the situation and without anything like a realization of the consequences. Every word that was uttered in this House by Conservative statesmen, every criticism passed on that measure by the Conservatives, turned out to be absolutely correct. Had it not been for the courtesy of the British government in denouncing the German and Belgian treaties this government would have been

compelled, In order to preserve our own markets, to repeal the preference at the next session. Nothing but the fact that the British statesmen, pitying this government in the humiliating position into which it hdd landed itself, saved it from being compelled to repeal the preference, by denouncing the treaty. We on this side approve of everything in the direction of extending the imperial idea. We are in favour of everything that will draw the different parts of the empire more closely together. We are in favour of developing the trade of Great Britain with Canada and the trade of Canada with the other colonies, but we are not disposed to see our friends who simply blundered into this move and succeeded in securing the denunciation of those treaties in the manner I have indicated, take away the credit of Conservative statesmen who for twenty years had been working for the denunciation of those treaties and to put Canada in a position in which she might give preference to the mother country and the colonies as well.
It was a Conservative policy advocated by Sir Alexander Galt. Sir Charles Tup-per. Mr. Foster, advocated by every leader of the Conservative party and although they did not blindly leap into the hole into which the present government plunged themselves, they were endeavouring for 20 years practically, to have these obstructive treaties removed and to secure for this country the opportunity to develop the idea of a British preference not only with the mother country, but with the other colonies as well. Judging from the utterances of the hon. gentleman to-day. he is going to adopt as soon as possible-at the next session of parliament, he says-a tariff which, in order to fill his description of it must be an out and out protectionist tariff, a tariff which will permit of retaliation, which will not he a tariff for revenue but a tariff for protection, a tariff which will protect Canadian industries even to the extent of using drastic measures to prevent dumping, to prevent an attack on Canadian indiretries by the industries of any foreign country. When he, as the representative of this government promises the people of this country an out and out protectionist policy, it is not at all to be wondered at if hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, who have in the past heard that hon. gentleman and his party speak upon the platforms throughout this country, are filled with amazement. Is it possible that this gentleman and his party can come here to-day and without a blush proclaim that their every utterance for 18 years was an absurd and mistaken one, that their every promise to the people was an impossible one, that they sit to-day in the parliament of Canada pilloried, monuments of incapacity, unable to accomplish anything they ever promised the people of this country. Now that the Finance Min- , istfer has come out as a protectionist let
me read to him what his friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce said in 1893 :
The Finance Minister lays down, or did lay down, as a proposition that it was possible to increase our collective wealth by increasing our taxes. I beg leave to tell the hon. gentleman that I regard such a proposition as about the ' ne plus ultra ' of folly in a country like Canada. When the hon. gentleman is able to pour water into a sieve and keep it there, when the hon. gentleman is able to leap from one of these buildings and sustain himself in mid-air by grasping his waistband ; when the hon. gentleman can take snow in his hand and hold it before the fire without its melting ; then, and not until then, will the hon. gentleman increase the collective wealth of the community by increasing their taxes. Sir, we do not look for grapes from thorns and we do not look for figs from thistles, hut we had better do that than look for prosperity to a policy the very keynote of which is to enrich one or two special classes at the expense of the great hulk of the community. I tell the hon. gentleman that his government and his policy may indeed displace wealth-that they have done to a large extent-hut they are helpless and powerless to create it.
Has the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce changed his opinions? He sat to-day beside his friend and colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and saw him deliberately perpetrating this act of folly, saw him, so to speak leaping from one of the windows in this building and hoping to sustain himself by his waistband, yet he did not raise one voice of remonstrance, he did not protest against that act of folly. Apparently he has come to the conclusion that, after all. that and all his other utterances of a like character were folly and . folly in the highest degree. It is useless to waste time upon such a subject, but it is not useless to extend my congratulations to the hon. gentleman on the fact that having learned wisdom he is wise enough to retain liis position even in the despised Department of Trade and Commerce and to swallow all the protectionist doses that the Premier of Canada and his Finance Minister are disposed to pour down his throat.
It is not too much to say that it is high time that the government proceeded to deal with this trade question. Speaking of the utterances of the right hon. gentleman the Minister of Trade and Commwe, the Minister of Customs, the Minister of Agriculture, and many other hon. gentleman who raised their voices in this House to denounce protection, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, in a thoughtful and moralizing spirit, cast his eye backwards over the course of events and told an audience in Nova Scotia a short time ago that these hon. gentlemen talked all this nonsense in the years when they were in opposition, because gentlemen who were along time in opposition were inclined to acquire the habit of talking unmitigated rot. I think it is beyond doubt that the attitude of our horn friends to-day

thing promised in the tariff in favour of the wire rod industry. Of sheets of all kinds we import 74,000 tons.
Of bars and rods of different kinds we imported 84.000 tons. Now, these goods come very largely from the United States and while in this country the duty varies from $2.50 to $7 or $8 a ton, in the United States the duty upon precisely the same class of products rises to the height of $14, $18 and $30 a ton. Nothing is done for that industry. If the right lion, leader of the government or his Finance Minister has come to the conclusion that the country can be benefited by the development of these industries, there, in the iron industry, that brought into this country nearly $30,000,000 worth of these products in the past year, is an endless scope for his action. He has right beside him, in the United States, an example of how that work is to be accomplished. He knows it has not been done by tinkering with the tariff ; he knows it can only be done by protection whic;li will be adequate, to use the expression of my hou. friend the leader of the opposition, by adopting the protection that will protect.
Then again there is the woollen industry to. which some concession has been made today. About six per cent has been added to the protection on woollens, but what is the position of the woollen industry in this country ? Canada, a country which is adapted to the raising of sheep for the production of wool, imports $13,700,000 worth of woollen products. The United States, where the duty is 90 per cent, where the population is 80,000,000 as against our five and a half millions, imports $19,500,000 worth of woollens or less than one-quarter dollar per head of the population of what we import and they manufacture all the woollens used in that country with the exception of what costs 25 cents p?r head of the population. Why ? Because the industry there is so protected that it can live. In this country, although remonstrances have been addressed to the government day after day, the imports of woollens have grown from $9,709,000 in 1899 to $13,700,000 in 1903. The protection Canada now affords may be sufficient-if it is not it will be a great misfortune-but if it is why is it that the government does not make up its mind to adopt the protective system throughout and instead of touching the tariff here and there, giving some small measure of relief to this industry or that industry, take its stand upon one side or the other of this great controversy in which all the nations of the world are engaged and either proclaim its belief in protection, and holding that belief in protection, go on and develop the protective system so as to make of this country a hive of industry, fill it with factories, stop the exportation of animals, stop the exportation of wheat and bring about a condition of affairs which would result in the consumption of these things in this country ? It might be that my hon.
friend the Minister of Finance would have to submit to a great deprivation, that he would have to submit to the aggregate of his trade being largely reduced. That trade naturally would be done in this country. The movement of products would be 'from the farm to the town, from the town to the farm. My hon. friend could not boast of such an enormous increase in the aggregate trade of the country but how much better off would be the people of the country ? How much stronger would the country be and how much better would the interests of this country be served by adding to our population which would consume the products of our farms and prairies in the cities of Canada rather than that our products should be exported to the mother country ? We are disposed to do everything we can to develop imperial trade, but no party in this country, and certainly not the party sitting on the other side of the House, are disposed to push that matter of a British preference to the length of injuring Canadian industries. If there was any doubt at one time there is no doubt now after the speech made by the hon. Minister of Finance to-day because he has broken in on the British prefer-erence by raising the duty against the woollen manufacturers of Great Britain.
A reading of our trade figures will show us that we are not progressing in the direction in which a protective country should move. We are progressing along the lines in which a free trade, country might hope to progress.
Our exports of home products in 1903 as compared with 1896 were as follows :


EXPORTS, HOME PRODUCTS.
[Stage Direction]
1896.	1903.
Mines	$8,050,000
Animals and Products.. 36,500,000 Agricultural Products. . 14,000,000
Fisheries	 11,070,000
Forest	 27,170,000
Manufacturers	 9,360,000
[Stage Direction]
$106,150,000	$214,317,890
Miscellaneous	 83,784
[Stage Direction]
We are making progress, but not satisfactory progress, not the progress that this country ought to make. In my mind there can be no doubt at all that in this country, with our population, with our climate, with our natural resources, there is no reason why we should not at an early date, with the protective system, with the manner in which our fertile lands are attracting population from outside countries, make progress very much more rapid than we are making at this moment. We are doing well, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance tells us. We are delighted on this side of the House to recognize the fact that we are doing well and we are delighted to find that our hon. friends on the other side of the House have made up their minds that this country is not going to the how wows alto-
John William Bell: gether but that we have here a good country to live in. But, we maintain that if our country is not making more rapid progress than it is the government should not stand still. If our policy laid down in 1879 is a wrong one it should be reversed. If it is a right one it should be extended and maintained. Now, as I have already said there may be the one little drawback, as far as my bon. friend the Minister of Finance is concerned, that he may find it unsatisfactory to see his exports and imports diminished. He might be in the unhappy position that he would not be able to point to an enormous increase of trade or taxation or to surpluses, but would it not be a benefit to the population of this country that he should be deprived of some small part of the glory and pleasure which he seems to derive from boasting of these thing's and that we should go on developing this country, and advancing the prosperity not only of the great farming community but of the great industrial community as well ? My hon. friend the Minister of Finance promised us to-day a surplus of $16,674,000. He also promised a capital expenditure of $11,500,000 and a net reduction of the debt to the amount of $7,-[DOT] 500,000. Now, it seems to me that my hon. friend ought to have come to the conclusion by this time that he should not boast as he does and that his party ought to have been tired by this time of his boasting of this prosperity. There was a time when prominent gentlemen now seated on the- government side of the House maintained that the government could do nothing at all to contribute to the prosperity of the country, that the government was a fly upon the wheel, that the wheel turned indifferently to their posturing or prayers or desires. But, it is not so now. Why, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has only to stand up here and recite figures of the greatness of Canada's trade, of the greatness of her receipts, of the greatness of her revenues and his followers, even at the end of eight years, still cheer him to the echo. I think I detected a little falling off in the spontaneity and force of the applause to-day. It is getting to be an old story-I suppose they will tell me. Is it possible that the conclusion is beginning to come to their minds that it is not always very good financing that would go on year after year taking enormous surpluses from the people of this country simply to enable the government to boast when it goes to the country, of a surplus ?
This government has been favoured with a marvellous good fortune ; it came into power when Canada was very prosperous, and so the Minister of Finance enjoys the annual opportunity of reciting another chapter of the continued story of Canada's well being. To what is that prosperity owing ? We are rejoiced to see it, although we do not think it is used as wisely as it might be. To us it seems that it would be far better for this country, if the government would 140
show less pride in large surpluses and more desire to alleviate the burdens of the people ; to us it seems that it would be better if the government should so adjust the tariff as to make it not a great revenue producing tariff but a great industry producing tariff. What is the secret of this story of success ? Is it due to anything the government has done ? If so, it would be an agreeable variation if some member of the government would point to some act of administration which has contributed to the prosperity of the country. Many hon. gentlemen would seem to have come to this House believing apparently, that the prosperity of Canada was due to the beams from the countenance of the Prime Minister, who was pictured to us as the iSunny Jim of Canadian politics. But, Sir, I do not think it is possible that those effulgent rays from the Prime Minister's countenance could have continued to give to this country the prosperity it has enjoyed for several years. Still, none of all the very clever men who sit in the government have devised any more probable theory as to the prosperity of this country, than the fact that Sir Wilfrid Laurier is Prime Minister. In the press, in the House, on the hustings, we are told that prosperity prevails throughout Canada because the right hon. gentleman is at the head of the government. It is a beautiful thing to know that in Canada there is a man of such radio-active powers that his efiflu-ency is not circumscribed by the area of this Dominion, but that his beneficence radiates throughout the world, because we know that the world generally has been prosperous. We have not heard from our friends in the extreme north that the icebergs are being melted by that sun which beams from the countenance of the Prime Minister of Canada, but we do know that the world over, good times have prevailed since my right hon. friend has become premier. Is it not possible that there are other reasons for our prosperity ? We have had bountiful harvests in Canada since 1896, and although the Prime Minister may be responsible for them, we would piously hope that providence may have something to do with it. Is it not possible that part of the good times in this country, part of the large figures in the trade returns, part of the large receipts from taxation, part of the large surpluses, may be owing to the high prices which have prevailed since 1896, for lumber, for animal products, for butter, for cheese, for almost everything that Canada produces to sell. Is the Prime Minister responsible for these high prices ? Perhaps it is that owing to some momentary inertia on the part of the Prime Minister, the cheese and butter industry have suffered a decline this year. It may be possible that because of having his attention too much devoted to that great railway project which is to make his memory famous, his friends say, he has withdrawn to a certain extent his attentive



benignity from our great agricultural interests and that the prices of butter and cheese have dropped in consequence. In fact, when one admiring supporter of the Prime Minister was urged to call his attention to the decline in the price of cheese, this gentleman replied that the Prime Minister was very busy just now, but in a little while he would have time to attend to Hhe matter and then it would be all right. But, is it not possible that the prosperity of this country is in a certain measure due to the discovery of the Yukon, to the development of 'mining, to our gold and our copper and our nickel ? Do the right hon. gentleman and his supporters take credit for that ? Do they take credit for the discovery of the Yukon, a country which was purchased by the Conservatives and the purchase of which they opposed ? Do they take credit for the development of the mining industries of the Kootenay owing to the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the construction of which they opposed and denounced as folly ? If in a more thoughtful frame of mind we try to discover what the true cause of our prosperity is, we have to look in another direction. In what phase of the administration of the present government, are we to look for any change from the policy of the Conservative party, with one exception and that exception is that instead of pursuing the cautious and careful financing of the Conservative administration whose policy was to alleviate the burdens of the people and to avoid surpluses, this Liberal government has exhausted every means of extracting cash from the Canadian taxpayer, increased taxation beyond any necessity, and expended the money which they have taken from the people in an extravagant and unjustifiable manner. Is not our prosperity due to the fact, that through a long continued course of a wise and cautious administration by the Conservative government ; of a wisely constructed banking system, of a wisely constructed system of protection to our industries ; the foundations of prosperity in this country were laid, so that when this world wide era of prosperity did arise, Canada was in a position to derive the advantage of it. Was it not owing to a wise government that Canada passed almost undisturbed through the great depression which shortly prior to 1890, struck the United States with cyclonic force ? Was It because this country had been so well and wisely governed that an eminent United States authority at the time, contrasting the, condition of things in the United States, where thousands of financial institutions were going down in ruin, with the prosperous conditions of Canada, where no financial distress was felt, wrote as follows :
In the Dominion of Canada separated from ns on the north by an imaginary line there has been no panic, no increased demand for money, no stoppage of industries, no restriction of trade, no increased rate of interest, in short


John William Bell: nothing beyond the ordinary course of events except so far as these events may have been influenced by contiguity to what may be termed a financial cyclone whose pathway of destruction was contiguous to, but not within Canadian teritory.


Wilfrid Laurier: Who said that ?


John William Bell: Mr. Wells in the ' Forum. '


Wilfrid Laurier: In what year was that ?


John William Bell: I think it was in 1894. It was at a time when my right hon. friend was not in power, at a time when the affairs of this country were administered by a Conservative administration. The right hon. gentleman received the country's affairs into his hands from that Conservative administration, stable and undisturbed, and running as smoothly as they are described in that extract.
When we come to deal with trade questions we are simply dealing with arithmetical questions. It is nonsense for any one to pretend that there is any mystical influence exerted by man or administration to account lor prosperity in the country. In addition to that reason of a supernatural sort for whose origin we look to the Almighty giver of all good there is a reason of a material kind for everything that happens, and you can generally reduce that reason to figures. You can satisfy yourself, if you are a business man, as to the reason and the extent of the good times, and not feel bound to attribute them to any mystical or mysterious agency. To a considerable extent there can be no doubt that the increase of the trade of this country has been due to the good prices of recent years. It is not entirely that we have been producing any more, that we have been so much more active, although we are active, or that we have been so much more industrious, although we are industrious. It is due to the fact that an extraordinary increase of prices has occurred at a time when we have had an unparalleled series of good harvests, when our country has been healthy, free from plague and misfortune of every character, when peace has prevailed in our land, when our industries have been uninterrupted. This is what accounts for that wonderful prosperity to which I feel that the right hon. leader of the government must owe a great deal of the satisfaction with which he has governed this country during his term of office. Our business in this country is very easily understood ; it is very simple. Great Britain has an enormous revenue apart from the revenue from her exports. For her foreign investments it is estimated she has a revenue of $450,000,000, and from her enormous shipping, which practically governs every sea and earns money in every port of tiie globe, it is estimated that she has a revenue of $450,-

000,000; $900,000,000 per annum is the extent to which Great Britain is the world's creditor ; and so long as her imports do not exceed her exports by that sum, she is paying her way, because she is only receiving in kind the debts owing to her from the outside world. But in Canada we have not much of these sources of revenue. The imports of this country, no matter how much they may be, are dependent almost entirely on the amount of our exports. They are paid by our exports, and are limited by our exports ; and there can be no question at all that one of the reasons which have operated to place my right hon. friend the Minister of Finance in the fortunate position of being able to repeat again the story of the continued expansion of the trade of this country have been the high prices for our products which have prevailed in the world's markets. These have not been peculiar to Canada. They have prevailed everywhere. One authority, Sauerbeck, puts the index number of the world's prices in 1896 at 61 ; in 1902 it stands at 69, a gain of 8 points. Bradstreet, another authority, points out that in 1896 it stood at 67.2, and in 1902 at 86'3, a gain of some 19 points. These figures show that the articles which we are in a position to supply to the outside world are being bought from us at high prices, and to a large extent account for our large exports, which in turn account for our large imports. I have prepared a table to show to what extent these advances in prices have affected our trade ; and it shows the following increases of prices from 1896 to 1903 : cheese, 2'4 cents per pound ; wheat, 16 cents per bushel ; bacon, 3-1 cents per pound ; boards, planks and scantling, $4:16 per thousand ; deals and ends. $7.28 per thousand ; and butter, 2-5 cents per pound. There have been declines in coal of 42 cents, in cattle over one year of $3.12, in flour of 20 cents, and in hay of $1.22. But in the great items of our exports-cheese, wheat, bacon, lumber-the prices have all advanced enormously. On a few of these items, from the increased prices alone, irrespective of quantities, we gained in 1903 over 1896 : in cheese 5'5 million dollars ; in wheat, 5-3 millions ; in bacon, 4:3 millions ; in boards and planks, 4'2 millions ; in deals, 2-6 millions ; and in butter, 1 million dollars.. Therefore it seems to me very much more reasonable and likely that wre owe the prosperity of this country at this time, which we all delight to see, not so much to the fact that our good friend the right hon. gentleman who presides over the present government is in power, as to the fact that we have had good crops, that there has been no interruption to our industry, that wars have not taken place within our borders but beyond our borders, that a great centre of industry has developed in the Yukon, that we have enjoyed high prices for our great products, and generally speaking that we have enjoyed good luck every year such as the
140J
right hon. gentleman never hoped to see when he came into power.
These are the things which have contributed to our prosperity and not any act of administration on the part of this government. But I suppose it is for want of any better reason that everywhere and at all times the argument you hear in favour of retaining this government in power is the old story of the full dinner pail. That I dare say is a good enough thing for its own place and occasion, for the stomach, but to hear this argument advanced in this House, to hear the Finance Minister year after year repeat to his listening followers the figures of this prosperity and to hear them cheer over these figures which indicate nothing at all as to the merits or conduct of the government, provokes one to go through what might be a meaningless and senseless task and to point out the fact that if the good times in this country are owing to the administration, then the influence of the government extends to every country in the world, for every country has participated in the good times that have come to Canada owing to the administration of this government. I have collected the figures for seventeen countries. Argentina, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Great Britain, and the United States, and I find that all these have shared in the prosperity. The aggregate trade of all these countries in 1902 was $17,417,456,485, and in 1896, the year in which this government came into power, the aggregate trade of these seventeen countries was only $13,834.198,136. They have increased their trade in these years by $3,583,257,849, an increase of 26 per cent, so that it is quite clear that if we are to attribute the welfare and prosperity of this country to the administration that we have had, that administration is apparently so effective and so powerful in the direction of inducing and sustaining prosperity that its influence has extended until it might properly be called world wide. Canada is a country that should make enormous gains, a country that is rapidly deriving wealth from outside countries. A large population is flowing from other countries into Canada bringing means of subsistence, entering into active operations, adding to the wealth of this country and developing its trade. We are not limited to the growth of our own population ; we are receiving population from abroad. The countries which I have cited, include the oldest countries in the world, those that may be thought to have reached their full development. Only one in the list, Argentina, is in circumstances something like our own. The others are all old countries. The fact to ibe learned from these figures is that at the present time we are living in a period of inflation, that the country is wealthy because the world is prosperous, the world is

wealthy. It would not be well to leave the consideration of a budget speech without to a certain extent calling the attention of the country to the manner in which the government is administering the affairs of the country, and considering whether it is utilizing its position for the advantage and relief of the people, or for the convenience, advantage and relief of the government, and its supporters, those who have the strongest claims upon it. Has this government administered the affairs of the country in such a way as to lighten the burdens of the people or in such a way as to increase their own glory, to advance their own welfare, to comfort and to make everything pleasant for those who. are nearest the administration ? Is this a government which properly fulfils the ideal of Liberal administration, knowing no favourites, recognizing no class distinctions, administrating the affairs of the country with a single eye to the welfare of the citizens, even the humblest of them ? It is impossible to review the history of this administration and come to the conclusion that they have governed Canada in that way. The members of this government while in opposition placed themselves on record as opposed to everything that led to increased debt, to increased expenditure and to increased taxation. What is their record now that they are in power V They have lived up to the policy and followed the course which they condemned as an improper one for their Conservative opponents to follow when the Conservatives were in power. The trade of this country has in-ceased ; its prosperity has been great. The outlay of the government has increased in every direction ; the increase is enormous. The revenue has increased and that portion of the revenue which the hon. gentleman and his colleagues condemned the late administration for increasing, the taxation of the people, has increased enormously. In this present session this administration has passed through this parliament a measure which if it be carried out will add to the debt of this country, a debt which is fixed at $257,000,000, an increase of something like $170,000,000. Not only has the trade increased, but everything else has. Revenue and taxation have increased ; and if my hon. friend's views are given effect to, in a very short time the debt will ibe increased to an enormous extent. My hon. friend the, Finance Minister points to a reduction of debt this year of about a million dollars, and the First Minister leads the way to an increase in our public debt of $170,000,000.
My hon. friend the Finance Minister has developed to-day another idea which must be exceedingly distasteful to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In the course of the last number of years, he has taken great pleasure in telling us of the savings of the people and seems to think it an evidence of prosperity that the people should have increased their deposits in the savings Mr. BELL.
banks. That idea is a new one coming from that side. In the old days the Minister of Trade and Commerce used to scoff and sneer at this argument when advanced by the Finance Ministers of the Conservative party. He said that the deposits in the savings banks were evidences of debt and not of prosperity. He asked : ' Where is the money ? You have not got it. If a run were made on your bank to-day, you would have to go to England and borrow it. You owe it.' and then he used tne very significant phrase :	' It is interred
in the public works and railway subsidies to keep some one behind the minister in good humour.' I would like to know how far that utterance applies to the present condition of things. We voted railway subsidies with a very liberal hand last session and railway guarantees with equal prodigality. I wonder if these caustic remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce can apply as truthfully to the bank deposits of to-day as they did to the bank deposits in the days of the Conservative administrations. We used always to think that it was a good thing for the people to be careful and to go on swelling their bank deposits, but there was a higher wisdom than that which was revealed to the world by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and that hon. gentleman must have been overcome by deep sadness when he heard his bosom friend and companion the Minister of Finance deliberately promulgate such a heresy as to ask the country to believe that there is any advantage or merit in the fact that the people are saving and depositing their savings in the banks. Bank deposits, he said, are evidences of debt and not of prosperity. You have not got the money. You know you have not got it. The money is spent. It seems to me it would be well if the Minister of Trade and Commerce would take his erring colleague aside and prevent his making such shocking breaks in public. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce ought to start a kindergarten, where he might educate his colleagues in private and not be put to the pain of teaching them in public of the falsity of the doctrines which they are giving to the people.
If the trade of this country is growing and its prosperity, its expenditure is not lagging behind. The Conservatives had the idea, when they were in power, that they ought to reduce the expenditure, and the average Conservative expenditure from 1892 to 1896 was $42,141,763, or nearly $400,000 per year less than it was from 1887 to 1891. Their total expenditure in 1896 was $41,702,353, deducting the Quebec subsidies $2,394,000, which the Minister of Finance very ingeniously added to the expenditure of the Conservative administration for that year, although that money was not spent in that year. It appeared in the public accounts as a sum on which interest was be-

<
mg paid to the province of Quebec since 1882, and it is still shown in the volume which the Finance Minister issues to the public as a sum of money on which the government is paying interest. It was not treated as a debt until he saw fit to do so. Therefore the correct figures for 1896 of the expenditure are $41,702,383. The Conservative administrations were economical. In the years 1892-1896, the Conservative government was a government of retrenchment. That government must have been listening attentively to the speeches ol' my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce and of my hon. friend the Minister of Customs and others, and was trying to live up to the idea of statesmanship held up to them by these gentlemen. But since 1896 there has been no retrenchment. The very gentlemen who preached so loudly in favour of that policy have shown no taste for it, and the total expenditure of the Grit government has exceeded the average total expenditure of the Conservatives in the period, 1892-1896, in every year, as follows :
In 1897 by	$	830,992
In 1898 by	 3,192,518
In 1899 by	 9,400,872
Now they were getting comfortably seated in the saddle and began to see what they could do. In 1900 they exceeded the expenditure of the Conservatives by. $10,575,703. They had by this got into their stride, and in 1901 they exceeded the expenditure of the Conservative government by $15,841,109. In 1902 they again eclipsed the record and exceeded the average Conservative expenditure by $21,829,036. But iu 1903, possibly owing to the fact that the session was considerably prolonged and they had no opportunity to spend the money voted for public works and possibly because there was a degree of uncertainty as to whether we would have elections or not, they seem to have practiced some measure of economy and reduced their expenditure sufficiently to make its excess over the Conservative record only $19,604,808.
Well, we all know that in 1893 the right hon. gentleman who now leads the government, repeatedly said that if we were entrusted with power he would reduce the total expenditure of this country by from $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 per annum. His colleagues went further. The Minister of Customs thought he could save $6,000,000 per annum. But from $2,000,000 to $6,000,000 per annum was the saving which these hon. gentlemen pledged themselves to make if they were ever put in office. They were satisfied it was the easiest thing in the world to do if they only got the opportunity. But what has happened since ? Since July. 1S96, the Prime Minister has been administering the affairs of Canada and not only
has he failed to reduce our total expenditure by $2,000,000 or $3,000,000, but he has largely increased it. In 1893 the Conservative expenditure was $40,853,727. In 1897 this government spent $42,972,756. or an increase of $2,119,028. Their record is as
follows :
Increase.
1897	
42,972,755	2,119,0281898	
45,334,281	4,480,5541899	
51,542,635	10,688,9081900..	. .. 52,717,466	11,863,7391901	
57,982,866	17,129,1391902	
63,970,799	23,117,0721903	
61,746,571	20,892,844
Thus the premier of Canada, after pledging himself to govern this country with $2,000,000 or $3,000,000 less than the Conservatives had spent, has led his party into an expenditure greater than that of 1893 by $23,117,072, In 1902, and greater by $20,892,844 in 1903. No words are needed to emphasize the Importance of this statement. He must stand condemned of having spent, without knowledge of the subject, having spent recklessly, or never having made the slightest attempt at economy, this enormous sum in excess of the Conservative administration. The Conservatives did not aim at rolling up enormous surpluses, they did not aim at a great revenue or at great taxation. The Conservative policy of finance was the same as that of Great Britain, the same as that of any civilized country in which the ideal is the greatest good to the greatest number. They adjusted their taxation to their expenditure, and when it was necessary to call upon the people for extraox-dinary contributions, they did so. When it was possible to l-elieve the people of a portion of their burden, they did so. The Conservatives, between 1891 and 1895, made great reductions in the tariff, and they were taunted with having no surpluses in those days. On the other hand this administration can point to surplus after surplus. The Conservatives, instead of having surpluses, left the money in the pockets of the people. Between 1891 and 1894 -they made reductions on sugar, molasses and glass, and in 1894 they made a general reduction affecting hundreds of items in the tariff. The Liberal speakers always contended that taxation in this country was too high. Sir, I do not know anything more graphic, more interesting than to read the eloquent and burning words that fell from the lips of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, of the late Hon. David Mills, and of my right hon. friend, and of an hon. gentleman who is now adorning a seat in another chamber, when they denounced the high taxation of this country. Now what is the record of this administration ? Why, this government, since it came, into powei-, has taken fi-oxn the people in taxation and received in revenue the following sums :
t
4399	COMMONS	4400


IN YEARS FROM 1897 TO 1903.
[Stage Direction]
-	V olume of Taxation.	Revenue.[DOT] 1890.. .	$ 31,587,071	$ 39,879,9251891	30,314,151	38,579,3101892	28,446,157	36,921,8711893	29,321,367	38,168,6081894	'	27,579,203	36,374,6931895	25,446,198	33,978,1291896	27,759,285	36,618,5901897.. 	28,648,626	37,829,7781898	29,576,455	40,555,2381899	34,958,069	46,741,2491900	38,242,222	51,029,9941901	38,743,550	52,514,70143,389,111	58,050,7901903	49,015,505	'66,037,068
The administration which, in 1896, took $27,000,000 from the people, were condemned by these hon. gentlemen who, in 1903, take $49,000,000 in taxes from the same people who they declared were oppressed by the. Conservative administration. Why, Sir, such a record has never been made by a party in any parliament in the world. No wonder the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce laughs. He may well laugh. The idea that any man in Canada was such a fool as to believe one word that hon. gentleman uttered when he was denouncing this expenditure, when he was talking about the people being bled white, when he was describing the state of affairs of this country, the oppression, the depression, the gloom that existed, talking of it in such terms and such tones that he drove the people out of his own county, and out of the country generally, into the United States in order that they might escape from the intolerable burden of a taxation of $27,000,000, which he increased on coming into power by considerably more than 50 per cent. No wonder he laughs. It is the greatest joke that has ever been perpetrated, not only upon a country but upon a suffering people. And the people of this country listened to him, believing him, and he is now in office ; he is now taking $49,000,000 a year from those same people whom he pitied so much when the Conservatives were taking from them $27,000.000. No wonder the hon. gentleman laughs, no wonder he chuckles and keeps his seat, keeps his place in that fifth *wheel to the coach, the Department of Trade and Commerce, that asylum for incapables, as he described them. He keeps his emoluments and keeps his stnile ; he chuckles and grins, and well he may. But what will the people of Canada say about it ? It is not likely the laugh will be altogether on the same side of their faces.
Now let us, look at the increased expenditure in this country. The best way to measure this is to show how it affects the indi-Mr. BELL.
vidual. Bet me read this table showing the taxation and expenditure per head since 1895 :
Year.	Taxation	Expenditure
	per head.	per head.
	8 cts.	$ cts.
1892-95			8 41
1896	5 46	8 141897	5 57	8 281898	5 69	8 631899	6 65	9 721900	7 19	9 951901	7 19	10 761902	7 95	11 721903..	8 87	11 17
This table shows that although the people were bled white seven years ago, under the then rate of taxation, they have recuperated with astonishing rapidity, because they are now able to pay $8.87 per head whereas seven years ago they were almost exhausted when they paid only $5.46 per head. The Minister of Trade and Commerce can well laugh and smile over the situation. Evidently the patient has improved under this system of blood letting, he thrives upon it. so long as it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce who performs the operation.
Bet us now look at the expenditure under the Conservative regime :
Total Expenditure.
1890		 $41,770,333
1891		 40,793,208
1892		 42,272,136
1893		     40,853,728
1894		 43,008,234
1895		 42,872,338
1896		 44,096,384
Total	$295,666,361
Average	$ 42,236,052
The Biberal administration, the careful
administration, the economical administration, the administration who bled for the people's suffering and who are now bleeding the people, had an expenditure as follows :	
1897	
1898	
1899	.. .. $42,972,756 .. .. 45,334,281 .. .. 54,542,6351900	
1901	.. .. 57,982,8661902.. 	.. .. 63,970,8001903	Total	Average	.. ..$ 54,181,054Excess Conservatives-	For seven years	
Average	$83,601,016 . .. 11,943,002
Now, with such a record as that it is very natural that the people of the country should wonder how they manage to get clear of the money, but when we come to examine
the figures in detail we find that there have been increases in every direction, as the following table will show :

[Stage Direction]
Administration of Justice	
Arts, Agriculture and Statistics.. A . ..
Census, 1891	
Civil Government	
Fisheries	
Immigration	
Quarantine

;	
Lights and Coast Surveys	:. [DOT] .
Miscellaneous	
Ocean and River Service	
Public Works	 *	
it Collected Revenue	
Railways and Canals Collected Revenue
Through all of these departments there is an increase which averages just about as the census averaged ; that Is to say that a public work which is going to cost the people of Canada under Conservative administration SI is going to cost $2 under this administration. When our hon. friends opposite boast of their increased aggregates of their increased revenue and of their magnificent surpluses they might as well tell the whole story at once and say that they have made their expenditure and taxation fit in with each other. What is the justification of the whole thing ? The justification is the surplus. If you challenge any hon. gentleman opposite in this House or out of it as to the administration, he points to the fact of the enormous surplus. That is the one justification ; that is the one answer. You may take the government on any point you please, you may point to a record that ought to earn for it ihe condemnation of the people and the answer is ' good times and surpluses.' Conservatives do not aim at surpluses. Conservatives understand that the policy of the country ought to be that the revenue should not be in excess of the expenditure, that it is good financing to require that the taxation of the people should be reduced and the consequence was that during the period of good times which prevailed previous to 1896 the Conservative administration remitted taxation upon sugar and relieved the people to the following extent :

[Stage Direction]
1891		*. * [DOT]$ 227,477
1892		  5,200,000
1893		 4,000,000
1894		 4,821,000
	 5,603,521
Total	$19,851,998
1896.	1903.	[DOT] Increase.	Per cent..[DOT] 9 758,270	$ 959,948	9 201,678	266210,878	436,402	225,524	107'549,992	1,149,879	599,587	109'1,396,628	1,554,792	158,164	11'427,251	527,829	100,578	235'120,199	642,914	522,715	435'95,247	263,331	168,084	177-466,058	964,144	498,086	107'172,363	528,231	355,868	207'181'452	417,137	235,685	130'1,299,769	4,065,553	2,765,184	213'159,460	562,404	402,944	253'3,826,226	7,221,705	3,395,479	91-8
Surpluses. Deficits.
1891		$ 155,977
1892		 1,354,555
1893		$1,210,232
1894		  4,153,875
1895		 330,551
Net deficit	$4,182,227
Total taxation remitted.. ..$15,669,771
Instead of hanging this up and piling up surpluses they left the money in the pockets of the people, a place where it will do far more good. After providing for the deficits which occurred at the close of that period there was an amount of money remitted to the people of this country of $15,669,771 under Conservative administration. Was it not better for the people that the Finance Minister of that day had not so much,pride in surpluses 1 Was it not a better governed country, a more happily governed country when the ambition of tbe Finance Minister of that day was to make his revenue and expenditure agree and not to have his revenue enormously in excess of his expenditure ? It was more scientific financing. It was better financing in the opinion of those hon. gentlemen who are now supporting my hon. friend the Minister of Finance in his course in gathering up-surpluses. I have been quoting considerably from my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have no doubt that within his recollections he has treasured up some of his eloqueBt utterances on the subject of surpluses. I would be very glad to call to his attention and to the attention of the administration as well some of the opinions that were held and proclaimed by him in the past in reference to surpluses. In 1882. for instance, Mr. Tilley had a snr-
[Stage Direction]
plus and the hon. gentleman representing Oxford was indignant about it. He was amazed that Mr. Tilley should boast of such a thing. He evidently knew that Mr. Tilley did not understand what an improper thing a surplus was. So, he addressed him in these words. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce who speaks as being decidedly in favour of a surplus at the present day talked in this fashion of our benighted friend, Mr. Tilley, when he had a surplus :
I ask how it was got. $1,100,000 we derived from two of the most odious and oppressive taxes which were ever imposed in a civilized country before under similar circumstances at least.
The taxes on breadstuffs and fuel. If he really wants to relieve the people, let him remove the taxes on breadstuffs and fuel.
The right hon. gentleman has been in power seven or eight years and he has not removed the taxes from breadstuff's and fuel. He was very much persuaded of their iniquity in 1882. Is it that the right hon. gentleman has seen the light since that time ? Is it possible that he can sit contentedly and quietly in the government and cheer the surpluses that are made up to a large extent from the duties on breadstuffs and fuel, from these two odious and obnoxious taxes whose imposition, was a disgrace to the former administration ? Yet, the right hon. gentleman sits there contentedly and quietly and smilingly assists in taking from the people of Canada and putting into surpluses, in the year of grace 1903. $226,524 on breadstuffs, and $1,914,330 on fuel. Then, there was another wise gentleman who knew of the iniquity of surpluses, a gentleman who has since passed to his rest, but who was a very prominent man in this House, the late Mr. Justice Mills, and he spoke in the same strain. Mr. Mills said :
He boasts of a surplus. I say that a government is not entitled to have a surplus.
There is no stimulus to economy when a large surplus remains in the hands of a government.
A large surplus invites to extravagance and has invited to extravagance in this country.
I wonder if it has recently invited extravagance. In the hands of this present government no doubt it no longer invites extravagance. The taxation and expenditure of this country have almost doubled in the hands of these hon. gentlemen who boast of the fact of having a surplus every year. Evidently in their hands a large surplus invites to extravagance and has invited to extravagance. But,[DOT]there is a good reason for the right hon. Minister of Trade -and Commerce, the hon. Minister of Finance and others, Why it was unquestionably advisable that they should not have surpluses.
A large surplus unduly burdens the people. The $16,500,000 which the Minister of Mr. BELL.
Finance boasts of this year amounts to almost $3 per head of the population of Canada. The average family of six contributes $18 per year to swell the glory and the shoutings about surpluses of the Liberal party in this House to-day. From the poorest family in Canada $18 is exacted, which could be remitted to them, because there is no reason why the government should have that surplus, if it did not choose to have it. The government of Canada has taken out of the pockets of every family of this country the sum of $18 in order that they and their followers may swagger about this country, and boast that they have the greatest surplus that has been.
Mahlon K. Cowan: And you would propose to increase the tariff so as to increase the surplus.


John William Bell: My hon. friend (Mr. Cowan) is not so green- that he does not know that you can increase a tariff without increasing the revenue. If he does not know it, then I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he speaks to enlighten the hon. gentleman on that point. A surplus takes money out of the possession of the people to whom money is worth six percent, or seven per cent, or eight per cent, or nine per cent, or ten per cent per annum, and it puts it in the hands of the-government whose money is only worth three per cent. A surplus diverts money from a position in which it could earn an average of seven per cent, to a position in which it can only earn three per cent), It is a diversion of a portion of the national wealth from a more productive to a less productive application. It is therefore mis-chevious. It causes great demands on the treasury ; it emboldens every man who wants to come to the administration with a scheme. Every land-grabber, every corporation broker, every one who is in a posi-[ tion to pull the wires here is emboldened, to do so, because he knows that in the hands of this administration there is a surplus this year1 of sixteen anil a half millions of dollars.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have been boasting a great deal of the debt of this country. Probably nothing could be more unfair or more absurd, than the manner in which the Finance Minister of this government contrasts the record of this administration during the past six years of abounding and overflowing prosperity with the condition of Canada during the eighteen years of Conservative rule. During this period of abounding prosperity this government have managed to reduce the debt of Canada by $l,e00,000, whereas the Conservative administration which made Canada, took it in the rough, built it up, furnished it, gave it a home, gave it all these things which are necessary to a civilized people, had to take some $6,500,000 a year

to add it to the debt of this country. What has this government done with the $58.000,000 of surplus ? What has it done in the way of the construction of great public; works ? Where are the great canal systems, or the great railway systems they have built ? Sir, the Conservative government which came into power in 1878 and remained in power until 1S96, gave Canada the Intercolonial Railway at a cost of $65,000,000 ; gave Canada her canal system at a cost of $36,000,000 ; assumed provincial debts to the amount of $10,400,000 ; built branches of the Intercolonial Railway at a cost of $20,500,000 ; assumed the cost of the deepening of the St. Lawrence, $2,500,000 ; paid for the Quebec and North Shore road, $2,250,000 ; paid for the cost of the Northwest rebellion, nearly $5,000.000 ; they paid all these sums amounting to $142,500,000 out of revenue, and they added to the debt of the country $118,000.-
000.	And in face of this, all that the Minister of Finance can boast of to-night is that during these years of marvellous prosperity, the Liberal government have reduced the debt of Canada by one million dollars. The Minister of Finance must have very little respect for the great men of the past who represented the Liberal party in this country. These gentlemen opposite cannot have forgotten the Mackenzie regime. That government built no great public works in Canada. Surely the late Alexander Mackenzie was a good man, and a capable man, and his associates were very good men; but what was their record as to the public debt ? Mr. Mackenzie did not live in a period when the tide of prosperity was flowing abundantly. In 1874, when he came to power the national debt was $108,000.000 ; in 1875 it was $116,000,000 ; in 1876 it was $124,000,000 :	in 1S77 it was $133,-
000.000 : and in 1878, when the Mackenzie government left power, the national debt was $140,000,000, an increase of $32,000,000 during the Mackenzie regime, when some of the gentlemen who are now ministers of the Crown were at that time also administering the affairs of Canada. In so far as the Liberal record in connection with our debt is concerned, this government seems to owe a very great deal more to the good fortune which has put them in power during a period of world-wide prosperity, than to any special wisdom with which they have conducted national affairs.
I think, Mr. Speaker, I have fairly enough reviewed all the points raised by the Finance Minister. I have dealt with his surpluses, with his taxation, with his trade proposals, with his tariff reform. While I congratulate the government on showing some disposition even in a very faint-hearted fashion to grapple with the trade question of this country, I am perplexed to know why it is that they should resort to the old expedient of delegating their powers of
government to a commission. Whatever else this government .may be known as in history, it will certainly be known as a government which eclipsed all others in the employment of commissions. No matter what the inquiry to be made, or the work to be done, a commission is employed by them, and even when it has to make up its mind as to policy it resorts to a commission to suggest that policy. Well, judging by something that has occurred recently perhaps it is as well that the government should not trust to itself, but that it should call in some of its wise men to do its thinking for it. Last session the government promised a commission to inquire into transportation, and as to the best and most economical means of carrying Canadian products through Canadian ports. Rut the government would not wait for that commission ; nothing could wait ; time could not wait, and so they went on to decide on a railway policy without the assistance of that commission. And. Sir, judging of what we have learned of that railway policy in the course of two sessions of parliament, of its1 innumerable and fatal defects ; we cannot help regretting that the government did not adhere to its first determination, and let this commission decide on its railway policy. Perhaps it would be well for us at this time to conclude, that it may be in the highest interests of Canada that this government should not allow itself to make up its mind on the subject of its tariff policy, but should delegate that duty to a commission. If that commission be well chosen, it may be that it will be better for us that the government should avail of such an opportunity of letting itself down from that position of uncertainty and hesitancy which it has occupied for the past eight years, under cover of the findings of a commission. There is no doubt that the government to-day recognize the fact that protection is and is to be the policy of this country. They recognize the fact that all the progressive nations of the world are making headway under that jjolicy. They must know and recognize the fact that for Canada to go on and fulfil her destiny, she must not abandon her industrial development, but must increase it, and thus hasten the day when the country will pass out of a position of hesitancy and doubt into a position where the government will have a clear and well-defined policy, and will follow it to the end. For this reason, although it is an undignified and unsatisfactory method, we shall welcome the opportunity which the appointment of a commission will afford to assist the government in deciding upon the step upon which it has probably already in its own mind decided.


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: Mr. Speaker, I believe the House was occupied to a rather late hour last night, and after listening to two such speeches as we have had to-day, they will be disposed to thank

me for moving the adjournment of the debate. I therefore move that the debate be novr adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 8, ly()4.