1914-04-15

REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Tr.ade and Commerce for the year ended March 31, 1913; Parts I and II.-Hon. Geo. E. Foster.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	When did the Ranching and Grazing Investigation Commission meet in Moosejaw?
2.	What witnesses were heard?
3.	Where in Moosejaw did the commission hold its session or sessions?
4.	What rent was paid for use of the premises where the commission met in Moosejaw, and to whom was such payment made?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	November 25, 1912.
2.	O. B. Fysh, Major Simpson, J. A. Kennedy, Donald Morrison, John McFady, H. Howe, F. A. Renton, F. Foley, W. Howes, H. Fitzhugh, J. Clothier, Alex. McGregor, P. Doyle, R. Martin, W. K. Cross, W. Hagle and many others.
3.	Swaighers Hall.
4.	No charge.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND BANKS.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	Did any of the banks doing business in Prince Edward Island at the time of Confederation, subsequently fail? If so, what did the shareholders, depositors and note holders lose?
2.	Tinder what arrangement or regulations did the banks of the province of Prince Edward Island continue to do business after Confederation, when the paid up capital of each of them was much below the amount the law required?


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: 1.	At the time of .Confederation there were five hanks doing business in Prince Edward Island. Two of these-the Farmers Bank of Rustico and the Bank of Prince Edward Island-failed. The legislation of the Dominion in regard to banking did not apply to these banks either before or after their failure.
In regard to the Farmers Bank of Rustico, there is mo information available as to losses sustained by shareholders, depositors or note holders.
The depositors and note holders of the Bank of Prince Edward Island, which suspended payment in 1881, received 59i per cent each. The shareholders received nothing.
2.	After Prince Edw.ard Island was admitted to the Union, the banks then carrying on business there continued to be subject to the provisions of the banking legislation in force in the island prior -to the union. (See sections 146 and 129, British North America Act, 1867, and the third last paragraph of the schedule to the Imperial Order in Council of date June 26, 1873, admitting Prince - Edward Island to the Union.)
When in 1890 (Chapter 31) the provisions of the Rank Act were made applicable to

certain Prince Edward Island banks incorporated before 1873, these banks were then (1890) going concerns, and the provisions of said Chapter 31, with regard to the *amount of paid-up capital necessary for the organization of a bank, only applied to banks which were afterwards incorporated.


OTTAWA LEASED BUILDING.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Has the Government leased any part of the Blackburn building, Ottawa?
2.	If so, for what term and at what price?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Metcalfe street building, 6 floors, for 5 years from 6th January, 1912, at $13,000 a year. Sparks street building, part of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7,th, 8th and 9th floors for 5 years from 16th July, at $28,986 a year.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY STATIONS.
Mr. MARCIL:: Are any improvements contemplated this season at the Intercolonial railway stations at Millstream and Assametquaghan, and what are they?


Mr. J. D. REID:: Yes. Improvements in the agent's dwelling at Millstream, and in the station premises at Assametquaghan, by way of sheathing, painting and ordinary repairs, are intended to be made thiB season.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-WATER SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARCIL.
1.	Has a water system been installed in the Intercolonial railway at St. Alexis?
2.	If not, how is the water for the agent and the public secured there?
3.	Is it intended to improve upon the service, and when?
Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Water system has not been installed by the railway.
2.	The agent secures water for his own use and provides water for the public for which he receives payment by the railway.
3.	The railway has no demand for improved service.


Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Is a new water service being installed at the Intercolonial railway station at Matapedla, and on what system?
2.	What is to be the cost of the work, and when is it to be completed?
3.	Has there been any delay in the work, and what was the cause?
4.	Has any provision been made for a supply of water in case of lire in the Intercolonial

railway promises or the surrounding village? If not, why not?
5.	Is the work being done by contract, and who is the contractor?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Yes, gravity supply.
2.	Estimated cost, $16,200. It is expected to be completed by April 15, 1914.
3.	Work has been somewhat delayed by the excessive cold weather this winter.
4.	Yes, hydrant to be placed at rear of station.
5.	Yes. K. A. Morrison, of Ottawa, One., contractor.


BONAVENTURE INDIAN RESERVES.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has an application been made for the removal of the Indian reserves of Restigouche and Maria in Bonaventure county, and by whom?
2.	What answer was given to such requests, if any were received?
3.	Is any action contemplated in this connection ?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1. No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


NORTHWEST MOUNTED POLICE CLOTHING CONTRACT.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: Referring to the payment of $3,937.50, as found on page R-5, Vol. 11, Auditor General's Report, made to Ames, Holden, McCready, Montreal, for boots for Northwest Mounted Police, what are the names of the newspapers in which the advertisement calling for tenders for this purchase appeared, and the dates of insertion of such advertisements, if any?


Mr. PERLEY:: The advertisement calling for tenders for clothing for the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, as referred to above, appeared in the following newspapers:
Place and newspaper:
Toronto, the Globe.
" Monetary Times.
" Truth.
" Toronto Daily Star.
" Canadian Congregationalist.
" Weekly Sun.
London, London Advertiser.
Hamilton, Hamilton Times.
Kingston, the British Whig.
" Canadian Freeman.
Brockville, Brockville Recorder.
Ottawa, the Free Press.
" Le Temps.
" the Danebrog.
Guelph, the Mercury.
Berlin, the Telegraph.
Arnprior, the Watchman.
Peterborough, the Times.
Brantford, the Expositor.
Galt, the Reformer.
Prescott, the Journal.
Stratford, the Stratford Beacon.

Chatham, Le Canadien.
Montreal, the Herald.
" La Patrie.
" the Witness.
"	the Canadian Journal of Commerce.
"	the Shareholder.
Quebec, Le Soleil.
" the Daily Telegraph.
" Le Semaine Commerciale.
Hull, the Hull City Advance and Gatineau Beacon.
" La Spectateur.
Halifax, the Morning Chronicle.
"	the Evening Echo.
"	the Acadian Recorder.
North Sydney, North Sydney Herald.
St. John, N.B., the Telegram.
Charlottetown, the Patriot.
'*	Prince Edward Islander.
Brandon, the Brandon Sun.
Portage la Prairie, the Manitoba Liberal. Winnipeg, the Manitoba Free Press.
Regina, the Leader.
Calgary, the Albertan.
Medicine Hat, the News.
Kdmonton, the Bulletin.
" the Alberta Herald.
Tendeis for clothing called for by the advertisement were for a period of three years from April, 1910, to April, 1913, and the advertisement was inserted twice in the foregoing newspapers during the month of April, 1910.


EGANVILLE POST OFFICE BUILDING.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	What is the name of the inspector or clerk of works on the new post office building at Eganville ?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	How much has he been paid up to date?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	R. G. Reinke.
2.	June 25, 1913.
3.	$4 per working day.
4.	$744.75.


BEDFORD PUBLIC BUILDING.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	Did the Hon. G. H. Perley, at a meeting in Bedford, Quebec, on Thursday, the 2nd of April, promise the inhabitants of Bedford that he would use his best endeavours to have included in the Estimates for next year a sum of money for ' the purpose of building a post office in Bedford?
2.	If so, was he authorized by the Government to make this promise?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to include in the Estimates for next year a sum for building a post office in Bedford, Quebec?


Mr. PERLEY:: 1. Mr. Perl&y stated at the meeting referred to that he would recommend to the favourable consideration of his colleagues the request of the people of Bedford for a
public building, but that he could not say whether anything would be done about -t this year.
2 and 3. The question has not yet been considered by the Government.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUTSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Murphy.-Return showing:	The total
bond issue of the Canadian Northern Railway Company and its affiliated companies; the total cost to date of the construction of the lines of railway comprising the Canadian Northern railway system, inc uding terminals, sidings, etc.
Mr. Macdonald.-Return showing: What kind of coaling plants have been provided on the National Transcontinental railway, how many have been provided; where they have been constructed; whether any tenders were called for them; the name and address of the lowest tenderer; from whom they were obtained and! at what price.
Mr. Michaud.-Return showing how many commissions were appointed by the Government since the year 1911; the name of each commission; how much money was paid to each of said commissions to date; how many more commissions are 'to he appointed during the present fiscal year.
Mr. Sinclair.-Return showing: How much money has been paid by the Government, or any department thereof, since October 10, 1911, to the Herald Publishing Company of Halifax, N.S., for advertising, printing and lithographing.
Mr. Pugsley.-Return showing: How many passengers have been carried over the Intercolonial railway from St. John to Halifax, and from Halifax to St. John, respectively, under the agreement made on the 30th September, 1913, between the Canadian Government Railways by F. P. Gutelius, general manager and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, by G. M. Bosworth, general traffic manager, from the 15th November, 1913, when .'the said agreement went into effect, to the 31st March last; how many tons of freight of each of the classes mentioned in said agreement have been carried each way over the Intercolonial railway between St. John and Halifax, under said agreement during said period; what have been the total earnings by the Intercolonial railway under said agreement up to the 31st March last, for passengers and freight carried, respectively ; what amoun't has been paid to or earned by the Canadian Pacific railway for car hire under said agreement; what number of empty cars of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have been hauled by the Intercolonial railway free under said agreement, and what has been the cost of such haulage; what would have been the total amount paid by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to the Intercolonial railway, under the tariff prevailing at the time of the making of said agreement, for the passengers and the freight so carried, respectively; whether the said agreement has been submitted, as promised by the Government, to the Board of Railway Commissioners by the Minister of Railways for the purpose of having the board determine as to whether or not said agreement is discriminatory against the port of St. John; if not, why it was not so submitted; whether it is the intention of the Minister of Railways 'to renew the said agreement, or to put in force a similar agreement, during the next winter port season; what
[Stage Direction]
agreement the Government intends to make as to The Atlantic termini of the fast Atlantic Mail steamers for the winter of 1914-15.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: A statement has been made in the press to the effect that the Government have granted a lease to a certain company foT the purpose of establishing a ranch for cavalry remounts. Are the Government prepared to put that lease and the correspondence connected therewith on the table, without my making a formal motion P
Hon. SAM. HUGHES:	As soon as the
lease and the Order in Council are passed, we will do so.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Order in Council has not been passed yet?


Mr. HUGHES:: The lease has not been signed and the matter is not in proper shape.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Order in Council has been passed?


James Joseph Hughes: The Order in Council is being amended.


MONTREAL BERTHING ACCOMMODATION.
[Stage Direction]
On -the Orders of the Day being called:
Hon. R. LEMIEUX:: I would like to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to the fact that the Montreal press reports that no berthing accommodation will be found this spring for the Royal George, one of the steamers of the Royal line, and great indignation is expressed on the part of the Montreal shipping federation owing to the fact that there is no one in Montreal to see what accommodation can be given to the various shipping interests. My hon. friend will notice that at the present time the Harbour Commission is practically non-existent, two of its members and the assistant secretary being in Europe and the secretary being ill. Has my hon. friend considered these facts and does he intend to remedy the situation?


Hon. J. D. HAZEN:: The matter is really one for the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal to deal with. This Parliament has seen fit to place certain matters in the hands of the Harbour Commissioners, subject to certain control by the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the Governor in Council. The allotment of berths is one of those matters which are in -the hands of the Har-CMr. Pugsley.]
hour Commissioners. I do not understand that the Harbour Commission is disorganized at the present time. The chairman, Mr. Ross, has been in Europe inspecting harbours there, following the example of his predecessor in office, Major Stephens. Mr. Roberston is acting chairman, and is, I believe, attending to his duties. I do not know whether there is truth in the report or not; but I doubt it very much. I believe that the work of the harbour is proceeding very satisfactorily and that everything will be ready for the opening of navigation. The business of the harbour is perhaps increasing more rapidly than are the facilities, although I think the Harbour Commission, backed up by the Governor in Council, are working earnestly to bring the facilities up to -date. I believe that berths will be found for the Royal Line -and all other steamship lines during the present season.


RIVER VALLEY RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON:: A rumour or announcement has appeared in the eastern press to the effect that the federal government is giving some additional assistance for bridges in connection with the River Valley railway, and that an Order in Council has been passed for that purpose. Has an Order in Council been passed in any way relating to that subject or to the construction of bridges across the St. John river?
Hon. GEORGE E. FOSTER: There has been a proposition before the Government, and it has been considered and is still being considered, but no Order in Council has yet been passed.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. TURRIFF:: As a matter of privilege,
I wish to say that -in the debate on the Budget the other day I stated that under the reciprocity pact the duty on mowers and binders had been reduced by 2} per cent and on other machinery by 5 per cent. My hon. friend the Minister of Public W'orks interrupted me to say that I was mistaken-that nothing had been taken off threshers. I wish just to point out to my hon. friend that in ' Hansard ' of 1910-11, vol. 2, page 2489, he will find the following: Threshing machines, the then duty, 20 per cent; proposed duty, 15 per cent; reduction by Canada, 5 per cent; windstack-ers, baggers, weighers and self-feeders

therefor and finished parts of the foregoing for repairs, the same duty. So that there was a reduction on threshers of 5 per cent.


Mr. WARNOCK:: How about engines?


John Gillanders Turriff: This refers to threshers, just what my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works said were not changed. Probably my hon. friend had in mind that no change was made on engines used on the farms.



THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance) for the House to go into Committee on Ways and Means, resumed from Wednesday, April 8.
Mr. W. F. CARROLL (South Cape Breton):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Oockshutt), who closed the debate before the Easter recess, is not in the House at the present time. We on this side of the House always like to hear utterances from the hon. member for Brantford, especially on matters of tariff. We feel that he has been somewhat bridled and curbed this session, from the fact that he did not speak when the resolution was before the House as to the advisability of free agricultural implements. We feel also that, when he makes utterances regarding matters of tariff and customs, the farmers sit up and listen, and that for some time after he speaks on such subjects a very considerable number of farmers throughout the length and breadth of this country join the ranks of the Liberal party.
The hon. member for Brantford, as is his usual custom, opened his speech with an attack upon the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and closed his speech with a little flag-waving. Between these he sandwiched in prayers for the protection of the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) in that he had not seen fit to lower the duties on Oockshutt ploughs, or on ploughs coming into this country. It has been said of the hon. member that he was never known to smile. I wish to give that broad statement an absolute contra diction. When the Minister of Finance had finished his narration so far as it concerned the reduction of duties on farm implements, the hon. member far Brantford arose in his seat, heaved a sigh of relief that was heard throughout this Chamber, and actually did smile. But that smile, to be sure, put such a strain upon his
countenance that it did not stay there very long.
In the course of his speech the hon. member for Brantford made the astounding statement to me, that under the Laurier Government political and commercial morality sank to the lowest ebb it ha? known in this country since Confederation. He gave us no evidence to prove his statement. He did tell us something-and I presume he gave that as his whole evidence in the case-concerning the cruise of the Neptune.
I thought that subject was dead and that it had been buried in the election campaign of 1908. But the hon. gentleman has resurrected it. Let me tell him that on every public platform during that campaign, the cruise of the Neptune was flaunted as a great scandal, with the result that, after the Canadian people had carefully weighed it, after they had given it due consideration, they returned to power the Government of the present leader of the Opposition with a magnificent majority. So, evidently they did not believe the statements made throughout this country regarding the cruise of the Neptune; and I do not think the hon. gentleman is going to bring to his party or to himself any particular strength by (revamping that old scandal. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that when future generations of Canadians shall be sounding the praises of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition as a great statesman, a great Canadian, and when Parliament Hill shall be crowned with monuments to the revered memory of that right hon. gentleman, giving silent but strong testimony to the belief of all Canadians that he was the greatest Canadian	of his	time and did
mare to foster sentiments of friendship and good feeling among all classes and creeds in this country than any other man before or since, the hon. member for Brantford himself will be resting in a secluded grave in a secluded cemetry in the city of Brantford, the Canadian people will have entirely forgotten that he ever existed, and there will not be even a ploughshare to mark his resting place.
The hon. gentleman talked of political morality and political scandals. Perhaps this is not the time to go into a discussion along that line. But let me remind the hon. gentleman that his party has a history in relation to scandals. Let me ask the hon. member, has he forgotten all the things that transpired previous to 1896? Does he remember the Curran bridge scandal? Does

emigrating from that country, and that therefore there was little fear of their overcrowding our cities this year. I am afraid that this Government, and perhaps all previous governments, have not tackled the immigration question along the right lines. They have encouraged immigration without letting the immigrants know the exact condition of affairs in this country. Who in this House will say that we need workmen and artisans in this country at the present time? Why, during the last year thousands and thousands of artisans and workmen were walking the streets looking for employment. The action of the Vancouver Trades and Labour Council in passing and forwarding to the members of this House a resolution regarding immigration was very timely. The resolution reads as follows:
Whereas, continuous efforts are being made by transportation companies, emigration agencies and other societies to induce employers in Canada to import labour from outside the Dominion, and
Whereas, 'these companies and societies have received and are now receiving Government guarantees and grants of public money, and Whereas, the arrival of immigrants on these shores during a time of severe depression such as now exists not only intensifies the serious unemployment question, but tends to deteriorate the already too low standard of the workers' living, consequently retarding industrial and national progress, therefore be it Resolved, that the federal and provincial governments of' Canada discontinue assisting financially or otherwise such corporations and societies and further take steps to ensure that correct information be given to prospective immigrants in their own homes, and be it further
Resolved, that copies of this resolution be sent to Premier Borden, the federal members of the House of Commons, and the press.
I hope that the present Government will encourage immigration from such countries as Great Britain, the United States and Prance and at the present juncture retard immigration from continental Europe.


Mr. BURNHAM:: If thousands of artisans are walking the streets of Canada, why does the hon. member want additional immigration?


William F. Carroll: To go on the farms. I thought I had made myself clear on that.
I pointed out that there has been an actual decrease in the number of homestead entries during the last two and a half years. I did not make that statement on my own authority, but gave the actual figures.
I do not pretend to know very much about the tariff, tout I have given the subject some consideration and irrespective of party affiliation, my own opinion upon the ques-
tion of protection is this. The infant industries of this country which have not yet reached that stage where they are able to capture the home market should he given a reasonable measure of protection by whatever Government happens to he in power in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William F. Carroll: Further, when an industry in this country has not only captured the Canadian market but has shown itself able to compete in the markets of the world, that industry should no longer receive protection from the Government of this country.


Mr. LALOR:: Do the hon. gentleman's
remarks apply to such a concern as the Dominion Steel Company?


William F. Carroll: The hon. gentleman need not worry. I am going to discuss that. I never run away from discussing any phase of a situation. I take the further ground that when the manufacturers of this country feel that they are able not only to capture the Canadian market but also to compete successfully in the markets of the world, they should be given their own way of thinking and their products should toe put on the free list. They are the best judges of the situation. I make those general remarks to show where I stand on this question. We are told by the Minister of Finance that his Government is a government of adequate protection. Adequate protection-that is the most indefinite thing in the world. Does he say that it is adequate protection to give between twelve and thirty-five per cent on the farming implements of this country, the manufacturers of which are able to compete successfully all over the world, and to give only the same protection to an industry just as important, if not more, that is unable to compete successfully even within Canada. Is that adequate protection? That indefinite phrase reminds me of something I read when a tooy. In Anthony and Cleopatra Septimus asks his friend Anthony, who had just returned from Africa, the following question:
Septimus: What manner of thing is your crocodile?
. Anthony: It is shaped, Sir, like itself; and it is as broad as it has breadth ; it is just as high as it is and moves with its own organs; it lives by that which nourisheth it, and the elements once out of it, it transmigrates.
That is about as indefinite an answer as could possibly toe given, and it fits in very well with the very indefinite phrase 'adequate protection.'
In regard to the changes made by the present Budget I wish to eay that anything

this Government or any other government does to help the steel industry of this country has my hearty and unqualified support. The bald statement that the present Government are doing something for the Dominion Steel Company looks very well. In a few moments I am going to analyse that statement and show what this Government has actually done for the steel industry of this country. Previous to 1896 the then Government gave a bounty to pig iron which was produced from Canadian native ore. That was the situation when the late Government came into power. In 1897 Mr. Fielding, in his Budget, extended that bounty to pig iron which was not produced from native ore, and I believe he did this substantially with the purpose in view of rendering assistance to the Dominion Steel Company at Sydney which uses altogether foreign ore in the manufacture of its pig iron. But he did make a distinction. He said that, whereas we shall give a bounty of $2 a ton on pig iron produced from foreign ore, we shall give a bounty of $3 a ton on pig iron produced from native ore, thus giving $1 of an advantage to the native ore. I believe that was a proper step to take. He reduced the tariff duties at that time also and in reducing those tariff duties he gave as his reason that the products of steel were so extensively used in all the manufactures of this country that it would be in the interest of Canada as a whole that iron should be reasonably cheap. While he recognized the fact that putting a duty on iron or steel would increase the cost of iron or steel, he took the position that by giving a bounty the manufacturers of steel would have protection and the users of steel would have cheap steel besides. That was the ground he took and I think that was a reasonable ground. These changes were on a sliding scale and the bounties went practically out of existence in 1907 and were renewed to the extent of about 55 per cent of their original proportions in 1907 and continued until the year 1910.
In 1907 Mr. Fielding gave a bounty of $3 a ton on wire rods and he gave as his reason for doing that instead of putting a protective duty on, that if he put a protective duty on wire rods it would necessitate changing the whole basis of the tariff on the products of these rods. In that his argument was unanswerable. He gave, as I say, a bounty of $3 a ton. It was proposed to encourage the steel industry in this country, and as a result of the bounty the Dominion Steel Company put up a rolling mill at Sydney at a cost of $1,000,000, and
the Dominion Steel Corporation

I -think they call it-at Hamilton, put up a Tolling mill costing in the vicinity of $800,000. While this steel company and this steel corporation received a -large amount of money from the public treasury of Canada in the form of bounties and bonuses, I believe that the Dominion of Canada got a return for every dollar of it. I am going to tell you why. In 1897, when the steel industry at Sydney was in its in-4 p.m. fancy, we had a population of
3,000	or 4,000, while in 1911, with the expansion of the steel industry owing to the great encouragement which had been given to it by Mr. Fielding and the late Administration, Sydney had grown from a hamlet of 4,000 to a very magnificent city of 20,000. The customs duties on articles imported not only at -Sydney but at other steel centres more than made up for every dollar paid by this Government through bounties upon the production of steel and iron.
There was at that time a bounty of $3 on angles and plates and these articles also carried a duty of ten per cent. This was done away with because they were completely manufactured articles and on those completely manufactured articles duties were imposed up to $7 a ton. I want to reiterate that on its face $3.50 a ton duty on wire rods means a good thing for the industries manufacturing wire rods. The present tariff does not mean that and I am going to prove it. But before going on with that, I want to say that in 1903 the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden), while there were large bounties paid on iron and steel, rose in his place in this House and condemned the Government of the day for not doing enough. He wanted a high protective duty on iron and steel and he wanted that duty, he said himself, -so that our own industries might capture the Canadian market. Notwithstanding that fact, while the steel industry of thi-s country was going through the crisis of its life in the last three years, the present Government sat motionless and mute without giving any assistance to the steel companies -either by bounties or duties. What does this $3.50 a ton amount to on -steel rods? Taking it on its face, I must admit it is a good thing for the steel industry of this country, but let us investigate. There was a demand in 1913 for 175,000 tons of steel rods. During that year there were 92,000 tons of steel rods imported into the country. I think I am fair in saying that what was not imported, and what was manufactured in this country.

went mostly into the production of nails at the steel mills at Sydney and Hamilton and that the 92,000 tons which were imported went into the manufacture of wire fence and nails by the smaller manufacturers of Canada. The Dominion Steel Company, or the Hamilton Company, do not need very much assistance on the wire rods that they manufacture into nails because they get a protection on the nails. What I thought they would be looking for would be a protection on the iron rods that they themselves do not manufacture but would be in a position to manufacture if they could compete successfully in the Canadian market. But the Minister of Finance says to the fence men who used perhaps half of the steel rods that were imported into this country last year:	We
shall give you a drawback on the iron rods you import and put into steel fences. As far as the fence manufacturers are concerned, they are having free wire rods today
But what about the small manufacturers of nails, outside of the Dominion Steel Company and the company at Hamilton? The Minister of Finance holds a bludgeon over the Dominion Steel Company at Sydney and over the steel corporations of Ontario, and he says to them in effect: if you do not sell your wire rods to the small manufacturers of nails at a reasonable price, or at the price they were getting them at heretofore, we shall cut you out and remove the duty.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William F. Carroll: I am glad to hear hon. gentlemen cheer that, because it shows they recognize my argument is correct. When the Conservative papers of the East call out: Hurrah for the Minister of Finance, he has done great things for the steel industry of the country, hon. gentlemen opposite by their cheering show that either they do not believe these newspapers ot they do not believe the Minister of Finance. I can give proof for this. The statement of the Minister of Finance appears in ' Hansard ' as if he said: we shall reduce the duty. But, what the Minister of Finance really said was: we will remove the duty if you do not be good to the small manufacturers of nails in Ontario. Not only that, but before the steel men got anything, I understand-and now I am only speaking from hearsay and am not so sure of my ground-I understand that before the steel manufacturers of this country rot. any satis-
[Mr. Carroll. 1
faction or encouragement from the present Government they had to go to Toronto and meet the smaller manufacturers of nails and tell them-and I understand that it was at the behest of the Minister of Customs they went to Toronto-and tell them: do not make too much of a howl; you know we have got to be good to you; the Minister of Finance is holding this bludgeon over our heads and we have got to give you cheap wire rods for the manufacture of your nails. You can see that while this thing appears on its face to he very plausible, it. does not mean that the steel manufacturers of this country who produce steel rods are getting a duty of $3.50 per ton on their output.


Mr. W. CHISHOLM:: It transmigrates.


Mr CARROLL:: It does. Let me draw to the attention of the House to another rather peculiar thing that attaches to this piece of legislation so far as the duty on wire rods is concerned. I find in the Votes and Proceedings, No. 56, of Monday, April 6, 1914, the following proposed resolution with regard tc this change:
Resolved, that the foregoing provisions shall be held to have come into force on the seventh day of April, 1914, and to have applied to all goods imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that day, and to have also applied the goods previously imported for which no' entry for consumption was made before that day, except as otherwise provided in the foregoing resolution.
Thai is the usual resolution, but there is a proviso attached to it. I am not in a position to say whether this appears before or after the announcement made by the Minister of Finance, but I should think from its date that it appeared previous ti hi, pronouncement on the iron and steel situation. There is this proviso attached to the resolution.
Provided, notwithstanding any increase in customs under the said resolutions, that all goods actually purchased on or before the sixth day of April, 1914, for importation into Canada, on evidence satisfactory to the Minister of Customs of the purchase having been so made, and all goods in warehouse in Canada on such day, if entered for duty after importation prior to the first day of July, 1914, may be entered at the rate of duty in force on the said sixth day of April, 1914.
That is to say, steel producers in the United States were given this notice: Rush your orders of wire rods into Canada; you can get them all in free by getting your orders taken before the 7th day of April, 1914. I am informed on creditable authority that there were thousands upon thousands

of tons of wire rods sold in Canada under contract between the 6th of April and the 7th of April, 1914. I say that string was attached for the purpose, a very laudable purpose no doubt, of giving the small manufacturers of nails in this country a chance to take time by the forelock and have their importations come in without duty.
There are some other phases of this iron .and steel question that are worthy of comment.
' Mr. W. T. WHITE: I would ask my hon. friend if he suggests that any notice of that resolution was given except in the ordinary way. Does he say there is anything exceptional about that proviso?


William F. Carroll: I think so. I do not
pretend to have very much knowledge about the matter myself, but I am informed that that is not the usual string attached to such resolutions regarding tariff matters. I find also in the Votes and Proceedings notice of this resolution respecting the iron and steel industry of this country:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Governor in Council, may under regulations made for the purpose, allow, on the exportation of goods manufactured in Canada and into the manufacture of which pig iron imported into Canada mixed with pig iron made in Canada has entered, a drawback, equal to the duty paid, less such deductions therefrom as is provided in such regulations, of all the pig iron imported and used by the manufacturer of such goods in manufacturing the goods exported and other goods, and the drawback may be computed on the total quantity of pig iron, including pig iron made as aforesaid, entering into such exported goods.
That is, as I understand it, that if the manufacturer of any article in this country imports pig iron which goes into the manufacture of that article which is subsequently exported, he gets a drawback on the duty, and consequently he has practically free pig iron. That is not only a blow to the iron and steel industy, but it is a blow also to the Canadian consumer who has to buy these articles, because it gives an advantage to the United States farmer over the Canadian farmer, in the fact that the manufacturer gets a drawback on the imported iron which entered into the manufacture of the article he exports to the United States.
The manufacture of structural iron and steel in Canada is not even in its infancy yet, and there is a chance to develop it into a very great industry in this country.
If the hon. Minister of Finance had encouraged this manufacture, which does not exist in Canada to-day, by a system of bounties, he would see the manufacture of structural steel in this country developing by leaps and bounds, as it will not under his method of a protective tariff. That, however, goes for what it is worth; it is a mere prophecy. I point that out to the minister, because he said that bounties were useful to encourage an industry, but that once it got upon its .feet it should be protected in another way. Once industries get on their feet and are able to hold the Canadian .market and compete successfully with similar industries throughout the world, they want neither bounty nor protective tariff. I think I have shown that, while the hon. Minister of Finance held out one hand to the steel industries of this country and said: Here is a $3.50 per ton duty on your wire rods, he destroyed that in toto by holding out in the other hand to the manufacturers of fences a drawback, and by having some of his satellities behind him wield the cudgel over the steel companies to compel them to he good to his friends the nail manufacturers of the province of Ontario.
I come to the question of coal. I think it has been said by Conservative protectionists that if we reduce the duty on coal or any other .article of commerce, it will be the entering of the thin edge of the wedge, and will be liable to cause the downfall of the whole structure of protection. Apparently the hon. Minister of Finance is not such an ardent protectionist as some of those who sit .around him, because he has inserted the thin edge of the wedge in so fax as the coal producers of Nova Scotia especially are concerned, because in that part of the country we produce only bituminous coal. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in the old days, in his replies to the Budget speeches, used to taunt Mr. Fielding, then Minister of Finance, with sitting tight upon his coal scuttle. Mr. Fielding sat tight upon his coal scuttle, and, by the protection which he gave to the industry in Nova Scotia, that industry has developed. It developed between 1896 and 1911 from 1,000,000 tons to about
5,000,000 tons. We in Nova Scotia thank Mr. Fielding for sitting tight upon his coal scuttle, hut we do not thank the present Minister of Finance foT getting off that coal .scuttle and allowing .a few of his manufacturing friends in Ontario to put in the thin edge of the wedge in so far as the duty on coal is concerned.
Coke is allowed to come into this country free of duty. Before the Budget speech was

delivered, bituminous coal was allowed in free when it went into the manufacture of coke and was used for smelting purposes. I think that is a fair statement. The Minister of Finance comes along and disturbs the coal industry of this country by removing the duty from all bituminous coal used in the manufacture of coke, and it does not matter now whether it is manufactured into coke by the people running blast furnaces or not. If I start a coke oven in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, or any other province, and sell the product of that coke oven to the manufacturers of steel in Ontario, I get my bituminous coal in free. It is a serious thing for the Minister of Finance to interfere with the coal tariff in the province of Nova Scotia. In proof of that, I may say that almost before he made the announcement, a cry went up from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association for free bituminous coal from one end of the line to the other. Mr. Rowley, who was I think at one time president of that association, says that, he considers this a fine thing-why? Because, he thinks, if a delegation headed by himself come to the Minister of Finance next year and say they are using bituminous coal in the manufacture of matches in Hull, they are as much entitled to free coal as are the coke manufacturers; and I think he is right in that contention. The Min:ster of Finance, perhaps unintentionally, has hit a blow at the bituminous coal industry of this country. I may be told by whoever follows me that, in the election of 1911, as a candidate on behalf of the Liberal party in the province of Nova Scotia, I favoured a reduction of 7 cents a ton on coal. I did so, but we were getting a quid pro quo under the contention. The Minister of Finance, perfectly free market in the United States for our slack coal, which constitutes between 30 and 35 per cent of the output of the Dominion Coal Company, and, I believe, as large a percentage of the output of the other coal companies of Nova Scotia, and that would much more than make up for any hurt that the reduct on of 7 cents a ton might do to that province. The people apparently believed so, because there was not in the province of Nova Scotia a coal county, with the exception of Cumberland, that did not return a Liberal to this Parliament. That in effect meant that they were all satisfied with our policy in regard to the coal industry.
There is one item of particular interest to the people of this country with which the hon. Minister of Finance, if he approached 
it, stayed only a very short time. I refer to the question of the high cost ef living. If we are to believe the Minister of Labour, that we must have hard times before the price of food goes down, we should be getting foodstuffs dirt cheap in this country to-day, because we have had a very hard time financially for the last eight months or a year. Various causes have been given for this high cost of living. In a speech which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance made on the Address, he said that it is often caused by the exhaustion of natural resources. Surely no one will say that holds good in Canada. Instead of our natural resources being exhausted, they have barely been touched so far. We have been told by hon. gentlemen opposite that this high cost of living is a worldwide tendency, and that you cannot legislate against a tendency.
That may be good economics; but if you cannot legislate against a world-wide tendency, at least you can change the trend of that tendency within your own jurisdiction in various ways. Now, the high cost of living is a world-wide tendency-to a certain extent; but let me give you first some figures for the last twelve years and then figures for the last five years. In the last twelve years the increase in the cost of living has been as follows in the various countries named: Belgium, 32 per cent; France, 28 per cent; Germany, 28 per cent; Japan, 28 per cent; United States, 43 per cent; Canada, 51 per cent; Great Britain, 15 per cent. Then, from figures which I have taken from an article by Professor Stephen Leacock, whom I consider an authority on this question, it appears that in the last five years, whereas the high cost of living has increased throughout the world at from 10 to 12 per cent, it has increased in Canada by 35 per cent. Why should this be? How is it that in a young country, with its natural resources practically undeveloped, the high cost of living is going ahead in ratio compared with other countries as 35 to 10?	' You cannot legislate
against a tendency,' but I contend that this Parliament can pass legislation which will bring down the high cost of living. And I am going to show you how.
In the calendar year 1913 we paid $7,000,000 taxes on foodstuffs entering this country. That is practically $1 for every man, woman and child throughout the length and breadth of Canada, perhaps between $20 and $25 or more for every head of a family. And I believe that the poor man pays more in proportion than his rich

neighbour. When our crops come in in the fall, a man who has spare cash can go to a wholesaler and put in a store which will tide him over until the next fall. But the poor man who is living from hand to mouth has not this amount of ready cash, small though it be, and so he has to pay the high prices that rule when the articles become scarce. The poor man i3 the one who pays the most of that $7,000,000 of taxes on foodstuffs. We imparted foodstuffs from fifty countries, our greatest import being from the United States. From that country last year we imported foodstuffs to the value of $23,072,160, and paid duties on those imports of $4,860,782.82, the duties on goods from other countries making the total oveT $7,000,000. But hon. gentlemen opposite may say: Oh, well, the consumer doe3 not pay that. Then, might I ask, who does pay it? Does the Minister of Finance throw $7,000,000 into the treasury and say: Here is the taxes on the foodstuffs for the yeaT? Does the wholesale importer pay it,-a generous man to be sure, but not generous enough, I think, to pay $7,000,000 out of his own pocket into the treasury of this country. Of course, he passes on that $7,000,000 to the retailer with his own profit, to which he is entitled. And are the retailers of foodstuffs so generous that they are going to put $7,000,000 into the treasury? I think not. On the contrary, they are entitled to a profit on the duty and on the wholesaler's profit on that duty, and this they duly collect. Who, then, pays this duty? The man who buys from the retailer pays it in the last analysis, and in the last of the last analysis it is the poor man who pays it.
But some hon gentlemen opposite may say: But even if you reduce the tariff, that will not make foodstuffs cheaper in this country. Well, let me point out to you a very anomalous state of affairs with regard to flour-and no food is more largely or mare commonly consumed than flour, and Canada is a great flour-producing country. I think I am within the mark when I siay that the producers of flour in this country have absolute control of their markets at this time, and not only that but they have successfully competed in the markets of Great Britain. Great Britain is not a flour-producing country, and one would naturally expect that flour would be dearer there than in Canada. But take the grade of flour which cost? $5 a barrel in Winnipeg, $5.10 in Montreal, $6.50 in Halifax, $5.50 in St. Johns', Newfoundland, and you find that it sells for $4.18 in the London market. Is there any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who can tell how that is accounted for? I will give my version of it and I do not think it can be successfully contradicted. My version is thi3: The foodstuffs of all countries enter the market of Great Britain free. Consequently, when the flour merchant of Canada goes there he must compete with the world, and so he must bring down his prices to ' synchronize ' with those of the old country.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Is the hon. member speaking of retail prices in Canada and wholesale prices in Great Britain?


William F. Carroll: Wholesale, I presume.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Retail here, as against
wholesale in England?


William F. Carroll: No, I do not fall into
errors of that kind.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I merely asked if they were the same.
Mr. GEO. E. FOSTER :	The hon.
member is certain, is he, that his basis is the wholesale price?


William F. Carroll: I think so.


Mr. FOSTER:: That is very important.


William F. Carroll: I do not see what difference it makes. If you pay $6.50 retail in Halifax for an article that you can buy for $4.18 retail in London, what difference is it going to make? It simply shows that the millers of this country have a monopoly here; and that shows that the duty on flour should be taken off. The Government is not doing its duty to the people of Canada when it allows such a state of affairs to go on, when it maintains a high protective tariff which enables the Canadian producer to monopolize the Canadian market and make the Canadian consumer pay twenty-five to thirty-five per cent more for the same _ brand of flour than is charged the consumer in Great Britain. When such a state of affairs exists there is something wrong, absolutely wrong; and it is a serious matter that this Government should take into its immediate consideration-provided	they
have at heart the benefit of the majority of the people of Canada, as I have no doubt they have.
But let me hope that they are not so wedded to a policy of high protection as to allow such a state of affairs to continue. I am told that the millers informed the Minister

of Finance that they were making no profits on this flour. I am not in a position personally to say what profits these millers are making, but I am going to give the House the statement, based, I presume, on ripe experience, of a gentleman who wrote some days ago in the Montreal Standard, which I look upon as a very reliable paper. He says that the Canadian people would not eat the inferior grades of flour that they send over to England. That assertion bears its denial on its face, because any one who is familiar with the conditions knows that the very best of everything must be used for export, especially to England where we have to compete with the exports of the whole world. It is pointed out by this gentleman that the very best brands go over to Great Britain-and that is just what I would expect. He points out that several milling industries in this country-the Ogilvy, the Lake of the Woods and the International Milling Company-according to their own published record, made last year a profit of from thirty to sixty per cent upon their capital. What their capital is, no one knows but themselves. It may be half water; two-thirds of it may be water, and the other third actual cash. I do not make the assertion that this is the case, but it may be so; at any rate they miade a profit on their actual capital of from thirty to sixty per cent.


John Hampden Burnham: They did not pay their shareholders that.


William F. Carroll: This statement was sent broadcast throughout the country.


John Hampden Burnham: I know it is not true.


William F. Carroll: Surely the big milling
industries are not foolish enough to send broadcast throughout the country a statement which is not in their own interests if it be not true. This gentleman gives citations to show that the very best Canadian flour is sent to the old land. I am really sincere when I appeal to the Minister of Finance and ask him if the conditions which exist should be allowed to continue? Is it a fair deal to the Canadian consumer -and we are all consumers of flour-is it a fair deal to the people of Canada as a whole that through the machinations of the flour interests of this country they should be forced to pay from $1 to $2 more on a barrel of flour than is paid by consumers across the Atlantic? This is something which should commend itself to the serious consideration of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance.

I think I have made a sufficiently strong case to show that the high duty on flour coming into this country makes the price of that flour higher. The same thing applies to boots and shoes and everything else we wear. If we want to buy a pound of soap we have to pay a tax on it; if we want to buy a pair of shoes, we must pay a tax on them; if we buy wearing apparel, we must pay a tax on it; if we buy a hat, a cap or a collar, we must pay a tax on it. But if we want to import unset diamonds from the United States or from some other country, we get them free of duty. Is that a fair deal?


John Hampden Burnham: No.


William F. Carroll: I am glad the hon. member for West Peterborough agrees with me on one point at least. Unquestionably this is a raw deal to the consumer.. The price of foodstuffs is going up, but wages are not going up in the same ratio. The reason is not far to seek. The present financial stringency in this country-due to what I do not know-keeps the wages down and makes for unemployment. In a paper dated Ottawa, January 29, 1914, I observe that Controller McNeill on that day recommended to the Board of Control that the city should make an effort to provide work for the large number of unemployed persons in Ottawa. He said that in Dalhousie ward alone 700 families-not 700 people, Mr. Speaker, but 700 families-were in a state of poverty. If the hon. member for Brantford were in the House I would ask him whether that is an indication of good times. Certainly it is not.


Mr. WILCOX:: Is it true ?


William F. Carroll: Does my hon. friend say it is not true ? I presume that a controller elected by the citizens of Ottawa would not give the public press such a statement if it were not true. Does the hon. gentleman who interrupted me think that he would ?


Oliver James Wilcox: An announcement was made in the Liberal press of Windsor that a large number of persons were out of employment. The city council appointed a committee to inquire into the conditions, and they found that only two families in the whole city were in want.


William F. Carroll: That may be absolutely true, but it has no reference to the case which I put before the House. A controller of the city of Ottawa made the

assertion that in one ward alone 700 families were in want. I wish to assure the hon. member for North Essex that I am not one of those who would attempt to show that there was anything rotten in the state of Denmark if the rottenness did not exist. I congratulate the hon. gentleman upon the fact that there are only two families in the city of Windsor who are in want; even that is bad enough. It is difficult to say just to what that may be attributed-probably to the high cost of living. My hon. friend sits there and does not plead with the Minister of Finance to take this cumbersome duty off and give the two poor families in the city of Windsor the same chance as the British poor.


Oliver James Wilcox: How does my hon. friend know what I do with the Minister of Finance?


William F. Carroll: You certainly do not do it in the light of day, where it would be more effective. If my hon. friend is doing anything, his efforts are apparently not meeting with success.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Take the duty off flour and put it on steel.


William F. Carroll: I explained my position on that point to the satisfaction of any reasonable gentleman. People may disagree as to our present system of cold storage, which enhances the cost of living. When cold storage was introduced in this country we thought it was a godsend, but I fear it has not developed on the line we expected. Further, the cost of living is enhanced by a protective tariff. I would like to hear some hon. gentleman on the other side disprove that statement.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Certainly, in the interests
of farmers.


William F. Carroll: If we give the farmers
free agricultural implements-and I understand the Liberal party will when we return to power-they can do without protection on their food stuffs.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: For fifteen years you failed to do it.


William F. Carroll: We must not forget that neither the farmers, the steel men nor the coal men are the only people in this country.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: Did not Mr. Sifton, in 1896, as he travelled up and down the country, promise that if the Liberals came to power they would give free agricultural implements?


William F. Carroll: Did not my hon. friend travel up and down the West two or three years ago and promise the same thing?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I never did.


William F. Carroll: I do not know what Mr. Sifton did.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I do.


William F. Carroll: He is a man against whom I have nothing much to say, except that he was so inconsistent that he eventually found himself in the fold of the Conservative party. To return to the high cost of living; it is enhanced by monopoly and is increased still further by the mother of monopolies, a high protective tariff. There are other phases of this question with which I would like to deal, but I have already taken up too much time.


Oliver James Wilcox: I
understand the Budget debate upon which we are now launched, to present one of the few opportunities on which hon. members on both sides of the House can express their views in regard to the national, international, and party issues that are before Parliament and this country. Under the rules of the House applying to this debate, it is within the rights of hon. members to give expression to their political opinions, and to the faith they hold in the political party with which they have become identified. It is also within their rights to "give expression to what they believe to be the weaknesses, if any, the fallacies, if any, and the inconsistencies of their opponents. Therefore, we may conclude that the Budget debate is more political in its character than possibly any other debate that obtains in this Parliament. Under our constitutional form of government we have a party system, and I do not believe that human ingenuity has yet devised a system of government, having due regard to all its weaknesses, that is the equal of the party system.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Oliver James Wilcox: I believe that a party system, having due regard to the interests of the masses of the people, is the hest; and I iam sure that my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition will agree with me at least in the statement-


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.
Mr. WILCOX-that when we have a party system of government as we have in this country, the principles of common equity demand that each political party in



its turn shall have the right to govern the destinies of this great country. As a young member of this House who does not take up very much of its time in offering my opinions, rather giving way to men of older years and greater political experience-viewing the actions of my hon. friends opposite during the last two sessions I cannot help coming to the conclusion that they conceived the idea that they had a divine right to rule the destinies of this country; and now that we of the Liberal Conservative party have served our due course of time in opposition, they are not willing to give to us the right to which we are entitled. I believe ,my right hon. friend, whom I confess I admire in many respects, will agree that that must be and will always be the principle upon which this country will be governed. I confess, Mr. Speaker, that when I first came to this House I was not a partisan in politics. I do not think I am a partisan to-day.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Oliver James Wilcox: That is in the broader sense of the term. If I would place the construction upon that term ' partisan ' which my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition placed upon it in 1896, 1897 and 1898, when he was dismissing Liberal-Conservative office-holders, I might be considered a partisan, because the construction that he placed upon the term was that any man was a partisan who took a part in politics other than voting. But, in the broader sense of the term, I do not think I am a partisan. I must confess that there are times in this House when it seems to me that party feeling and party strife and party bias are carried altogether to extremes if we have regard to the best interests of the people and of the country in which we live.
I think that hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House will agree with me in the statement that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) made a very able and clever presentation of his Budget the other day setting forth the conditions that exist in the Dominion. I desire to incorporate in the few remarks which I propose to make this afternoon, the statement of the Minister of Finance with regard to the finances of the Dominion. He said:
A revenue of $163,000,000 and an expenditure of $126,500,000 leaves a surplus of revenue over and above the amount required for expenditure upon current account of $36,500,000.
The surplus for ;the year, then, will be thirty-six million five hundred thousand dollars

as compared with fifty-five million dollars last year.
In connection with this matter of surpluses, it may not be out of place for me to point out that from the year 1902 forward there have been substantial surpluses of revenue over current expenditure, running from $14,000,000 in 1902-3 to $22,000,000 in 1909-10, to $30,000,000 in 1910-11. For the year 1911-12 our surplus was $37,000,000, for 1912-13, as I have stated, $56,000,000, and for last year, 1913-14, the figure which I have just given, $36,500,000. So we have had during the last three years the largest surpluses in the financial history of the Dominion.
The point I desire to make is this: We boast of the surplus in this country. I think we have a right to boast of it under present conditions. Notwithstanding the fact that this country has passed through what my hon. fiiend termed a trade cycle, a time of commercial depression, in the last few years, we have this remarkably gratifying financial condition which was so well set forth by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. I know that my right hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition, will agree with me when I make the statement that in all countries there are times of commercial expansion and of commercial depression. It has been so in Canada ever since this country has had a Parliament. It will be so as long as this country is a country and the -same condition prevails through the whole civilized world. When the Finance Minister is able to bring down to this House, in this year of grace, 1914, a surplus of $36,500,000, which is a greater surplus than was ever brought down by a Minister of Finance under the Government of our hon. friends opposite in the last fifteen years, the people will accept that as a condition which is satisfactory.
As a Liberal-Conservative, there have been times in the history of this country, with its gratifying advancement and development, when I have regretted the position taken by the Liberal party upon great national issues. My hon. friend (Mr. Carroll)-I shall have something to -say in connection with his remarks in a moment or two-has added to the belief that I already had and that is that our hon. friends opposite from a political point of view have proven themselves to be past grand masters in the art of putting up a false case before the people of Canada. What an exhibition of economic fallacies we have had this afternoon ! They can put up a bogus man of straw and knock him down again just like Punch and Judy. You have all been present at a Punch and Judy show; Punch will get up and Judy will fall down and the first thing you know Judy comes to the top

and there is nothing left of Punch. They can profess one thing in opposition, do another thing in power and succeed in gaining the approval of a very great percentage of the people of the country to a degree that has not been exceeded by any political party in any civilized or uncivilized country that I have ever read of. Now,
I am not speaking harshly.
5 p.m. Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Oliver James Wilcox: I am just expressing my view in the plainest, commonest language I can find because I want my hon. friends to understand just exactly what I mean. My hon. friend from Cane Breton, to my mind, made a remarkable speech. I know that he will not consider me discourteous when I say it was more remarkable for what he did not say than it was remarkable for what, he did say. He started out by parading the advantages of a protective policy. I had a notion to say to my hon. friend: You should be on this side of the House. Down around Sydney there is an industry which receives protection at the hands of this Government, and in 1897, he says, there were four thousand people in Sydney and now there are twenty thousand. That is an industry which has received what I would call double-dyed Tory protection. The bounties ran out a few years ago it is true, but they had received $4 a ton and a bounty besides on the manufacture of steel rails. And, we are told, that under this principle of protection this industry has grown in Sydney until Sydney can now boast of having twenty thousand people where there were only four thousand people a few years ago. So much for the protective principle. But, where I blame my hon. friend (Mr. Carroll) is, that when he gets out of his own local sphere he is not willing to allow to others in this country the same principle that he wants applied to Sydney. He entered into a tirade against my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt); he entered into a tirade against me in the business in which I am engaged, namely, the farming industry of this country. He said to me: You as a farmer shall have no protection. Am I not a producer as much as any of those engaged in any other industry in this country? Then, why am I not entitled as a producer to have the benefits which flow to industries that have been established under the fiscal system we have in Canada?
It was interesting to me to hear my hon. friend (Mr. Carroll) pleading for protection for the steel industry, and I think he did 1621
the right thing, and I congratulate him. That is the principle to which I adhere, and, whoever the hon. member may charge with belonging to the trusts and the mergers, he cannot charge me with that, for I never was engaged in any other business than that of farming, and I never in my life have owned five cents worth of stock in any company. If any man is free to give an unbiased opinion upon the question of tariff, I think, so far as my ability enables me, I am able to express my opinion free from any bias on one side or the other. It was most interesting to me to hear my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) take that inconsistent position. He said:	I am in favour of a
moderate protective policy for the steel industry, but agricultural implements must be free, and notwithstanding that the farmers of this country produce five hundred million dollars of wealth from the land, they must have no protection; all the protection must be given down around Sydney, N.S. Does not the leader of the Opposition think that that is a pretty narrow view for his supporter from Cape Breton to take? I hope my right hon. friend will take the hon. member into his inner counsel and give him a little talking to for being so inconsistent.
There are, in my opinion, two or three epochal periods in the history of the Dominion of Canada. At the opening of my remarks this .afternoon I made an announcement as to the part I should take in this debate, and I stated that in my view the Liberal party have been wrong on every side of every question upon which depended the future growth and development of Canada. We have heard to-day about the opening of the West; and hardly a debate takes place in this Parliament that reference is not made to that subject. I trust the House will forbear with me while I refer to that question briefly, because I desire to have incorporated in my address the words of a few leading men o.f the Liberal party with respect, to the great undertaking of the Canadian Pacific railway, which really did develop the West. I remember sitting here ,some little time ago, giving strict attention to an address that was delivered here by my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), and in approaching the question of our great pioneer Transcontinental railway, he said, and he told the truth, and I know the right hon. the leader of the Opposition will agree

25fk
that he did: 'It would have put back ihe development of 'Canada foi a generation had not the Canadian Pacific railway been the suooess it has been.'
I believe that view -as to the Canadian Pacific railway prevails not only on this side of the House, but on the other side as well, .and that it is entertained by the people of Canada generally. I have here a clipping from .a -supplement of the Windsor Record. That newspaper was -alway-s -a great -admirer of -SiT Wilfrid Lauri-er, -and I do not blame it for that. The Windsor Record alw-ays put my right hon. friend's policy very plainly, sometimes I think a little too plainly, before the people. The right bon. the leader of the Opposition was in Chatham, and he delivered .a -speech there before five thousand people when he announced his Gr-and Trunk Pacific railway scheme. The hon. Wm. P-aterson, who, we regret, is not with us, addressed that audience, and he m-ade -a -statement which I -shall quote, because it has been argued in th-at part of the country that the Liber,al party was in favour of the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, but here is what the late Hon. Wm. Paterson -said:
We have at present a transcontinental road In the Canadian Pacific railway, a raiHwajr which we once opposed and fought against, but which we now rejoice was constructed when it was.
That is a plain, unvarnished statement of a leading light of the Liberal party, showing the attitude taken by the party in regard to this great national work. Therefore, those who may read what I have to say upon this occasion will not pay much attention to what the lesser lights of the Liberal party have said. when a leading light, before 5,000 people, will say: Once we opposed that road, but to-day we are glad that it was constructed when it was. Is there any other authority upon this point? Without preface, I desire to quote the Hon. Mr. Fielding. There are not within the confines of the Dominion of Canada many Liberals who will not believe what the ex-Minister of Finance says, for I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that if in the Liberal party there is one man more than another who has been looked up to during the past fifteen years, it is the Hon. W. S. Fielding. In ' Hansard ' of 1903, page 8591, Mr. Fielding spoke as follows:
Perhaps there were some mistakes of location, perhaps some mistakes in the and policy, 
and in the clearer light of to-day we may be able to see that things were done then which had better been left undone. I am disposed to think that perhaps those things may after all have been only incidental to the difficulties of the time and to rapid construction. I for one do not hesitate to say, in the light of experience, that the Liberal party did entertain alarm an 1 anxiety, which have been proved in the end not to have been fully justified. I for one have no disposition unfairly to criticise to-day. I frankly admit, as one who was then a young man, that I was led to en'tertain alarm and anxiety. Today I say that the policy of the Conservative party, subject to these qualifications which I have mentioned, has been justified, and in that respect the Conservative party has made a record which they can look back to with pride.
That, I think, is quite sufficient to show that the attitude taken by the Liberal party in those early days was not friendly to this great work. Whai would have been the consequence if that road had not been constructed when it was? If it had not been for that great railway, which has opened up the West, it would not have been the case when my hon. friends came into power in 1896 that in the southern part of Manitoba a new settler could step in anywhere and be within sixteen miles of a railway.
A few -days ago I was reading in ' Hansard ' a statement made by my hon. friend the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), who if he had been sitting beside my hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Carroll), would have pulled his co-at when he was talking , about the steel industry. The hon. member for Edmonton said:
I looked over this country, in 1896, and T failed to find anything upon which could be based the growth and development and prosperity of this country.
I say, as a Canadian, as a young member of this House, shame on the man who will take the credit for what has been done by the pioneers in this country, the men who have laboured with plough and with horse, who have laid the foundation upon which this land rests and who have given us this great country as we have it to-day. Upon that great undertaking, which meant so much for the development of this country, our hon. friends opposite were entirely wrong; and if the people of Canada had taken their advice, conditions would not be as they are to-day.
We come to another great issue -in the politics of Canada. In 1891, the battle of' unrestricted reciprocity was fought in Canada. I was then a young man, only a boy.
I did not have a vote, but night after night in my county I attended the meetings of

my right hon. friend's friend, Sir William McGregor. He spoke to large gatherings of people, and the policy which he advocated was the policy of absolute free trade with the United States. Look, he said, at those rascals, the custom houses; put the rascals out; put me in, and the rascals will be put out. It caught. He was put in, but the rascals were not put out. It was a matter of note, however, in many parts of Canada that a number of friends of my right hon. friend and his candidate upon that occasion were so convinced as to the sincerity of my right hon. friend that they loaded up the stuff that they had manufactured before the election and went across to Detroit and refused to pay the duty. We have the evidence of succeeding events. The Hon. Edward Blake, one of the greatest constitutional lawyers Canada has ever seen, gave his opinion that if the policy of my right hon. friend on that occasion had succeeded, this country would not be as it is, with each heart pulsating with loyalty to His Majesty the King, but would be part and parcel of the United States of America. Thank fortune, however, my right hon. friend upon that occasion did not have his way, and Canada has gone on rejoicing and has remained up to the present time, and will we hope forever remain, a part and parcel of the great British Empire.
Now, just on this point of-well, I do not want to be discourteous; but I don't think I would be taken as discourteous if I were to say-this slander of the manufacturers of this country. If there is anything that I abhor it is seeing my hon. friends opposite ballyragging the manufacturers of this country from one end of it to the otheT with hot air,-and shaking hands with them under the seat. But the people of this country are getting onto it. It worked in 1896, but I do not believe it will work again. The people want something tangible now. This sending of commissioners to Montreal to meet the manufacturers and tell them that they will not be hurt, and my right hon. friend's candidates hollering and proclaiming the gospel of free trade, will not work any more. There is an old adage that a burnt child dreads the fire,-and under this policy of my right hon. friend the farmers got the hot air and the manufacturers got the dough. When Mr. Fielding came back from Washington after the celebrated pact had been negotiated, he went down to Montreal to speak and he told the truth; if I had been there I would
have patted him on the back. He was speaking of the manufacturers being able to compete with the older-organized industries of the United States and this i? what he had to say:
It is not so with the manufacturers. The Americans, with their greater power of capital and organization, can beat us as a rule. And if we have free trade, manufacturers would undoubtedly have to close up their factories in Canada. We want manufacturers here. You manufacturers were told in 1897 that if you returned the liberal Government, dreadful things would happen.
My hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, declares for a policy of moderate protection. And what were the words of Sir John Macdonald when his famous fiscal system was introduced in this House on the 8th of March, 1879? He said: If we bad a moderate protective system in this country we could deveilop ouir capital and could occupy a higheT position amongst the nations of the earth. It follows that as time passes and our industries become developed they will not need as great protection ns at the beginning. The Liberal-Conservative parity has followed that policy consistently for forty-seven years, and upon it we stand to-day.
I want to make another remark before i touch the main kernel of my address. The third epoch or period in the development of our country, I think, was when the battle of our fiscal independence was fought and won on the 21st September, 1911. You know, there is an old saying-I think it is a poet who says.it-that' everything comes to those who wait. My right hon. friend undertook to do something for the farmers of western Canada; I think his policy was framed for that purpose. And I want to say here, as a farmer from the province of Ontario, that the farmers of the West have my sincere sympathy.


Wilfrid Laurier: And that is
all.


Oliver James Wilcox: Liberal or Conservative., is willing to put his shoulder to the wheel to do what is necessary in the interests of the farmers of the West, and not only of the farmers but of western manufacturing industries as well. But I am not so sure that there is a common ground upon which we can reach a conclusion that there is this terrible . condition that is pictured day by day by hon. members -opposite. I do not want to take any credit from the West to which the West is entitled. But is it not a fact that if they are frosted out we are only too glad to buy them more seed; if they are hailed out we are willing to help them? We have -built transcontinental railways to traverse the West including the Winnipeg-Monoton line proposed by the right h-on. leader of the Opposition which will cost this country $296,000,000. We are building them elevators; we are doing everything that a Government can do, in reason, to help that western country to obviate as far as possible anything that militates against their development. But I was born and raised in the woods of Ontario. My grandfather crossed -the briny deep of the Atlantic and settled in the woods of Essex seventy-eight years ago, in the virgin forest, where- he had to master the mighty oak and elm; and not only that but had to drain the soil as all the rest had to d-o it. And I submit -that pioneer conditions prevailing in western Canada are mot to be compared for difficulty with the pioneer conditions which had to be faced in Ontario and in Quebec too.
Now, the right h-on. leader of the Opposition had a large delegation down here in which he -became intensely intere-sted-^al-togethe-r too much -so. It appeared here on the 16th December, 1910. A Mr. Green read one o-f the leading papers on -that occasion.
I -am inclined to the view that my right hon. friend was frightened when these farmers came here by the thousands from the wild and woolly West, where the gophers roam by day and the coyotes howl by night, and here i-s one thing that scared him. I find this o-n page 18 of the report:
What can this Parliament do for this delegation?
It was not a question of what this Parliament could do for this delegation. He went on to say:
What can this delegation do for this Parliament? I
I wish to quote further from the same paper, and I ask hon. gentlemen of this IMr. Wilcox.]
House to give what I read their -careful, earnest and serious consideration. After they -have meditated upon it by day and by night they will, I -am sure, come to the conclusion, as I do, that conditions cannot be quite so bad in the West as hon'. gentlemen opposite, who bewail the great gloom that exists in that part of the -country, seem to think they are; One would almost think that after September 21, 1911, a great fog had settled upon western Canada. But the sun still shines in the West, as it does in Ontario; the gloom is concentrated, so far as I know, only in the benches of hon. gentlemen opposite. I ask the attention of the House to Mr. Green's words :
Let me in closing refer to the vast aggregate wealth represented by this delegation, each member of the western part of it, we estimate, has a half section of land valued with its equipment at at least $10,000. There are 30,000 in our western organizations, which means an investment of $300,000,000.
The members of that delegation which came from the great western country where, as -our friends opposite say, there is so much gloom and depression, m-ade the -assertion that they are worth $300,000,000. Reading:
If, as our friendly rivals declare, we are only 25 per cent of the western farmers, we would represent the enormous aggregate of $1,200,000,000, and I think we may fairly claim to be the articulate mouthpiece of the whole.
I would point out to our friends from the West, upon whichever side o-f the House they may sit, th-at when we recognize that only a few years ago, when, the bison, the buffalo and the red man roamed over the western prairies, the Liberal Conservative party sent through that country a double line of steel rails, with all its branches and affluents; when we realize that twenty years afterwards a delegation comes from that western -country and claims to represent directly $300,000,000 of wealth and an aggregation o-f wealth of $1,200,000,000, surely we must come- to the conclusion that conditions cannot be as bad as our friends opposite wish to make us think they are.
Not onily has that development taken pl-ace, but there has 'been a splendid advance in the industrial growth of western Canada. I have examined the census statistics of 1911 with a view to ascertaining whether the provinces of the West are enjoying any measure of the benefits of our industrial system which are being realized in the East, and I wish to present the following summary to the House:

Summary showing Industrial Growth of Prairie Provinces, as per Census, 1911.
For year 1910.
Capital
Province.	Invested.	Earnings.	Products.Alberta..	. . $21,508,664	$	3,506,057	$15,684,717Manitoba.	. .	38,125,027	9,481,545	44,744,347Saskatchewan.	4,958,358	1,494,160	4,557,198

British Columbia.. .. 46,386,682	7,341,948	27,641,036

Not only are Ontario and the other provinces developing very rapidly under our present fiscal system, but these figures seem to me to show conclusively that the western provinces as well are beginning to take on a new life in the development of their industries, and I am of the opinion that they will rank fairly with other portions of the country in beccming great industrial as well as agricultural provinces.
I have quoted the words of Sir John A. Macdonald, and I wish to speak for a moment or two of the development which has taken place under the National Policy, particularly in that part of the country from which I come, and in doing that I do not wish to be considered too local. The Hon. Edward Blake said that it was the duty of every representative to voice the opinions of the particular district he represented. On the 8th of March, 1878, Sir John A. Macdonald (page 857 of 'Hansard') said:
If we had a protective system in this country, if we had a developed capital, we could, by giving our manufacturers a reasonable hold on our home trade, attain a higher position among the nations.
In the same speech he said:
I do not mean that we should adopt1 a tariff like that of the United States, but one such as the necessities of Canada demand.
And still further on:
It can well be understood that a judicious tariff might on the whole be a moderate tariff.
On page 194 of ' Hansard ', 1894, the Hon. George E. Foster is reported as follows:
If there is to be a protective system at all, everybody knows that it must be higher in its inception than as the years gradually pass, when industries have become established and when the industrial development of the country grows apace.
I take the following from the Census report of 1911, which gives a resume of the expansion which has taken place under the National Policy. As these figures are all
taken from the census report, I would like to put the memorandum on ' Hansard ' without reading it, if the House consents:
The urban population of the Dominion increased during the last decade from 1,771,435 to 2,845,073 for cities, towns and villages of 1 500 and over, and the rural and urban population from 5,371,315 to 7,206,643. The urban capital of manufactures increased during the same period by $581,501,241, and the rural and urban by $800,667,122. The urban earnings of wages and salaries increased by $103,008,306, and the rural and urban by $127,759,066. The urban products increased by $540,415,384, and the rural and urban by $684,922,264. The increase in the urban products of the manufactures of Alberta in the decade was $14,634,281, of British Columbia $16,776,854, of Manitoba $34,786,482, of New Brunswick $10,131,853, of Nova Scotia $25,882,919, of Ontario $275,513,965, of Quebec $158,512,912, and of Saskatchewan $4,298,558. In urban places of Prince Edward Island there was a decrease in the, manufactures of $122,440.
A summary of table xm for cities, towns and villages of 1,500 and over is given herewith for capital, earnings and products in 1910, by provinces, together with their rural p.nd urban totals for Canada, viz.:
Provinces.	1910.		
. 1 Capital. !	Earnings.	Products.$	$	$Alberta	21,508,664	3,506,057	15,684,717British Colum-	bia	46,386,682	7,341,948	27,641,036Manitoba	38,125,027	9,481,545	44,747,347New Bruns-	wick	22,125,518	5,531,212	23,084,334Nova Scotia..	67,162,01!	7,743,529	40,165,263Ontario	478,035,563	100,662,393	459,576,759P. E. Island..	742,184	209,081	946,055Quebec	249,892,475	57,385,448	265,367,508Saskatchewan.	4,958,358	1,494,160	4,557,198Canada-ur-	ban	928,936,482	193,355,373	901,770,217Canada-ru-	ral and ur-	ban -....	1,247,583,609	241,008,416	1,165,975,639Also a list of the industries in the Windsor, Sandwich and Walkerville district:	.
Advance Machine Co.
Agnew Electrical Welding Co.
American Auto Trimming Co.
American Standard Jewelry Co.
Anthony Fence Co.
Bentrovato Co., toilet preparations.
Berry Bros., varnishes.
Bishop Fur Co.
British American Brewery.

Burlington-Windsor Blanket Co. Canadian Bridge Co.
Canadian-Detroit Lubricator Co. Canadian Commercial Car Co.
Canadian Moloney Electric Co.
Canadian Alkali Co.
Canadian Postum Cereal Co.
Canadian Salt Co.
Canadian Winkley Co., brass goods. Canadian Sirocco Co., fans and blowers. Canadian Roofing Mfg. Co.
Dale Iron Works.
DePree Chemical Co.
Dominion Malleable Range Co.
Dominion Motors, Limited.
Dominion Stamping Co.
DeVilbiss Mfg. Co., automizers.
Detroit Graphite Co.
Detroit Steel Products Co.
Eansor & Co., carriages and auto bodies. E-M-P Co., of Canada.
Eaton & Co., dye stuffs.
Essex Launch Co.
Ensign Remedy Co.
Excelsior Granite and Marble Works. Eisenberg & Co., cigars.
D.	M. Ferry & Co., seeds.
Fisher Body Co.
Ford Motor Co., of Canada.
Fox Bros. & Co., wood mantels.
Gignac Bros., cigars.
Gramm Motor Truck Co.
Girardot Wine Co.
Grinnell Bros., pianos.
Heinz Electrical Co.
Heinn Co., loose-leaf ledgers.
Heller-Aller Co., windmills.
Horton & Meed el, soda water works. Hupp Motor Car Co.
Hoover Suction Sweeper Co.
Ideal Mfg. Co.
Ideal Mat Co.
Imperial Silverware Co.
Ideal Packless Valve Co.
Interstate Remedy Co.
F. F. Ingram & Co., perfumes.
E.	W. Jeffress Co., extracts.
Joseph Jines, soda water.	-
Kent Canning Co.
Kelsey Wheel Co.
Kerr Engine Co.
Leather Label Overhaul Co.
Lufkin Rule Co.
Leggett-Platt Spring Bed & Mfg. Co.
La Cottel Mfg. Co.
Leach Chemical Co. '
L. J. LaFontaine, furs.
LaForge, A., concrete machines.
McCord Mfg. Co.
McGregor Banwell Fence Co.
John McNee & Sons, cigars.
McKee Lumber Co.
McLean Lumber Co.
Masse Industrial Co., inks, cements, etc. Meisner Soda Water Works.
Motor Street Cleaning Co.
Murray Brass Co.
Mantello Cigar Co.
Mothersill Remedy Co.
Miller Lighting Co., acetylene machines. National Cable & Mfg. Co.
National Spring Bed & Mfg. Co.
Nickel Plate Stove Polish Co.
Ontario Asphalt Block Co.
Orleans Vacuum Cleaner Co.
Page Wire Fence Co.
Palmer Medicine Co.
C. Pangborn & Son, welding.
Parke, Davis & Co., drugs.
Peabody Co., Limited, overalls.
Penberthy Injector Co.
Perforated Hone Co.
John Piggott & Sons, lumber.
Power Specialty Co.
Remington Arms-Union Metallic and Cartridge Co.
C. H. Rundle & Son Co., liniments.
R-C-H Motor Co.
W. E. Seagrave, fire apparatus.
Seely Mfg. Co., perfumes.
Shoop Family Medicine Co.
Standard Paint & Varnish Co.
Frederick Stearns & Co., drugs.
Schrieves Medicine Co.
Sparks Washington Co., automobile fans. Swedish Crucible Stele Co.
C. W. Schimmel, Mfg. demist.
Frederic B. Stevens, foundry facings.
Toledo Computing Scale Co.
Tudhope Motor Co.
Trussed Concrete Steel Co.
Tate Electrics, Limited.
O. & W. Thum Co., fly paper.
Tiger Mfg. Co.
United States Steel Corporation.
Vanderhoof & Co. medicine.
Victor Steel & Wood Products Co.
Vincent Steel Process Co.
Hiram Walker & Sons distillery.
Walker Pant & Shirt Co.
Walkerville Brewing Co.
Walsh Bros., brooms and brushes.
Wilt Twist Drill Co.
Windsor Machine & Tool Works.
Windsor Carriage Works, M. L. Menard Windsor Sash & Weight Foundry.
Windsor Awning & Tent Works. Waterman-Waterbury Co., furnaces.
A. E. White Machine Works.
Whittaker Stove Works.
Windsor Boiler Works.
Windsor Mfg. Co., auto chains.
Windsor Paper Box Co.
Windsor Pearl Button Co.
Windsor Overhaul Co.
Windsor Turned Goods Co.
J. T. Wing & Co., mill supplies.
Zenner Disinfectant Co.
The census report shows that $1,247,583,609 is invested; 515,203 persons are employed, whose net earnings amount to $241,008,416; and the value of the output is $1,165,975,639. A comparison of the values of products in twenty years is .shown in the following table for municipal cities and towns of 10,000 persons and over for the years 1890, 1900 and 1910, as taken for the censuses of the succeeding years;
TMr. Wilcox. J

Municipal Cities and Towns.
Montreal.. -	
Toronto	
Winnipeg	
Vancouver	
Ottawa	
Hamilton	
Quebec	
Halifax	
London	
Calgary	
St. John	
Victoria	
Regina	
Edmonton	
Brantford	
Kingston	
Maisonneuve	
Peterborough...
Hull	
Windsor	
Sydney	
Glace Bay	
Fort William	
Sherbrooke	
Berlin	
Guelph	
Westmount	
St. Thomas	
Brandon	
Moosejaw	
Trois Rivieres....
New Westminster...
Stratford	
Owen Sound	
St. Catharines....
Saskatoon	
Verdun	
Moncton	
P rt Arthur	
Charlottetown	
Sault Ste. Marie...
Chatham	
Lachine	
Galt	
Population
in
Value of Products in
470,480
376,538
136,035
100,401
87,701
81,969
78,810
46,619
46,300
43,704
42,511
31,660
30,213
24,900
23,132
18,874
18,684
18,360
18,222
17,829
17,723
16,562
16,499
16,405
15,196
15,175
14,579
14,054
13,839
13,823
13,691
13,199
12,946
12,558
12,484
12,001
11,629
11,345
11,220
11,198
10,984
10,770
10,699
10,299
1900.
67,654,060
44,963,922
5,611,240
1,895,216
8,822,051
14,044,521
14,800,360
7,198,143
8,255,557
258,900
8,131,790
4,547,186
4,280,999
3,113,573
3,653,584
2,594,996
1,287,292
953,030
335,745
71,099,750
58,415,498
8,616,248
4,990,152
7,638,688
17,122,346
12,779,540
6,927,552
8,122,185
599,444
6,712,769
2,617,573
2,043,094
1.825,722
2,973,927
2,392,792
733,800
977,496
1,408,752
1,491,462
1,582,518
2,444,680
1,973,536
394,045
1,417,340
107,510
2,110,161
1,358,325
2,621,310;
243,778
5,564,095
2,045,173
6,008,780
3,789,164
3,182,050
3,260,947
631,396
111,508
2,252,293
3,307,513
3,689,183
102,500
2,248,846
541,327
135,040
1,187,373
1.029,722
1,935,176
1,173,477
2,000,543
1910.
1,291,036
105,000
900,430
738,472
2,714,977
2,909,847
2,225,343
Increase per cent of values in
1890	1900
to 1900. to 1910.
166,296,972 154,306,948 32,694,349 15,070,105 20,924,331 55,125,946 17,149,385 12,140,409 16,273,996 7,751,011 10,081,667 4,244,034 1,313,274 4,493,304 15,866,229 3,860,142 20,813,774 10,633,119 7,259,301 3,771,706, 9,395,017 132,500 634,097 3,934,510 9,266,188 7,392,336 1,541,802 3,573,820 2,330,430 738,818 2,472,040 2,853,774 5,133,840 2,852,267 6,024,217 847,354 229,299 3,233,565 973,668 738,228 1,002,834 5,023,560 6,295,716 6,252,600
p.c.
509 29-92 53 55 163 30 -1341 22 91 -1365 -3-76 -1-26 131-53 -1745 -42-44
p.c. 133-89 164 15 279-45 202 20 173-92 221-95 34-19 75 25 100-36 1,193-03! 50 19 6214
1890 to 1910.
29 98 -3431 64 46 46 02 147-19 32 31 88'06
1024 8116 24 05
1,743 19 185-12 88-74 246-39 180 62 128 13 19912 1,38797
-2623
21'4' -26 91 29 75 -25-85 -1530
-34-58 -7335 -36 47 586-88 2829 114 22 -1511
378 98 74 64 180 15 100-3' 1,404-19 58 92 330 50 447-11 108 19 177 14 166 29 143 06 190 95
150 47
827 30 -1801 35-81 85-03 116 36 136 04
p.c.
145 81 243 18 482-65 695 16 137 18 292-51 158-71 68 66 97 84 2,893-83 23 97 -667
270 62 23-98 469-68 309 75 463 92 295 77 2,698 26
92 57 407 53 148-57
49 36 217-58
152 90 102 57 244 22 80-23 146 42
63 85 147 10 -47-91 834-78 137 39 863-49 100 38
Ten cities only in Canada show greater percentage in increase in industrial products than Windsor. These are Winnipeg, Vancouver, Calgary, Maisonneuve, Peterborough, Hull, Sydney, Berlin, St. Mary s, Sault Ste. Marie, and Lachine. Windsor's percentage of increase in products is 150 per cent greater than Montreal, 52 per cent greater than Toronto, 3 per cent greater than Hamilton, 227 per cent greater than Halifax, 25 per cent greater than Brantford, 51 per cent greater than Stratford, 49 per cent greater than St. Catharines, 48 per cent greater than Port Arthur, 58 per cent greater than Chatham; and its industrial expansion has been brought about by the fiscal system which has been the work and progeny of the Conservative statesmen.
I do not wish to take issue with what my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) has said in regard to the steel industry, because he lias come out as a strong supporter of the principle of a moderate protection for that industry. I presume that it is known to the House that the United States Steel Corporation has bought 1,650 acres in the riding which I have the honour to represent, and that they have announced their intention of putting up a $20,000,000 plant. On the day this announcement was made the Detroit Journal of January 4, 1913. said:
The Canadian tariff has forced this decision. The protective policy has brought this vast industry to the town of Windsor.
When the announcement was made last week of the Government's intention to place a tax on wire rods the Windsor Record, a Liberal paper in the county of Essex which always advocates the policy of my right hon. friend opposite, said:

Seek to hasten construction of new steel plant, Canada tax of $3.50 a ton on Imported steel rods may have that effect.
New York, April 13.-There is every reason to believe that one effect of the action of the Canadian Government in putting a tariff of $3.50 a ton on wire rods, will be to cause the manaeemmt of tbe'TTrrtefl States steel Cornnra-tion to hasten the construction of the company's proposed new plant at Ojibway, Canada,
Mr. Speaker, can you estimate the value of such a plant to the southwestern portion of the province of Ontario? It means that $20,000,000 is to be invested in this country through the action of this Government. We have every hope that the new tariff will have that result, and it eannot come too quickly for the people in that particular district.
At six o clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Oliver James Wilcox: When the House rose at six o'clock, I was alluding to the benefits that had resulted from the protective system, and to the number of industries which have been established in the county which I have the honour to represent. In connection with the very great development that lias taken place in that portion of the country, let me say that this district is shown by the census returns of 1911 to stand tenth upon the list from the point of view of percentage of increase of industrial products.
With reference to the principle involved in the fiscal system of this country, I desire to place a few quotations on Hansard' from the Windsor Record, which is the recognized organ of the Liberal party, and we are always desirous of quoting from a paper which is a recognized opponent, especially when it expresses a view favourable to that which we believe in ourselves. It seems to me that it would be recognized or accepted, not only by LiberaLs but by Liberal-Conservatives, because the view is in accordance with the belief which they have in regard to the fiscal system. On March 28, 1913, the following appeared in the editorial columns of the Windsor Record:
Business confidence prevails throughout Canada.
In contrast to the unsettled business conditions that prevail in many parts of the United States there is a tone of optimism in commercial circles in Canada.
Across the boundary there is apprehension with respect to the results of the Underwood tariff and its effect on business. There is more or less uncertainty over the state of the money 
market. The sob squad is particularly prominent along Wall street.
On this side the manufacturers show no signs or nervousness. They recognize the fact that Canada is assured of tariff stability. The whole country is making tremendous progress. Many factories are behind with orders. There is no evidence of slackening up in any line of manufacture.


Mr. ROGERS:: Do you mean to say that is >a Liberal paper?


Oliver James Wilcox: And yet my right hon. friend, when he took hold of the reins of power in 1896, adopted a policy of protection. He and his friends took a right-abont-face on the question, and during the fifteen years they were in power they were protectionists. But to-day, when relegated again to opposition, they go back to the old theory of free trade. My right hon. friend's motto seems to be: A Cobdenite I was bom; a Cobdenite I will die; but while I am in power I will be a loyal protectionist. Upon this very question, Mr. German, the member for Welland, had something to say. Here is what he said:
In 1896 the Liberal party did succeed, but happily in that year the Minister of Finance, Mr. Fielding, the Minister of Customs, Mr. Paterson, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Sir Richard Cartwright, went throughout the length and breadth of the country gathering information and ascertaining the ideas of the business people and of the farmers as to what should be the correct policy to adopt as the fiscal policy of Canada. Having gathered that information intelligently, thoroughly and exhaustively, the Minister of Finance made his Budget speech in 1897, and in that speech declared for moderate protection and a stable tariff. After having listened to all the delegations and deputations that desired to be heard, the Government came to Parliament and said: We will stand by, if not the National policy as then existing, at any rate a moderate form of the National Policy, and very little modified at that.
To what extent was it modified ? It is a very easy matter to compare the last Conservative tariff of 1894 with the tariff which my right hon. friend contends is the Fielding tariff, and see what these changes were. I desire to place those changes upon ' Hansard.' Under the old Conservative tariff, the first group of items was ales, beers, wines and liquors-ten items. These were left severely alone, save that one was changed-and increased. Can my hon. fiiends opposite reasonably contend that any advantage came to the development and growth of this country because they changed and increased ten items of whiskies and ales?


Wilfrid Laurier: It abbreviated the use of liquor.


Oliver James Wilcox: 
Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: Your own railway.


Oliver James Wilcox: Yes, sir-and delivered in the eastern portion of Ontario at a rate equal to what we have to pay.


Alexander William Chisholm: What road did that
come over?


Oliver James Wilcox: It came over the Canadian Pacific railway.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the date of the bill?


Oliver James Wilcox: January 28, 1913. I
contend that that is not fair. I contend that, if we are to have a protective system in this country, it ought to be fair and equitable to all. interests and there is no just ground why the farmers should have to grow and sell their corn in the open market, when the United States produce seven-eighths of the corn crop of the world, and when every other product which the farmer raises, is entitled to, and does receive, the advantage of tariff protection.
In looking over the political history of this country during the last fifteen years, I would say that the greatest weakness in the Government has been that it has practically been one mam government. I understand party government to be organized public opinion and that members are elected to this House because they represent the majority of public opinion in the particular district from which they come. Upon this point the Hon. Edward Blake said:
I understand it is the duty of the leader to be, as far as possible, the leader of the whole party, and not of any section. It is a part of



It is very much to be regretted that the Government has been hampered in its measures for the benefit of the whole country by the opposition of the Senate of Canada. I regret that the Senate has seen fit to defeat the Highways Bill, but I remember the words of Edward Blake:
You might as well ask a wolf to select a sheep dog to protect the sheep from the ravages of the wolf, as to ask the Senate of Canada as it is now constituted to do their duty to this great country, or the Empire, if they thought such a course would militate, against the poli-such a course would militate against the poli-mons.
That is a reasonably good showing for any Government to make in the short period of two years. It is no exaggeration to say that the present Administration is endeavouring to the best of its ability to carry into effect the will of the people of this country. The Premier of this country, the Right Hon. R. L. Borden, issned a < manifesto in which he set forth his policy. Upon that policy he was elected, and he has consistently, honestly, conscientiously, intelligently .and to the best of his ability endeavoured to carry into effect that which he promised the people before the election of 1911. I believe the people will accept what he has done as in their best interest, and will agree that he is giving .an honest and conscientious administration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. iSpeaker, I hope not to delay this House too long by the remarks which 1 intend to offer on the questions of to-day. I have listened with great attention to the .speech delivered by my hon. friend from North Essex (Mr. Wilcox). I noticed that in one portion of his speech he was very fond of quoting what he considered a very high authority against free trade, which nobody preaches in this chamber. He quoted Mr. Ellis Barker in order to prove that free trade brought poverty and destitution in England, which of all countries to-day is the most prosperous, and which has been able to fare best during the cycle of commercial depression and financial stringency through which the whole world has passed of late; but I suppose that my hon. friend, when quoting Mr. Ellis Barker, had in mind that under a high protective tariff there is no poverty and no destitution. This is not the place n-or the time for an academic debate, but I shall only answer my hon. friend's argument by quoting just a few lines from the Montreal Gazette of yesterday, showing the

conditions under a protective Government which boasts of its high protective principles-.and we are supposed to fare well even during the financial .stringency and the hard times which exist in all parts of the world. The Gazette does not report what happens in the county of Essex or in the beautiful town of Windsor, but it reports for the small town of Montreal and for the poor people of Montreal. Here is what I read:
More destitution than in winter-Free refuges find demands for shelter greater and work scarcer-Unemployed fill city, while immigrants seeking work are adding to the down-and-out class, say charity workers.
Let me quote a few lines:
That conditions of unemployment and destitution in the city following an unusually severe winter, have not improved at all with the advent of spring, and are if anything worse here than in the middle of the winter, is the consensus of opinion of the superintendents of the various free and cheap refuges in Montreal, who come into more intimate contact perhaps with the down-and-outs than any others.
And there is a whole column quoting facts and figures as regards the hard times in the city of Montreal.
My hon. friend stated that he was a strong party man, and I have no objection to his being a party man. I also am a party man. I believe in a system of government toy party, and he and I are in excellent company, because the greatest parliamentarian of the eighteenth century, Edmund Burke himself, declared that party government was the best measure ever devised by man to govern men. My hon. friend belongs to the Conservative party. I take pride in belonging to the Liberal party. His party, in my . judgment, represents reaction; the Liberal party represents progress. When I read the Budget speech of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, I am obliged to say that the characteristics of his Budget are as reactionary as the party to which he now1 belongs. It is a most reactionary Budget; it is a complete surrender to the interests and the manufacturers of Canada. The country was awaiting anxiously a downward revision of the tariff, and it is now committed to an upward revision. Minus a five per cent reduction on some agricultural implements, which is a mere sop to the farming community of Canada, the tariff this year completely ignores the great farming community, while it disregards all the real grievances of the West. It bangs, bars and bolts the door to the consumers clamouring for a reduction of taxation. I am not surprised at that; nobody is surprised. The interests are predominating in this country

under this benign Government. We all know that the big interests won the election of the 21st of September, 1911. Now they receive their reward 'at the 'hands of the Government. The farmers on the other hand receive the cold shoulder, while to the consumer is thrown a polished stone which will come under the form of a blue-book when the Commission on the High Cost of Living finds time to report. Considering the consequences of that reactionary Budget, with its tendency towards an upward revision of the tariff, I would be inclined to say, repeating an old historical saying, 'It is worse than a crime: it is a blunder.'
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance prefaced his remarks with a declaration of principles. He stated that from now on he, his Government and his party stood for the National Policy; he reiterated the statement that the Government was committed to a policy of protection. Nor did he fail to intersperse his speech-a very able speech-with sneers at those of us who still believe that reciprocity was not such a bad thing for Canada after all. Since he has thought it proper to make this declaration of principle in favour of high protection, may I not he permitted to malke a little historical survey to show him what protection was meant to be 'from its inception in this country? Perhaps it may be the fashion for some months to come to sneer at reciprocity and to say that the Liberal party blundered in 1910-11 in advocating that policy. Well, I think I can easily demonstrate, and I think you yourself, Mr. Speaker, being one of the fathers of the House, could teach the hon. gentlemen sitting at your right, that when -they sneer at reciprocity they, by that very act, defame their own party, deride their own policy and denounce their old -chieftain, Sir John A. Macdonald. Sir John A. Macdonald was himself 'an -ardent -advocate of reciprocity, as you well know. The National Policy which he was instrumental in introducing was meant, in his judgment, to pave the way to reciprocity; it was to be- to use his own language-the key to unlock the gates of wider markets; it was to be the lever to remove the fiscal barriers standing between this country and the United States of America.
Now, what happened in 1877, when Sir John Macdonald occupied the seat now occupied hy the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Lauri-er)? We had at that time a low tariff. Hon. Alexander 163J
Mackenzie was the Prime Minister of Canada. We were passing through an economic crisis which hovered not only over Canada hnt over the United -States and the world [DOT]at large. Sir John A. Macdonald was watching his opportunity to impress the people of Canada with the -belief that the time had com-e for a change. On the 7th of March, 1877, he moved the following amendment in this House:
This House is of the opinion that the welfare of Canada requires the adoption of a National Policy which, inter alia, will restore prosperity to our struggling industries now so sadly depressed; will prevent Canada from being made a sacrifice market; will encourage and develop an active interprovincial trade; and moving, as it ought to do, in the direction of reciprocity of tariffs with our neighbours so far as the varied interests of Canada may demand, will greatly tend to procure for this country eventually a reciprocity of trade.
Now, when my hon. friends opposite sneer at reciprocity, they sneer at protection which in its inception was designed, according to the very language of Sir John A. Macdonald, the great Conservative chieftain, to bring about a reciprocity of trade between Canada and the United States. What followed? Sir John Macdonald took office in 1878, and in 1879 his Minister of Finance, Sir Leonard Tilley, introduced into this House a new customs tariff. I am only repeating what has already been repeated on many occasions, but it is well that the younger generation of Tories should know what their -ancestors did in this House of Commons. When Sir Leonard Tilley introduced this Tariff Act of 1879, it -contained the following as section 6:
Any or all of the following articles, that is to say: animals of all kinds, green fruit, hay, straw, bran, seeds of all kinds, vegetables, including potatoes and other roots, plants, trees and shrubs, coal and coke, hay, hops, wheat, peas and beans, barley, rye, oats, Indian corn-
Et cetera, et cetera.
-may he imported into Canada free of duty, or at a less rate of duty than is provided hy this Act, upon proclamation of the Governor in Council which may be issued whenever it appears to his satisfaction that similar articles from Canada may be imported into the United States free of duty, or at a rate of duty not exceeding that payable on the same under such proclamation when imported into Canada.
You have in that section practically the same list which was included in the famous reciprocity pact, known as the Knox-Fielding pact of 1910-11. This was the Conservative policy for many years. This section 6 remained in our Customs Act until very lately. But there was this

difference between the political parties: for many years the Conservative party when in office tried in vain to obtain concessions from the Washington authorities; they sent pilgrim after pilgrim to the White House, but without avail. On the contrary, the Liberal party, after taking office, having received' one rebuff declared that we would never return to Washington. We awaited our opportunity; and it came in 1910-11, when the President of the United States sent commissioners to Canada in order to ascertain if she would be willing to enter into a reciprocity pact. That is the difference between the two parties. Both parties in this country for half a century at least have advocated reciprocity. The difference between the Conservative party and the Liberal party is that the Conservatives sent delegates to Washington, whereas under the Liberal regime the officials at Washington came to Ottawa.
I listened with a great deal of attention to the speech of my hon. friend the member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames). He is a highly educated gentleman, who knows the politics of this country very well indeed, and his remarks are always interesting. In order to blacken as much as possible-I will not say the reputation, but the history of the Liberal party during their tenure of office of sixteen years-the hon. gentleman was obliged to use Latin words. He could not find in the English or in the French language any words sufficient to describe the regime of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, and he went to his Roman law to find that the only term he could use was hereditas damnosa. On many occasions during the course of his speech the other day he characterized the Administration of the right hon. gentleman as hereditas damnosa. He gave a few comparative figures to justify his support of the present Administration and to condemn the late Government. My hon. friend, in using a few comparative figures to justify his support of the present Government, reminded me of a little story which was once told by Sir Richard Cartwright at a public meeting in Toronto. A meeting had been held the day before at the Albany Club, and my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster), even in the dark days of 1893, had been ingenious enough to find, by his comparative figures and tables, that this country was extraordinarily prosperous. Addressing the meeting the next day, and speaking of two bon. gentlemen whom I shall not name,

Sir Richard Cartwright said: ' A man can prove almost anything by the law of averages. I could prove by the law of averages that the hon. gentleman, Mr. So-and-So, is an honest man. I could even prove that he is a truthful one.' So with my friend the honouralde member for St. Antoine. By the law of averages, one reading his speech and knowing nothing of Canadian politics to-day, would come to the conclusion that all is well with the present Administration. Before I proceed to explain what the present Administration has done during the last two and a half years, I may be permitted to recall some facts and figures in order to answer the rather contemptuous remarks made by the hon. member for St. Antoine about the Liberal regime. In 1897 Mr. Fielding, the late Minister of Finance, introduced in this House a policy which, I believe, gave Canada 15 years of unbounded prosperity. I need not repeat to the House what were the changes brought about by his new tariff. The last speaker repeated the old story that Mr. Fielding changed practically nothing in the old tariff; but I have only to name the British preference, which reduced by 33i per cent the taxation of the people of this country, to prove that an immense change was made with the introduction of the fiscal policy of 1897. At all events, we judge a fiscal policy by its results. If I were to judge of that policy by the words spoken by the then leader of the Opposition (Sir Charles Tupper), of course I might be inclined to say that this great country of ours was very badly governed for fifteen years. Indeed, when Sir Charles Tupper received the news that the British preference would be introduced {hat the specific duties would be wiped out, and that some of the -ad valorem duties would be reduced, he used the following language:
The result is that this tariff goes into operation, and the hon. gentleman knows that the industries of this country are already paralysed in consequence, while hon. members gloat over the destruction of Canadian industries. I was reading the wail, the sorrowful wail, of these industries in the Montreal Gazette, where one manufacturer after another declared that their industries were ruined; that their mills must close* and that they saw staring them in the face a return to the deplorable state of things that existed when the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House was in charge of the fiscal affairs of this country. I say that a deeper wrong was never inflicted on Canada. I feel that so far from rejoicing at it from a party standpoint, I deplore from my heart the ruin that is going to be inflicted upon the best interests of Canada and upon its great industries.

That was the prediction made by Sir Charles Tupper in 1897.


Mr. HENDERSON:: This statement has been read time and again in the House during the present session. Will the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him whether Sir Charles Tupper, when he delivered that speech, had reference to the first tariff that the hon. Mr. Fielding brought down, or to the tariff that was put in force by Mr. Fielding?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not see the distinction my hon. friend wishes to make.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman must remember that a great number of changes were made before the tariff was put into operation, and what Sir Charles Tupper had reference to was the tariff as brought down in the first instance, which was afterwards modified to a very great extent.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I sat in the House in those days, and I have a fair remembrance of what happened. The Fielding tariff stands to-day on the statute book, and it was that tariff which was assailed by the then Opposition and its leader. The policy especially assailed in that statement of Sir Charles Tupper was the British preference given by Mr. Fielding. What were the results of that policy? The revenue of 1896 was $36,618,000, in round figures. In 1911, fifteen years afterwards, it had rolled up to 117,000,000; that is to say, in fifteen years it had trebled. The hon. gentleman in 1896 closed the fiscal year with a deficit of $519,000, in round figures; we closed the fiscal year 1911 with a surplus of $30,500,000.
Their average deficit in twelve years was $415,508; our average surplus in fourteen years was $10,471,371. Then, as to trade figures. In 1896 the total trade was $239,025,360; in 1911, $728,000,000; or, from 1868 to 1896, barring of course the five years of the Mackenzie regime which was only an accident, the increase in twenty-eight years was $123,000,000. The increase from 1896 to 1911 was $410,000,000-three times more revenue and three times more trade. As regards our trade with Great Britain, in 1896-97 it amounted to $106,000,000 in round figures; in 1910-11 it .amounted to $246,573,720. My hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) is supposed to be an Imperialist of the Imperialists. Who gave the British preference to the mother country? And who opposed the motion moved dn this House in 1900 by my friend the member for Halifax, now Mr. Justice Russell? The whole Conservative party opposed it.
My hon. friend from St. Antoine is interested in manufactures and is also a Montrealer. Montreal is the great industrial centre of the country. In 1896 the population of Montreal was 249,000, and in 1910, 550,000, or an increase in fourteen years of 301,000. In 1896 the value of property in Montreal was $170,731,000, and in 1910 $426,550,000, or an increase in fourteen years of $255,818,000. Briefly, this is the hereditas damnosa referred to by my hon. friend from St. Antoine. As a matter of fact, the revenue of this country was never so buoyant, trade was never so brisk and the industries of Canada were never so prosperous as during the Liberal period from 1896 to 1911. For Canada, it was a period not only of commercial but of national expansion. Hon. gentlemen opposite may say:	But you maintained the
same National Policy. If we maintained the same old National Policy we used the same instrument which hon. gentlemen were using before 1896 to govern this country and with what results? Let us take the fourteen years before and after 1896. In the last fourteen years of the Conservative regime ending in 1896 imports decreased by $14,000,000. In the last fourteen years of the Liberal regime imports increased by $300,000,000. In the last fourteen years of the Conservative regime exports increased by $22,000,000; in the last fourteen years of the Liberal regime exports increased by $171,000,000.	The total trade of Canada during	the last fourteen years
of the Conservative regime increased by $8,500,000. During the last fourteen years of Liberal regime the total trade increased by $471,10 p.m. 000,000. Therefore we look back with pride to the Liberal Administration. Our per capita increase of trade was the largest of all the trading nations of the world. Besides, the West was settled whereas before it was only a solitude. We solved the problem of transportation, we carved new provinces in the West, we organized the Railway Commission which in latter days has so greatly alleviated the burdens of the taxpayers of the West. From a national point of view Canada never loomed so large as during the Liberal Administration, not only in the British Empire, but in the whole world. My hon. friend from St. Antoine is a great imperialist in Words. I said a moment ago that we gave the British preference and that he himself denounced it. To-day the western farmers are clamouring for an increase in the British preference My hon. friend from

expenditure on consolidated fund account was $87,774,000, and in the -second fiscal year of this Government, the total expenditure on consolidated fund account wa-s $126,500 000. For the last fiscal year of the Laurier Government, the expenditure on both consolidated fund account and capital account was $122,861,000, and for the second fiscal year o' the Government now in office, the expenditure on the same account amounted to $183,500,000. In the three years, the consolidated fund expenditure will have increased by nearly $39,000,000, and the total expenditure by about $60,639,000. And yet, Iron, gentlemen opposite when they were in Opposition, said that the Liberal Government was extravagant, and that the ministers were spendthrifts. The Prime Minister, then leading the Opposition, declared that the expenditure of the Liberal Government meant nothing less than corruption. The right hon. gentleman promised solemnly, were he returned to power, to reduce the expenditure by at least $10,000,000, as regards the administration of affairs. '
It is fortunate for you and for me, Mr. Speaker, that we live in the twentieth century. Had we lived in the middle ages, had we lived even in the eighteenth century, we would have seen the present ministers not only branded as impostors, but subjected also to the block and to the hatchet. I read a few days ago that the. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) was, very -anxious to go to -Great Britain to represent Canada there, and he would be a very, creditable representative of, at least, the, present Government. I am told that the* hon. gentleman has never crossed the seas.. If lie goes to London I advise him to do, what all young Canadians do on their first visit. They go first to Westminster Abbey, and it is worth crossing the Atlantic just for that; and then they go to the Tower of London, where they -see the instruments of torture. Years ago, on my first visit to the Tower, I was very much impressed when I saw the block where fell the head, of the fair Lady Jane Grey, and when I, saw7 the iron rods-they were not protected in those days-that used to pierce the tongues of the perjurers and imposters. I *would advise the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Militia to visit the Tower of London, and there they will see what instruments of torture were used in the old days against perjurers and imposters. Far be it from me to say they are perjurers and imposters, but it is well that they should look for the worst.

The Minister of Finance had to boast of something, and so he boasted of a surplus of $36,000,000, but that is poor consolation for the thousands who feel the bite of the hard times and of the high cost of living. The cost of living is abnormally high, as may be seen from the fact that in 1911 the average wholesale index price in Canada of 255 articles of general consumption was 128.9, of the average price level during the decade from 1890 to 1899. A year later it was 133.1, and in October last the average price was 136. The March statement of the Labour Department, giving the index number of wholesale prices, shows that there has been another increase in the cost of living during the month, and the index number now stands at 136.7, as compared with 136.1 in February and 136 in October of last year. The more important increases have occurred in grain, fodder, animals, meats, canned salmon, vegetables, flour and oatmeal; the increases took place in the products of the canners and the millers, about whom the Minister of Finance is so solicitous that they should have protection, while at the same time he takes no heed of the consumer.
The Minister of Finance and the gentlemen who surround him may ask: Can you reduce the cost of living? Yes, Mr. Speaker, we can reduce the cost of living, slightly at least, and a little always helps. We could reduce the cost of living, first by reducing taxation. What has this Government done to reduce taxation? Nothing. On the contrary, last year the Government levied a toll of over $11,000,000 on foodstuffs, valued -at $50,000,000. I give facts and figures to show this:
Dutiable food stuffs imported into Canada during the fiscal year 1912-1913, with the amount of duty collected in each case:
	Value of	Duty
	Imports.	Collected.
Sugars	$17,392,146	$ 4,162,672Fruits and nuts	
Vegetables (canned and	8,782,395	1,821,422fresh)	3,242,284	896,262Meats and poultry . . . .	5,338,673	1,040,547Eggs	2,783,665	327,123Fish	1,608,663	361,115Butter	
Prepared cereal foods in	2,081,987	252,311packages 	3,650,101	42,069Breadstuffs, etc	
Grain, flour and meal,	1,260,357	261,403etc	3,638,121	482,163Lard	
Cocoa and preparations	1354,442	242,897of cocoa 	1,057,306	179,818Mustard	
Coffee (when prepared	216,434	44,707or roasted, etc.) .. . .	268,100	35,365
Value of	Duty
Imports.	Collected.
Pickles	
456,546	1,166,651Spices	
378,568	50,643Total	$53,679,793	$11,367,172


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: And for 1910 and 1911, how much?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have not got that.


William Thomas White: Any less?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am sure my hon.
friend will issue a list of some of these.


William Thomas White: It would not be difficult.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is no excuse. My hon. friend has passed the age of saying: You did it; you are another. He is a .statesman, and has promised to give this country prosperity, good times, cheap living, for all consumers. Besides, in 1910 and 1911 there was no question of high cost of living.


William Thomas White: Oh, was there not?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There was money all around, there was prosperity and general contentment, whereas, as I have stated, the refuges and the hospitals in Montreal are now filled every day and every night,, with the bread-liners and the bread-rioters.
These articles were imported into Canada because they could not be obtained here, either .at .all or in .sufficient quantities to meet a real need. One-fifth per cent lias been added to the cost of living on these foodstuffs before they are permitted to pass from the importer to the consumer. The Government has completely ignored the consumers in the present Budget. The favoured ones are the food monopolies -the canners' combine, the cold storage men, the packers, and the big commission houses. The farmer, the' Government say, is also entitled to protection. It is always very clever to argue the farmer into the protective .system. It is always with flowery words that you put the collar of serfdom around the neck of the farmer. Of course, the farmer is entitled to protection, and I will show .in .a few moments how you can protect him; but have you forgotten that the farmer is also a consumer?	He pays duty	on sugar,
on rice, and on several other commodities which he does not produce, and he would be quite happy if that .article which our country cannot produce should come free into Canada. I listen to the voice of the farmer when I want to know his desires, his inclinations, and what
does he say? I was very much impressed when last fall the farmers of the West and of Ontario invaded the council chamber of this Dominion; I was impressed by the memorial which they presented to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. Here were the tillers of the soil, the men who represent more than half the population of Canada; what language did they .speak on that occasion:
We submit that the wider market afforded us by accepting the offer of the United States for free interchange of natural products would have the same effect in stimulating the raising of wheat, oats, barley and flax as free access to the United States market for cattle has already done for that line of farming enterprise, not only because it would provide another market for grain, but also it would provide a competitive route for transporting grain to Europe. We ask that all foodstuffs be placed on the free list, as we believe that the taxing of food is a crime against humanity.
These words have been jeered at by same hon. members, but who can deny that they were the honest statement of the great farming community of Canada?
Let me quote here the words of Pierce on tariff, one of the great authorities on fiscal questions. He deprecates the lack of public spirit in those high tariff countries where the writers have words of praise only for the wealthy and the few. He says:
You would think from the current discussion of economic subjects that the only matter of interest to the American people was the wealth and prosperity of the great corporations, and that the welfare of the consumers, the great body of the people, was a matter of little im. portance. It seems to me that it is about time for a full review of the question from the standpoint of the consumer. Government cannot at one and the same time be a fountain of generosity to the manufacturer and of justice to the consumer.
Let me engrave this crisp sentence in the noble head of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance:
Government cannot at one and the same time be a fountain of generosity to the manufacturer and of justice to the consumer. Privilege in any country is not for the many but for the few, for the simple reason that when privilege is expanded to the consumers, who are the entire body of the people, it is no longer privilege. The richness of the soil and of mineral deposits and the natural advantages in our country have made the lot of man so fortunate, and the absolute freedom of trade between our states and territories has tended to mitigate the burdens of protection so greatly, that the ordinary man, absorbed in his work, heeds but little the extortions which protective tariffs impose upon him until, perchance, hard times come and he feels the sting of want.
He adds :
The result is to rate low the rights of the whole people and to rate high the interests of a class.

I would say, reading the last changes in the customs tariff, that my hon. friend has rated low the rights of the consumers and has rated high the interests of the manufacturers.
I said that the present Government was responsible partly but, since the new tariff, chiefly for the high cost of living. I have explained how, in my humble judgment, you can reduce the high cost of living by reducing taxation. Now, how can we face the hard times? I will not say that the Government is wholly responsible for the hard times. I must be a Christian and honest, but surely the Government cannot face the hard times by increasing expenditures, or it then is guilty prima facie. It can face the hard times toy decreasing! expenditures. That is what you, Mr. Speaker, preached honestly, when you sat on this side of the House, and your silence at present is very eloquent.
Let us take the Departments of Public Works, Interior and Militia. Here is a list of expenditures for these departments for the last two years and for the present year. I am not going into past history; I am giving my hon. friend what happened in 1911. In 1911 the expenditure on public works wa? $10,818,834. In 1912, when, the brilliant Minister of Finance-forty-seven years old-emerged from that meeting of the ' noble eighteen ' in Toronto and became the new leader of fiscal opinion, the expenditure on public works jumped to $11,651,947. In 1913, it went on to $13,158,677; in 1914, estimated $18,000,000; and in 1915, to be voted $20,330,048.
It is "worse in the Militia Department, and to this I call the attention to my pacifist and .peaceful friends from the counties of Ontario, where militarism is no more popular than in the counties of the province of Quehec, at least among the farmers. For, when I speak of Ontario, I must be careful: Toronto is not Ontario; there are thousands and hundreds of thousands of farmers in the province of Ontario who deprecate this enormous expenditure through our Militia Department to-day. In the last year of Liberal rule, the expenditure on militia was $6,868,651. And poor Sir Frederic Borden, then Minister of Militia, was branded a spendthrift and was roasted to death in this House of Commons here by your associates, Mr. Speaker, (Mr. Blain)- you were generous, humane and Christian, you avoided all such bitter criticism; but your associates declared that he was a spendthrift because he asked $6,868,000 for

militia purposes. But what would the good farmers of Peel, of Grey, of Grenville -not to speak of Terrebonne-say if they knew that under the present Minister of Militia (Colonel Hughes), the expenditure increased to more than $9,000,000 in, 1913. But not .satisfied with this the minister jumped it higher in 1913-14 ,and spent almost $11,000,000 on militia, exclusive of what was spent on drill halls and armouries. Not to speak of the bonnie Bel-air scandal, I say that this expenditure as it Tuns now under the direction of our Minister of Militia, is simply pure madness. The farmers of this country do not approve of it. We all stand for moderate militia expenditure. We are not against a reasonable expenditure foT militia purposes; but I say that in the face of the hard times through which we are pass'ng and with the peaceful spirit existing in this country, to spend lavishly as the Minister of 'Militia is pending for militia purposes is pure folly. An expenditure of $11,000,000 is almost scandalous, but he will reach more than that next year. The minister's own trips to Europe are to say the least Quixotic. The list of his honorary colonels-by the way-I do not know whether the Minister of Finance wears the plume and the gold-braided uniform-this list as published in ' Hansard ' the other day-is simply a farce. If I were a soldier or an officer in His Majesty's army in Canada, I should be ashamed to think that every Tom, Dick and Harry, every wirepuller or ward politician, can become an honorary colonel undeT the benign rule Of the Minister of Militia. Sir, this expenditure on militia has reached the breaking point, and you know it, Mr. Speaker, and the good farmers in Peel county know it. Militarism is not condemned only by pacifists or by Norman Angell's disciples-and they are many-but by the statesmen of the whole world. I was reading the other day the Contemporary Review of London, and there I read that Count de Witte, who established Russian finance on the solid basis which enabled that country to bear the strain of the war with Japan, with the ensuing general strike and the so-called revolution, used the following language:
When I try to realize what is meant by the ' peace ' of to-day, I feel tempted to call It economic war. Certainly it is little better than war. Speaking without exact figures, I should say that some 40 per cent of the outlay of the various States is absorbed by the armies and navies which are to carry on the great campaign of the future, and by the debts left by the campaigns of the past.
Sketch a picture in your mind's eye of all that these sums, ' if propertly spent ', could

effect for the nations who now waste them on heavy guns, rifles, dreadnoughts, fortresses, and barracks. If this money were laid out on improving the material lot of the people In housing them hygienieally, in procuring for them healthier air, medical aid, and needful periodical rest, they would live longer and work to better purpose, and enjoy some of the happiness or contentment which at present is the prerogative of the few.
In this I have .quoted, a statesman who belongs to a nation which hardly knows parliamentary government and liberty, the great nation of Russia. Now, let us come to the nation Of all nations, Great Britain, the Mother of Liberty, and the Mother of Parliaments, and let me quote the language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that country, the right hon. David Lloyd George. Speaking on the 1st of Jannary last, he sent the following message to Euiope at large:
Pointing to the enormous burden which armaments impose on the taxpayer, and to the fact that the growth of armaments still leaves the nations in the same relative strength, Mr. Lloyd George thinks that the present is the most favourable moment in twenty years for a policy of retrenchment.
' He cites three reasons :
First, Great Britain's relations with Germany are more friendly than for many years, both realizing that there is nothing to gain and everything to lose by a quarrel.
Second, all the continental nations are now directing their attention to strengthening their land forces, Germany having realized that her exhaustive attempts to develop her naval power must give place to improving the army, which is vital to the existence of the Empire.
Third, the spread of revolt against military oppression throughout Christendom, certainly throughout western Europe.
The third reason Mr. Lloyd George considers the weightiest of all, and he believes that this is the right moment for a hold step towards the restriction of the growth of armaments, and thinks it imperative that in the highest interests of civilization he should seize it.
There, you have opinion from the two poles of parliamentary government, you have it from Russia and you have it from Great Britain. And, while in Russia and in Great Britain they are deprecating increased expenditure for military purposes, in Canada, a young nation, at peace with its only neighbour, at peace with the whole world, a nation striving for peace and seeking only the prizes of peace, we are increasing wantonly and shamelessly the expenditure on armaments. I say it is a scandal, and the Government should put a stop to such ridiculous expenditure as that now proposed by the Minister of Militia.


John Hampden Burnham: Does my hon. friend prefer to go by what the Czar of Russia and Mr. Lloyd-George say, or by what they do? The Czar of Russia is increasing vastly his military forces and is aspiring now to
have an immense navy; Lloyd-George is consenting with the rest of the ministers to a large increase in the naval Budget of the old country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Which proves, indeed, that in both countries there is madness amongst the scaremongers. Sir, the best minds in England and in Russia are trying to stop that expenditure. If my hon. friend wants to know the opinion of Canadians on this subject, let him go before the farmers of Peterborough, and they will tell him whether they approve of that expenditure or not. We are told that free food deprives the farmer of protection. Well, can you not recoup him by reducing the cost of production and ;by giving him free implements? I can only repeat here briefly the arguments which have already been adduced by some of my colleagues from the West. I said a moment ago that between 55 and 65 per cent of the population of Canada was engaged directly or indirectly in agriculture. From the soil is extracted the produce which provides the purchasing power for manufactured goods and leads to diversified industry. Canada is the greatest farm in the world to-day. It has the largest consecutive wheatfield in the world, 900 by 300 miles. Her western fields form an empire, and a world granary. Her far-flung West is a melting-pot of the nations. Winnipeg, to use the language of Sir William Van Horne, is the spout of the thousancl-mile hopper between the Rockies and the prairie capital. The eyes of the world are on this nation in the making; her prosperity depends largely upon the farmers' welfare.
Let me give the House a few figures, which I take from the speech delivered the other day by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). I am bound to say that the members from the West, generally speaking, are exceedingly very well informed on the tariff question. One hundred and fifty-four million acres have been selected by the Government in the West on account of their suitability for cultivation. In 1901 only 2,500,000 acres were under cultivation; in 1911 there were 17,500,000. That, in a large degree, caused the great prosperity of Canada-during the fifteen years the right hon. leader of the Opposition held the reins of power. The crop of last year yielded 466,000,000 bushels, worth $180,000,000, so that with twelve per cent only of the area suitable for cultivation, the great Canadian West produced $180,000,000 worth of crop. What will it be when the 154,000,-

000	acres are occupied and tilled by Canadian farmers? We can then supply the whole world. But the production must be profitable. We have our competitors; I saw the figures in the excellent report of the Grain Markets Commission of the province of Saskatchewan-a most lucid and able report on the wheat and transportation question, which I commend to every member of the House. We have competitors in India, Russia, Argentine, Italy and Australia.


Mr. EDWARDS:: And the United States.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The United States too. We must make the production as profitable as possible so as to enable our Canadian farmers to meet their competitors on the other side of the water. The Government can reduce the cost of production, and how? By reducing the cost of agricultural implements. High tariffs will always bring stagnation where there was prosperity in a farming community. The homestead entries have gone down; there were 10,000 less homestead entries for the year ending March 31, 1913, than there were for the year ending March 31, 1911. Land sales have also gone down; they were only 9,000,000 acres in 1913, as against 19,000,000 acres in 1911.
1	say these are facts and data which go to
prove that unless this Government will reduce the cost of production by reducing the duties on implements, the West is doomed-the West is sacrificed.	But we are told-of course
it is small politics always to revert to the past to explain present circumstances-we are told: your reciprocity agreement gave less than the present reduction of 5 per cent. This is no argument. We are in 1914, not in 1911. For our shortcomings we are here and you are there. Conditions have changed, and besides, we must take the reciprocity agreement as a whole. It covered a vast field of interest. The farmers of the West were well satisfied with even a small reduction of 2i per cent on agricultural implements, considering the boon that they were receiving by the whole of the reciprocity pacf^the long free list, the benefits of which were to accrue to the farmers and the consumers of this country. To-day they have no market-we offered them the greatest market in the world. My hen. friend knows that Mr. Underwood in his tariff has removed entirely the duty on farm implements going into the United States, thus giving the American farmer an advantage over the farmer on this side of the boundary line. I am not surprised that the

American settlers are leaving the Canadian West and returning, to the United States. What are the figures? I was astounded the other day, when the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) gave these figures to the House, to learn that there were more farmers leaving the West for the United States than there were farmers coming from the United States into Canada. Let me repeat the .figures:	In 1907-8 there went
from Canada to the United States 58,000 farmers and there came from the United States into Canada 58,000 farmers. In 1908-9,
84.000 went from Canada to the United States and 59,000 came from the United States into Canada. In 1909-10, 94,000 went from Canada to the United States and 103,000 came from' tne United States into Canada. In 1910-11, 105,000 went from Canada to the United States and 121,000 came from the United States to Canada; in 191112, 107,000 went from Canada to the United States and 133,000 came from the United States to Canada; in 1912-13, 143,000 went from Canada to the United States and
139.000	came from the United States to" Canada. I am not surprised that the American farmers are leaving the Canadian fields for the greener fields of the United States, in view of the fact that the Underwood tariff gives them this preference.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The figures are those of
farmers?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. I took them from the Grain Growers' Guide, a most reliable authority. I am not against the manufacturers of 'agricultural implements. Why should I be? They are very industrious Canadians. They have done well for the country and the country has done well by them in the past. They have built up a splendid industry. I am not against them but I say that at the present time they can hold their own very well. First of all. they are masters of the Canadian market, secondly they compete successfully in the world's markets. They compete and hold their own with the United States in Great Britain, in Australia, in France, and even in Russia. Canadian mowers, threshers, cultivators and ploughs hold their own against similar American implements in all those countries. It was a source of great pride to me when travelling through South Africa, Japan, France and England to see Canadian agricultural implements being used by the peasantry of those countries. If our implement manufacturers can compete in the world's markets surely they can stand a little reduction in the tariff which would

give our Canadian farmer a chance to produce at less -cost, thereby increasing his purchasing powers. Taking manufactured goods as a whole we import ten times as much as we export. In 1913 we exported manufactured goods to the value of $43,692.700 and we imported goods to the value of $462,461,000 in round figures. The contrary is the case in regard to agricultural implements. In 1913 we imported to the value of $4,445,000, and we exported to the value of $6,152,000, which shows conclusively that this industry is no longer in the infant stage, that it stands on a different basis altogether from other industries. I quite understand that in 1879 and for some years afterwards the implement manufacturers were entitled to some measure of protection, but my 'hon. friend knows that their business grew and that they gradually became masters of the Canadian market and can now compete in the world's market. As that took place we made reductions, in 1897 for instance, and I think the present Minister of Trade and Commerce made a little reduction when he revised the tariff in 1893, but I am not positive as to that. My hon. friend finds some consolation in saying: Oh well, the United States tariff and the Canadian tariff compare very well. The Minister of Finance the other day, said we were not overburdened with a high tariff as the United States tariff worked out at an average of 26 per cent, which is about the Canadian ave -age. He said that, to convey the impression that the Canadian workingman has to pay just as much in duty as the American workingman. With all due respect to my hon. friend, that is a very false impression to convey to the poor ignorant workingmen of this country. But even the poor ignorant workingmen and the poor ignorant farmers will see through that argument. The hon. minister takes no account of the free list in the United States. That is the crux ot the whole question. The average duty in the United States may be about the same as the Canadian duty for those things on which the American has to pay duty. In (Canada the duties apply to everything, while in the United States the tariff is taken off the necessaries of life. The people of the United States have free food, free agricultural implements; many important building materials, including cfement, are free, and a vast variety of miscellaneous commodities. Everything in our neighbour's free list has to pay a heavy duty coming into Canada. Bread, meat, fish, milk, cream, eggs, potatoes, fruit, coal-the principal things that enter into
ithe high cost of living-are all on the free list in the United States, but every one of them has to pay a heavy duty coming into 'Canada. That is the difference. If my hon. friend wishes to compare the Canadian and American tariffs,, he must first of all exclude the United States free list, *and then compare the duties on both sides of the line.
What has been the effect of the Underwood tariff in the United States? Our friends opposite, and especially the Conservative press, boast that the Underwood tariff has had no effect whatever on the *cost of living in the United States, and they, even gloat over its so-called failure. It is a little early to judge of the effects of that tariff, but we know one thing, the days of high protection in the United States are past, and past for ever. If you wish to know what are the effects of the Underwood tariff-and it is very well to consider that point-read the article in Bradstreet's, March 14, 1914, headed: ' Another Fall in Commodity Prices.' It reads in part as follows:
For the third time this year-
Mind you, the tariff has been in force just about six months.
-.Bradstreet's index number of commodity prices has followed a downward course. The fall is very slight, only three-tenths of one per cent for the interval between February 1 and March 1.	.	.	. Though the changes in each
division are comparatively light, weakness has acted to a greater extent than firmness, but an analysis of the diverse movements within the groups will be more apropos when we come to consider the individual factors. In any case the present index number is the lowest reported since October of 1911.
That is the effect of the
11 p.m. Underwood tariff in this year of grace, 1914.
and it is lower than the numbers reported on March 1, 1913, 1912, 1910 and 1907, on which date in the last-named year prices touched a high point for the period 1S92-1907.
Let me give a list of the commodities . which have decreased in price since the Underwood tariff came into force:
Wheat, rye, flour, sheep, live, mutton carcasses, beef, butter, lard, coffee, sugar, peas, lemons, raisins, currants, hides, wool O. and Pa. wool, Australian, hemp, flax, print cloths, pig iron, eastern, pig iron, southern, pig iron Bess., steel billets, tinplates, steel beams, silver, copper, lead, tin, quicksilver, anthracite coal, Convilie coke, southern coke, castor oil, olive oil, rosin, tar, brick, nails, glass, yellow pine, hemlock timber, carbolic acid, hops, rubber.
I just quote a few; I need not quote any further. Bradstreet is a well-known

authority. The main fact stands out that since the first of the year the price of commodities has materially decreased in the United States. I will also recommend to my hon. friend to read an article published on page 223 of the December World's Work 'by Mr. Arno Dosch, a well known economic authority in the United States. It says:
How business is standing tariff reduction. I have just finished interviewing dozens of manufacturers to find out what effect the new tariff is likely to have upon industry.
I have never read anything so interesting as that which has been published here by Mr. Dosch on the effect of the tariff on the industries of the United States.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Does the hon. gentleman
think that the reduction of duties on food products has reduced the cost of living?


Rodolphe Lemieux: This is not limited to
food products, as the writer speaks of the effect on manufacture. I shall read a few lines further to enlighten my hon. friend:
I found that there is no indication of even a temporary depression in business. No mills have been forced to close on account of it; on the other hand, some mills that have been operating on half time have advanced to full time. There seems to be so little likelihood of a slump that the coming year, which 95 per cent of the members of the National Association of Manufacturers pessimistically looked forward to as 'the worst year in the history of American industry', is now expected to 'be normal. It will not surprise some manufacturers with whom I talked if it proves to be a 'banner' year.
Of course, it is always the same old song; when the Government threaten to reduce duties, the manufacturers come, fill the lobbies of this House, button-hole every member, even the hon. member from Haldi-mand (Mr. Lalor), and predict that the country will go to the dogs. We have evidence that in the United States not only food products but manufactured products have not suffered by reason of the reduction of the tariff.	*


Francis Ramsey Lalor: What is the date of that article?


Rodolphe Lemieux: December last. Has
the hon. gentleman heard of any failures?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I know of very great depression in the United States and everybody knows of it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend does not know that it exists at the present time.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Does the hon. gentleman
know that the New York Central has laid off 25,000 men?


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Mr. MORPHY:: That is protection in a free trade country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a pretext.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No, it is protection in a free trade country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a pretext to aid the cattle industry.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It helps the Irish farmers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is, I know, intended to benefit the farmers of the North of Ireland, who want to get volunteers from Canada at the present time, whilst they will prevent Canadian cattle being sold alive on the British market. I have said, Sir, that this policy of reciprocal preference has failed.. The policy of Canada on that question was set forth very clearly and in unmistakable terms at the Imperial Conference in 1902 by the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid -Lauirier, or Mr. Facin-g-Both-Ways, as the Tory press called him during the election of 1911. But while the jingoes of Canada were shouting and shrieking about imperialism, the Liberal party in Canada, represented by their leader, were proposing to the British Government a mutual preference in the following language, which I quote from the official report:
The Canadian ministers stated that if they could be assured that the Imperial government would accept the principle of preferential trade generally, and particularly grant to the food products of Canada in the United Kingdom exemption from duties now levied, or hereafter imposed, they, the Canadian ministers, would he prepared to go further into the subject and endeavour to give to the British manufacturer some increased advantage over his foreign competitors in the markets of Canada.
That offer was there during ten years of our tenure of office, and the offer is still on the blue books of the Imperial Conference before the home authorities. And nothing has been done in England, except the answer given by Mr. Churchill: not a farthing of preference on a single peppercorn! Let me add that I suspect that the friends of my hon. friend from St. Antoine, the rich manufacturers of (Montreal, the multimillionaires of Montreal, while they are in words in favour of an Imperial preference are at heart the most strenuous opponents of that policy. And why? It is because the gist of the whole case, in the words of Mr. Chamberlain, is: we will tax our bread, we will (tax our food, but you will not manufacture in Canada, and- we will supply you with our manufactured goods. That is called the hidden list; my -hon. friend (Mt. Ames) knows (about it, tand -if he wants more information let him read one of the latest publications by Mr. Richard Jebb, who is a very ardent imperialist. I remember that during the first session of this Parliament my hon. friend the Min-

ist-er of Finance avoided speaking about the increased trade between Canada and the United States. He thought he should not mention that in his Budget after the reciprocity campaign. Increased trade with the United States was supposed to mean something very near annexation. Indeed, it was the battlecry in the last campaign, and it carried many constituencies. According to the Budget figures, Canadian exports to the United States increased from $112,000,000 in 1911 to $161,000,000 in 1913-14. In the same period imports from the United States increased from $274,000,000 to $361,000,000. The aggregate trade between the countries was $386,000,000 in 1911, and it reached $523,000,000 in 1913. Canada is the second greatest customer of the United States today, Great Britain being first. Canada is fifth in her sales to the United States. This is the crushing answer to the ignominious cry of annexation. The only annexation movement in Canada took place around 1849-50, and that movement, as my hon. friend who reads history, ought to know, was defeated by what? It was defeated by the granting of a reciprocity treaty to Canada and the United States. There is nothing eternal in a trade agreement. It cannot imperil our nationality, and the party which believes that high tariff makes for nationality does not know that high tariff is a sorry substitute indeed for loyalty My hon. friend said that the gage of battle was given; that he Was ready to accept it; that he was ready to fight free trade as against protection. I think the wish is father to the thought. This false cry of free trade, which does not exist in this country because, as we have to derive our revenue from indirect taxation, we must have a moderate protection, is meant to be used against the Liberal party. If we were to accept the traditions of good old England, we would accept the gage of battle; we would stand for free trade, because free trade has made England what it is to-day. But we live in America and we have to follow the traditions of the American continent. We cannot have free trade in Canada. We are wedded to a system of moderate protection as long as we raise our revenue by way of indirect taxation; but can we reduce taxation? Yes, we can reduce taxation, as I have shown a- moment ago; we can also curb some of the monopolies, and that is the aim of the Liberal party. I speak only for myself of course.
I am a moderate protectionist. I say that protection must exist in our country as

long as we have to raise a revenue by way of indirect taxation. We cannot have free trade as they have it in England. It is the ideal; it is the best thing; but we cannot have it. the words of President Woodrow Wilson in his book, The New Freedom, apply exactly to our conditions. Discussing this very question of free trade versus protection, he uses the following language:
But ' Ah! ' exclaim those who do not understand what is going on, 'you will ruin the country with your free trade! '
Exactly the language of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance.
Who said free trade? Who proposed free trade? You cannot have free trade in the United States, because the government of the United States is of necessity, with our present division of the field of taxation between the federal and state governments, supported in large part by the duties collected at the ports.
I should like to ask some gentlemen if very much is collected in the way of duties at the ports under the particular tariff schedules under which they operate. Some of the duties are practically prohibitive, and there is no tariff to be got from them.
He says a little further on:
Let me repeat: there cannot be free trade in the United States so long as the established fiscal policy of the federal government is maintained. The federal government has chosen throughout all the generations that have preceded us to maintain' itself chiefly on indirect instead of direct taxation. I dare say we shall never see a time when it can alter that policy in any substantial degree; and there is no Democrat of thoughtfulness that I have met who contemplates a programme of free trade.
But what we intend to do-
And here is where I find the application for Canadian conditions:
-what the House of Representatives has been attempting to do, and will attempt to do again, and succeed in doing, is to weed this garden that we have been cultivating. Because if we have been laying at the roots of our industrial enterprises this fertilization of protection, if we have been stimulating it by this policy, we have found that the stimulation was not equal in respect of ail the growths in the garden, and that there are some growths which every man can distinguish with the naked eye which have to overtopped the rest, which have so thrown the rest into destroying shadow, that it is impossible for the industries of the United States as a whole to prosper under their blighting shade.
Speaking f-u myself, I say that, applying the words oi Woodrow Wilson to Canadian conditions, I find perfect equanimity and satisfaction in them. The battle is not between free trade and protection; it is against the food monopolies, the high tariff interests. It is against the trusts and the combines.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Is the Fielding tariff the
platform upon which my hon. friend stands?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Fielding tariff gave the British preference of 33J per cent less duty upon articles imported from Great Britain. That was reduction; that was a cut, so much so that the manufacturers were deadly opposed to it.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: That is not an answer to my question. Is the Fielding tariff the moderate protection my hon. friend proposes should be adopted?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is nothing eternal in a tariff; it changes according to circumstances. The Fielding tarifi was good for the time being and must be judged by its effects. Did it not give prosperity to the country? It made my hon. friend a millionaire.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I wish it had.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I hope he will be a Senator before long and will meet his friend, Sir Lyman Melvin Jones, in the Senate. If you scratch a Russian, you find a Tartar; if you scratch a high protectionist, you find generally a jingo.


John Hampden Burnham: If you strike a free
trader, what then?


Mr. BUREAU:: You find an honest man.


Rodolphe Lemieux: With all due respect to the Minister of Finance, I have already said in my opening remarks that this Budget is a most reactionary one, a Budget for privileges and the interests, for the combines and the trusts. It gladdens the hearts of the protectionists; it strongly appeals to the Tories. But, in his bounty to both the interests and the Tories, my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, has overlooked the elaims of the Imperialists-I mean the jingoes-on this Government. My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), who I regret is. not in his seat, in his concluding remarks the other evening, after having extolled protection and its exponent, the hon. Minister of Finance, expressed his deep sorrow that this Government had not seen fit to tap our treasury in order to replenish by way of contribution the coffers of the Admiralty. That I may do him ne injustice, let me quote his words:
As a humble Canadian who occasionally goe3 to the mother country, 1 feel almost ashamed to step on the wharf at Liverpool while we are doing all the talking and none of the acting- while we are making promises of loyalty, promises of support, and giving everything in the

way of encouragement by word, but in deeds not a cent.
Sir, I appreciate the feeling of deep humiliation under which my hon. friend is labouring. The shame must not ^n 1 cannot be his, however. He, no doubt, is sincere though misguided in his policy of contribution. But what must he think of his leaders who first advocated the speedy construction of a Canadian navy, then, for party purposes, receded from that position and allied themselves with a faction unalterably opposed to all naval aids to the mother country? What must he think of the ministers who, having pledged themselves to consult Parliament or the people before promulgating a permanent naval policy, deliberately and without any mandate to that effect, sprung on. Parliament under the plea of a sham emergency a contribution of $35,000,000-the first of a series of like nature? What must he think of the moral courage of a Government which dares not appeal to the people from the adverse decision of Parliament in order to secure the mandate it has not on the naval question? No, Mr. Speaker, let not my hon. friend he deceived by his sincere feeling of humiliation; the shame is the Government's, not his. His leaders are primarily responsible for the present impasse. To obtain office they played fast and loose with the naval question. I can only add this: No mercenary contribution will satisfy the ideals of Canadian nationhood; our young and vigorous country will never be reduced to the rank of the Malay states; in naval as well as in military matters, this Dominion claims its absolute autonomy.
Besides, there is a more pressing question which invites our attention; the emergency of the high cost of living must he faced and settled. The real enemy-and my hon. friend the Minister of Militia need not knock about to look for it-is hard times; and we must repel that enemy. The real problem is wider markets for the farmers of Canada. We must grapple with that problem, and we must solve it.
Sir, within a short period the would will witness a spectacle of unique impressiveness. Great Britain, Canada and the American Republic will celebrate their hundredth anniversary of peace. The world will know that here in North America, far from European entanglements, two nations made up of the best races in the world, have been living blessed with the peace of a century along a frontier four thousand miles long. The world will know that over that unlimited boundary line not a shot 
has been fired in anger, not a sentinel has been mounting guard, not a cannon has frowned across the border from either country. The world will know that the two democracies, issuing from a common origin, professing the same faith, pursuing the same ideals of freedom and justice, have cordially accepted the ennobling principle of arbitration as the settlement of differences.
Would it not be fitting, Sir, that on this memorable occasion, the Canadian Government should so readjust our tariff as to remove such customs taxes as at present overburden the tillers of the soil and the consumers of Canada ?
On motion of Mr. J. A. Macdonald Armstrong, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
Thursday, April 16, 1914.