The PRIME MINISTER (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That from this date to the end of the Session Government Orders have precedence on Thursdays immediately after Questions to be put by members.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to bring to the attention of the government the fact that the committee room in the tower used by the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization, is entirely too small for the needs of that committee ; and, as the old railway committee room has been vacated since the new one has been finished, and is comparatively idle, I think we ought to be allowed to use that room, which is not occupied except on days when the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization does not usually sit, and therefore it seems to me that it could be used by that committee without inconvenience to any other.


Mr. A. CAMPBELL (Kent).: That would hardly do. The Banking and Commerce Committee meets there, also the Public Accounts Committee, and I understand that the Senate Railway Committee is going to meet there. So that I think that room will be fairly occupied for the rest of the session.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Banking and Commerce Committee could surely use the Private Bill's Committee room, which is vacant most of the time. I think the Public Accounts Committee is not so large that it could not use the tower room conveniently.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). The Public Accounts Committee is large and usually has a number of witnesses, and I would not like to take the step recommended by the hon. gentleman if it would interfere with the meetings of that committee. With regard to the Senate, I hope that arrangements may be come to under which the Senate Railway Committee

can use the Railway Committee room on alternate days. There are no reasons why we should not come to a friendly understanding and avoid any difficulty. If several committees are called on the same day, of course there may be confusion, but the chairmen of the respective committees can easily arrange so as to prevent any trouble of that kind.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) :
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty ; and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
['I do not imagine that at this hour the committee will desire to proceed with any business, I therefore move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.']
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: A good deal has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite, Mr. Speaker, regarding the increased expenditure of this country, and that is a subject which perhaps has not been dealt with on this side as fully as it might be. In view of what these hon. gentlemen opposite have said and in view also of the feeling which, I am free to admit, may exist to some extent in the minds of sincere believers in Liberal principles and firm supporters of this government, that we have not been faithful to the instructions given to us or to the platform of 1893, I would like this afternoon to tax the patience of the House somewhat by entering into the details and giving figures bearing on our expenditure. 1 know that it is not very pleasant for the House to have to listen to a long array of figures, nor is it at all agreeable to me to enter into these somewhat dry details, and I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible and weary the House as little as I possibly can in this respect.
Borne hon. members of the opposition have charged my hon. colleague the Finance Minister with not having put his case fairly, but to my mind he gave us an honest, clear and fair statement. In fact I think that he. put the case which might be urged against the government in a stronger light than was necessary. He informed the House that he anticipated having to add some millions to the public debt tliis year. I tbink that, in stating the amount be did he took the view of one wiho was anxious to present rather the least hopeful view ot the future, and thus, like a wise financier, err on the safe side by giving a forecast which would be more likely to result in an agreeable disappointment to the people than the reverse. I am in hopes, judging by the trade returns and the financial situation, as I view it, that our expenditure will fall short of the figures mentioned by the Minister of Finance, and that it will be found that my hon. colleague, in his budget speech, Ken. Mr. FIELDING.
presented a case against the government stronger than the facts would warrant.
My hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, gave us a statement of the increases under the various heads of expenditure, but there he stopped. He did not enter into any comparisons. He made no allowance for the altered condition of affairs at present compared with those of the years preceding this administration. The hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Osier) also referred to the increase of expenditure in a general way. It is, however, very easy to make general statements, but much more difficult to particularize. I have taken the trouble to scrutinize the various expenditures, and at the risk of wearying the House, I propose to give the results of my researches, and I am convinced I shall be able to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of all fair-minded men, that comparing service with service, and taking into account the rapid development of the country during the last five years, its great increase in population-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: some say even seventy millions of dollars in the expenditure. I ask fair-minded men, in judging of the increased expenditure, to take into account the difference of the circumstances of the country now and in bygone days. A business man's expenses increase with the growth of his business-so with a nation. The government had to keep pace with the advance movement. It would have been remiss in its duty if it had failed to do so. Bearing these facts in mind-the growth in the trade of the country and the evident increase that we have in the population-let us proceed to a scrutiny of the expenditure. We will take first the ordinary, the controllable expenditure. For the purposes of this comparison I take the year 1894-95 and compare it with the year just closed. I take the year 1894-95 because it is well known and will not be denied-at any rate it cannot be successfully contradicted- that the expenditure accounts for 1896 under hon. gentlemen opposite were not completed accounts. I know that in my own department amounts were left over to be paid after the year had elapsed. It was an election year and the full expenditure was not shown. Therefore, I take the year 1894-95. The ordinary controllable expenditure for 1901 was $46,866,367. In 1894-95, the ordinary expenditure was $38,132,005. These figures show an increase in 1901 over 1895 of $8,734,362.
Now on the face of it this looks large, but let us consider the details before passing judgment. I propose to go through all the departments, and thus afford an opportunity to any hon. gentleman who follows me to point out which of these particular expenditures he takes exception to. I call upon them to do that; and I mention to you, Mr. Speaker, right here, that the position of the opposition at this present moment is one that absolutely justifies every dollar of expenditure that has been made, and every dollar that has been added to the public debt. Why do I say that ? Why, Sir, the Minister of Finance has made his budget speech, he has given the fact that our expenditure has been increased ; he has not hidden the fact that on ordinary expenditure there has been an increase ; he has not hidden the fact that on capital expenditure there has been an increase ; he has not hidden the fact that there has been an addition to the public debt. These hon. gentlemen know that, and now is the time, now is the opportunity, if they dare do so, to offer an amendment and have it fairly debated. It was their duty to do it, to put a resolution before you, Mr. Speaker, declaring that the expenditure was unwise, unjustifiable, but they have not done it; and the fact that they have not done it proves conclusively to my mind that, they themselves being the judges, being conversant with the public accounts and the state of the country, are satisfied that the extra expenditure has been well and wisely made,


Hon. Mr. PATERSON..: and that there is no fault to be found with it. Sir, they do not venture to do so. If ever there was a time to challenge that expenditure it is now. It is very easy for them to rise and make speeches and let them go broadcast throughout the country, but the way for them to show that they are in earnest is to place themselves upon record against these expenditures


Mr. POPE.: And so we will.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: But you have not done it, and this is the time to do it when the financial statement is being discussed. The hon. gentleman sees the weakness of the position. Instead of introducing an amendment, an amendment so vague in itself that we cannot tell what it is, a thing that has reference to something that is not clear even in their own minds-instead of introducing that amendment, if they believe their own statements that there has been unjustifiable expenditure, why it was their bounden duty to move an amendment to that effect, and place it in your hands challenging the administration of the affairs of this country and dividing the House upon it; and, Sir, we would not have shrunk from the test and from the discussion that would have ensued. Let me go through these departments in detail, and as I do so-1 think hon. gentlemen will agree with me that while there has been an increased expenditure, necessitated by the circumstances and conditions of the country, I think they will admit there is nothing to be alarmed about. Take the first item, the sinking fund, there is an increase in that of $478,025, Nobody is alarmed about that, it is simply a cross entry,, that is all. In immigration therp is an increase of $249,077, nearly a quarter of a million dollars. Now perhaps hon. members opposite join this in the general statement that there has been an unjustifiable increase in every department of the government. But what are the facts with reference to immigration ? Have we had full value for the expenditure under that head ?


An hon. MEMBER.: No.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, does some hon. gentleman say ? Then we hope he will put himself ou record as condemning it. But if he does he will have to face these facts when he puts his motion before you, Mr. Speaker, that according to the records of the Interior Department, in the five years from 1897 to 1901, 190,000 immigrants have been brought into the country, and what is better, they seem to be staying here. Every western man knows that immigration has been greater during the last five years than for any previous like period. The figures prove that. Homestead entries :
1891	 3,523
1896	 1,857
1901	:	8,167

Do you tell me that a quarter of a million dollars of extra money expended in the way it has been under the Minister of the Interior, bringing in that 190,000 people, settling up these homesteads, has not been a good investment for this country ? Why, Sir, the added commerce of this country alone justifies that increased expenditure. You can see it from the increased number of patents of Dominion lands issued :
1891.
1896.
1901.
2,449
2,665
6,461
And as I said before, the government and railway companies sold $454,641 worth of land in 1896, and in 1901, $2,454,899. I say, and I believe the country will say, that the increased expenditure under the head of immigration is justifiable, and has been a wise investment on the part of the minister who conducts that department. During the last fiscal year no less than 18,000 people came from the western states to settle in western Canada, many of them our own sons coming back to this land, when there is a government in power making a condition of things here which entices them to return. This spring, reports from responsible customs officers indicate that there is a great rush of incoming settlers from the States. Permit me to quote an extract from a letter of one of the sub-collectors of the Customs Department stationed at North Portal, which is at the. boundary of Minnesota :
Since the rush began we are almost swamped with work both night and day. What with settlers coming in and wheat going out the railway yards are full all the time.
That is cheering. Swamped with work, night and day, with immigrants coming in with their settler's effects. And yet the hon. gentleman opposite would propose a resolution in this House affirming that $250 -000 of an increase is unjustifiable. Why, in the ' Evening Journal ' of Ottawa we saw a day or two ago this item clipped from the Medicine Hat ' News ' :
Pouring Into the West.
1 he influx of settlers to the Canadian west is simply wonderful. At Medicine Hat we are in a position to size up the great incoming, especially of Americans, as we see here daily train load after train load of would-be settlers, bringing with them carloads of miscellaneous effects -horses, cattle, implements, household stuff. The exodus, fhis time from the states into Canada, shows that the undeveloped riches of western Canada are becoming known, and Canada is coming into her own. The rush of settlers is unprecedented, and is taxing the railways to the limit to handle the business in connection with their trade.
Now it may be said that these settlers are coming in of their own accord. The Minister of the Interior has had a few men throughout the western states for a few years past to promote immigration from that 73
country, recognizing the fact that they are a most desirable class of settlers ; and their work is bearing fruit, and no fault can be found with that comparatively small increase of expenditure which has brought about such results, especially when we remember the fact that every one of these incoming settlers who settles in that country becomes himself a most valuable immigration agent by the letters he writes to others ; and great as has been this in-ciease of immigration, we can scarcely imagine at what ratio it will continue to grow m the years that are coming, and that without a greatly added expenditure on the part of this government. This, I claim, to be wise legislation, wise administration, and in the very best interests of the country.
Now, we come to the next department, that of arts, agriculture and statistics presided over by my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) The increase here is $480,000. It is accounted for largely this year by an expenditure of $249,907 for the census, and for cold storage $100,059, for which there was no corresponding expenditure In 1895 except a small item of $5,729 charged against the belated preparation of the census in that year. Then, in exhibitions we have had Glasgow, Buffalo and Paris, and we spent $164,823 on these exhibitions. Any one who is conversant with the success of the Canadian exhibitors at these different exhibitions, I think, will admit that it was money wisely expended. It was money expended for the benefit of all classes of the community, not any one industry alone, but for all, and the accounts of the Glasgow exhibition especially are most cheering in their nature. Canada has been advertised, trade has been increased to a wonderful extent there, and also to a more limited extent at Buffalo, but even at Buffalo the Canadian commissioner's quarters were thronged dally with people making inquiries about the North-west Territories and other portions of the Dominion. The benefits to be derived from the Paris exhibition were fully explained to us by the Minister of Agriculture last year. This accounts for an increase of $162,864. Is that expenditure to be condemned or is it to be approved ? Was it not a wise expenditure, the laying out of that small sum at the present time to be returned ten-fold, though not perhaps in the manner in which you put it directly in cash into your pocket, but which will manifest itself in the increased prosperity of the people of the country ? Then, in promoting the dairying interests of the country $20,000 more was spent last year. But the hon. Minister of Agriculture had no charge of $40,000 for the purchase of cheese and butter as in 1895. The maintenance of experimental farms only cost $4,700 more last year and we know the valuable work being done there, too.



I ask what expenditure there has been in connection with the Department of Agriculture that has not been wisely made or productive of good.	.
In legislation there is an item to which, perhaps, there might be a little exception taken by bon. gentlemen opposite. There is an increase of $231,155. This is largely accounted for by the increase in the sessional indemnity granted last session. If our hon. friends are feeling very badly about that, or, if any of us feel badly, we can reduce that increased expenditure by telling the accountant that we will be satisfied with the old sum that we received before.


Mr. BROCK.: Are you prepared to make a motion to that effect'!


Mr. CLANCY.: Does that include the hon. gentleman's increase of salary as well 7


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: In civil government there is an increase of $52,000.
I suppose any one will admit that you cannot, with the increasing work that is devolving upon the government, expect that there will not be some increase.
In the government of the Yukon there is an increase of $271,000 spent by the Department of the Interior on ordinary or consolidated fund account. Now, there was no corresponding expenditure in 1891-95, but everyone knows, or should know, that while $274,000 was expended there, as far as any taxation upon the people of Canada is concerned outside of the Yukon territory, it lias no bearing whatever, because, if y|,1| go to the Public Accounts you will find there a statement which shows that since and inclusive of 1891-95 there lias been an expenditure in the Yukon of $5,915,21(5, while the revenue derived from that district amounts to $6,700,193, the surplus of revenue over expenditure being $755,000. Now, though you had a swelling up of the expenditure made under tlie Department of the Interior by $274,000 on Y'ukon account, it did not cost the people of this country one cent of taxation outside of the Yukon. The Yukon paid for itself and put $755,000 into the public treasury besides.
Under the head of administration of justice there is an increase of $117,550. Of this amount $71,787 was spent in the Yukon, while $3,701 was spent for enforcing the alien labour law. There were no expenditures under these heads in the year 1895. There is an increase of $20,000 in the pro-\ ince of Ontario and of $10,000 in the province of Quebec for additional judges. Of course, justice must be administered, and it is necessary, with the growing condition of the country that facilities shall be given for the settlement of disputes. This is an item, however, which I think will very well'bear comparison with previous years. In 1890 there was an expenditure for the administration of justice of $709,784; in 189o it had swollen to $755,682, while in 1901, ex-


William Paterson: eluding the Yukon, it amounted to $798,Ho, so that the expenditure has not increased at as great a ratio during these years of plenty as during the previous years.
Under the head of fisheries there is an increase of $47,529. This is practically accounted for by three new necessary services : Steamer for fisheries and customs protection in British Columbia $19,973, cold storage for bait $12,674, and fish hatcheries in British Columbia and Gaspe, $19,981. These are the items of increase. Who will say that these items are not justifiable ? I believe that the credit for providing cold storage for bait is to be given to the hon. senior member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall), who pointed out that the expenditure would be of great benefit to the hardy fishermen who live down on the coast^ tlieie, and listening to him with the most intense interest, as I have endeavoured to do to every hon. gentleman who has taken part in this debate, coming from whatever part of the Dominion he may, I heard him state that he thought he could see a way m which this important departure might be still further extended with advantage to the fishermen by providing something of the same kind for the deep sea fishermen. As far as I am individually concerned, he will not need, if he can perfect a scheme of that kind, to ask that the cost be taken out of the bounty that the fishermen get at the present time, thus reducing it by th. amount, but I think this Parlikment w 11 willingly vote him any amount that is in reason.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How do you reconcile that increase with the fact that the decision of the Privy Council took the fisheries away from you largely ? Notwithstanding that there is an increase in the expenditure of the government.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It did not take the ocean away from us.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was decided that the fisheries belonged to the provinces, except of course the Atlantic fisheries.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: In public works there has been a very great increase. There has been an increase of $1,644 310. Now, that is a large increase. I frankly admit that if the people of this country want to stop every improvement; if they want to stop all expenditure on these public works, the government can do that. But it is for us to consider whether it would be wise policy for the government to do so. In a prosperous period such as we have had, when the finances of the coun-trv warranted needful public expenditure, and when the public works in many parts of this Dominion had to be repaired or renewed to save them from utter collapse owing to the dilapidated condition into which they fell during the Conservative government, the question for us was : Is it

wise that we should preserve these public works for the benefit of the people of this country ? Of course, as I have said, we can stop this expenditure if we choose. If we want to stop all expenditure we do not by any manner of means need to raise the amount of revenue we do, and we could confine ourselves simply to carrying on the ordinary machinery of the government. But there are other duties devolving upon the government and upon parliament. We have a country to be developed and to be improved, and there are certain expenditures which 'while benefiting the country bring back to us valuable returns. In such cases there should be a wise expenditure of public money.
On public buildings we expended in 1901, $1,195,847 and in 1895 there was only expended on these buildings, $486,275. It will be seen that we spent a great deal more than was expended in 1895, and if we spent it properly the people of Canada have the benefit of it. If we did not spend it properly, then of course we are to tolaime, but our hon. friends opposite do not make that charge against us. On harbours, rivers and dredging in 1901 we expended $1,636,726, while in 1895 the expenditure was only $1,075,993. We expended over half a million more in dredging our rivers and harbours last year than we diid in 1895. Is that.an unwise expenditure? Who will say that it is? Remember, that expenditure was not confined to the harbours and rivers within the boundaries of the constituencies of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, but it wias a general expenditure in different parts of the Dominion; deepening harbours where it was necessary it should he done; giving increased .accommodation to the vast flow of trade and commerce, especially on the great lakes where we need all the [DOT] harbours that can be provided in order that we may bring that vast traffic down through our own magnificent lake and river system, to the summer and winter seaports of Canada. That expenditure is made to enrich the producer in Canada who puts into bis pocket in actual cash every cent that is saved in transportation, and it benefits the whole country as well for it gives employment and wages to the men who handle that grain at Canadian ports. On slides and booms, and upon roads and bridges, and so on, there has been an increased expenditure. These have been some of the expenditures for public works and I do not know that 1 need enlarge more fully upon that subject. The sum of $60,000 represents the expenditure on a telegraph line eastward to the Straits of Belle Isle in the interest of our shipping. We built a telegraph line to the Yukon, so that the far away city of Dawson, almost within the Arctic circle, that it used to take weeks and even months to reach, is now brought within daily communication of the Capital of the Dominion because a telegram given to the operator at 73J
Dawson reaches Ottawa on the same day. These are all expenditures that we had to make and which, if they were wisely made no one will find fault with. I uo uot kuovv that even our Conservative friends opposite will find fault with these expenditures. When the estimates are under the consideration of the House I noticed that these hon. gentlemen instead of objecting to grants, rise one after the other in their places to point out where a further expenditure could be made in the public interest in their different constituencies, and it is perfectly right on their part to do so.
In the lighthouse, coast, ocean and river service there is an increase of $130,783, and $36,000 of this was spent for the construction of lighthouses in excess of what was spent before. Who -will find fault with that ? On an additional -steamer for this service $27,000 extra was spent and for a new lighthouse and fog alarm in Lake Brie $24,000.
The cost for mail subsidies and steamship subventions increased $115,930. Here is an item which effectually refutes -the statement that lit is impossible for a government to benefit the farmers of this country. What do we give these steamships subventions for ? Why does my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) expend money for -cold storage ? It is because he wishes to benefit that portion of our population which belongs to the agricultural community, and -seeing that he can reduce the -cost of carrying their goods in prime condition rto -a foreign market, he expends money to -provide these cold storage facilities in order that the tillers of the soil may get one cent or two cents a pound more for their produce. That is the reason why we give these increased subsidies to steamship lines, and who will deny that that is a wise expenditure V Under the head of s-teamship subventions twenty-nine services were -subsidized last year, as against eighteen -in 1895.
The expenditure upon superannuation increased by $59,122. In reference to that let me say that so far as I am aware no additional term o-f yeans has -been added to the superannuation of any employee by this government and it will hot be forgotten that this government two or three years ago substituted for the Superannuation Act, another Act which is self sustaining and applies to new appointees after July, 1898.
For militia and defence -there was an in-cx*ease of nearly -half a million dollars. I merely mention that -because it is weli known that that money was for the better equipment of -our volunteers, and the expenditure has never to my knowledge been questioned or even criticised.
On the mounted police service there has been an increase of $266,025, but $498,824 of that was expended for the mounted police in the Yukon, and as I -have pointed out the

Yukon has paid for the Yukon, and has paid for that expenditure along with the others. Therefore, if you deduct the expenditure for the Yukon police, you will find that the service generally costs us less than it did before.
In the North-west Territories government there was an increase of $200,761. For my part it seems to me-although I am not inviting people to ask for additional aid to the government-but it seems to me from the facts within the knowledge of every man, that that item ought to be increased in fairness of the settlers who went into the North-west, who are charged with the expenses of the government and of educating the youth, and whose expenditures are bound to increase commensurate with the increase of the population. No one will find fault with that expenditure.
Under the head of 'miscellaneous' there has been an increase of $118,000, and $60,000 of this represents the grant that was given to beautify the city of Ottawa, and in return for which we receive considerations from the city authorities in the line of a water supply and so on.
The interest on the public debt increased $341,660. But let us look at this for a moment. The expenditure for interest in 1890 was $9,656,841, and in 1895 it had increased to $10,466,294 ; an increase in these five years of $809,453. In 1901 the expenditure for interest on the public debt was $10,807.954. During the five years since 1896 it had increased by $341,660 as against $809,453 increase during the previous five years of the Conservative government: That is quite a difference. Then, I trust the hon. gentlemen opposite have not forgotten that when they went out of office they left this country in debt ; that they were not paying their way. Several millions were added to the public debt, and they had not provided for the interest on that, because it had not become due until our first year, and therefore there is a debt which ought to be charged against them. In these different departments I have shown the increases to the amount of something like $5,000,000 out of the $8,000,000 increase in the ordinary expenditure.
I come now to the expenditures under the head of collection of revenue, that is, customs, excise, post office, railways, and minor revenues. Now, a good way to judge whether there has been extravagance on the part of the government or not is to compare the revenue derived from these different sources with the amount expended in collecting that revenue. If that is done, the comparison stands to the credit of the Liberal government. In 1894-5 the expenditure under this head was $9,129,416, and the revenue collected was $33,97S,129, the percentage cost of collection being 27 per cent of the amount collected. In 1901 the expenditure was $12,503,249 ; but the revenue was $52,514,701, the percentage cost of collect-


William Paterson: ion being only 24 per cent, or 3 per cent less than it was in 1895. If it had cost as much per cent last year as it did in 1895, the expenditure would have been over $1,600,000 more than it actually was. That, I think, points to economy and efficient administration. That is a statement that will enable any one who has thought that the expenditure in these different departments had increased, to see that there has been nothing reckless or extravagant in the conduct of them.
Take the post office department as an illustration. Its expenditure in 1901 was $3,931,446 and its revenue was $3,441,504. In 1895 the expenditure was $3,593,647 and the revenue was only $2,792,789. The increase in the expenditure in 1901 over 1895 was $337,799, hut the increase in the revenue during the same period was $648,715. This shows nearly $2 more revenue for every dollar expanded ; and this has been accomplished along with a reduction of 33% per cent on the cost of transmitting those millions and tens of millions of letters which have circulated through this country ; with a reduction in the cost of carrying a letter to the British Isles from 5 cents to 2 cents, and with all the other advantages that have come to the country, sucli as additional mail routes and other facilities which had never been in use before.
Then take the Intercolonial Railway, another of	the departments in which
there is	expenditure for the collection of revenue. Last year the working expenses of the road increased by about $2,500,000 ; but do not forget that the revenue increased by fully $2,000,000. I may be told that there was a deficit this year in the Intercolonial Railway. But I may remind you that there was a surplus last year. On a great public work of this kind, you may have a surplus in one year and a deficit in another. The profits of a great railroad cannot be judged by the results of any single year. This year there has been an expenditure of many thousands of dollars that will result in saving expenditures for years to come. So I think there is nothing to be alarmed at, even though there happens to be a deficit this year.
I am not as fully conversant with Yhe departments of other ministers as I am with my own, and I will just illustrate by reference to the customs department, how the increase of expenditure is not only necessary, hut is perfectly justifiable and perhaps worthy of commendation instead of condemnation. In the department of customs there has been an increase of expenditure from 1895 to 1901. In 1894-5 the expenditure was $917,632 ; in 1901 it was $1,123,817, which was an increase of 22-40 per cent in the expenses of working the department. The revenue, however, in 1894-5 was $17,890,516, while in 1901 it was $29,106,979. The expenditure increased 22-46 per cent while the revenue increased

over 62 per cent. I may be met by hon. gentlemen opposite with the objection that your customs officers can as easily take in $10 on an entry as $1. But I would point out that the tendency in trade at the present time is for importers to repeat orders, so that the entries are really more frequent. In 1895 the number of entries inwards was 501,357 ; in 1901 there were 739,809, an increase of 47 per cent. The entries outwards increased 150 per cent. The railway reports inwards increased 51 per cent, and the railway reports outwards increased 85 per cent. There are 115 more ports at which the revenue is collected.
The percentage of the cost of collecting the revenue in 1894-5 was 5-13 per cent. It cost $5.13 on every $100 to collect the customs revenue in 1894-5. Last year it cost us $3.86 on every $100. With all the extra work I have pointed out-work that brings in no revenue at all, such as special officers that have to be engaged at Coteau, Fort William and many other places, owing to the volume of trade and commerce going through this country and demanding the attention of the Department of Customs; but from which we have no direct revenue added to the treasury-with all this extra work the cost of collecting is less than it was in 1894-5. . Had it cost last year the same percentage to collect the customs revenue as it did in 1894-5, we would have expended $369,371 more than we did. We therefore saved that much in proportionate work to the government of this country, and in that increase of labour I have not asked credit for the new improvements we have made in the service-improvements which have cost this country large sums of money, but which, I believe, this country approves. Take my statistical office, there is $44,000 of expenditure there charged up, which was not incurred ,in 1894-5. Two years ago 1 asked the House to sanction this expenditure, and the House generously did so. It does not bring any revenue, tout this is what it does. On April 4, there was placed on the Table, and ready to be placed in the hands of every member of this House, a complete statement in detail of the whole trade of this Dominion to the end of February, or about thirty-five days after the close of the month, you had in your possession a detailed statement of the whole trade and commerce of this country, from ocean to ocean, as complete as you could get it in the Trade and Navigation Returns, which you used to receive six months after the close of the fiscal year, and not before. That is something, I believe, the people are glad to have. That tells in what directions our trade and commerce is expanding. That gives information to hon. gentlemen of which they are glad to avail themselves. But it costs an extra expenditure and brings in no revenue, and yet is included in the expenditure I have given you. And notwithstanding that and other items I could mention of a corresponding character, it
has cost us less to collect our revenue last year than it did in 1894-5. For instance there is the secret preventive services, on which we spent $5,000, and there is an expenditure of $7,000 on extra preventive service to prevent smuggling, and I venture to say that that expenditure has been repaid to the country ten times over. Unfortunately, however, for the Customs Department the benefits are not to toe found in the added customs receipts, but will be found in the augmented inland revenue receipts, caused by our people 'buying the products of this country instead of foreign products smuggled into Canada. Then there is an additional expenditure of $18,000 for additional revenue cruisers and also $3,000 additional for customs uniforms. We thought it only right that the officers of this Dominion, who have to meet the travelling public at the border points, should have something more than a little medal to show their authority, When examining baggage. We thought that this government ought to put these officers in a decent uniform, so that our people need not be ashamed of the appearance of these men who have to meet the travelling public and examine their luggage. There are altogether some $92,000 additional expenditure by this government on new services that did not exist in 1894-5; and if I were to deduct that amount, as I should do to make a fair comparison, from my expenditure, instead of .their being a proportionate saving .in the cost, of collecting the revenue of $369,371, there would be a saving of $401,371.
I have no doubt wearied the House with these items, but I did think it worth while, in view of the statements made by our friends opposite, that we should examine a little .into detail, and I believe that the information I have given will be satisfactory to those who wish to be in a position to know just what extra expenditure was paid and the purposes to which it was put, and the government are not afraid of their verdict.
Let me now call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to this fact, which I think is most important, namely, that while there has been this increased expenditure of $8,000,000 odd, it has been defrayed out of revenue, and a surplus of over $19,000,000 left in the treasury. Whereas, during the last five years of Tory rule there was a net deficit of over $4,000,000.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the $19,000,000 has been left in the treasury ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I say that 'in the five years this government have been in power, we have paid all our ordinary expenditure and have a surplus left amounting to $19,743,527.69.


James Clancy: What has become of it '!


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I shall deal with that point a little later. I was


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: And for which I propose to give good reasons when I reach that part of my subject. But even if we have spent the surplus on capital account, as we did, let me ask the hon. gentleman iii all fairness:	Was it not better
to have in those live years that surplus of $19,000,000 and spend it on capital account, which must do some good to the country, than have done as they did, during their last live years of office, namely, not meet our ordinary expenditure but absolutely run the country in debt ? Which is the better '! Which would my hon. friend rather have V Would he rather have us go back to the old times and have to borrow money to carry on our ordinary expenditure, or so arrange- as we have done-that under a lightened taxation we still have millions to spend on capital account besides paying all ordinary charges ?
I lind, on looking at my papers, that 1 anticipated my hon. friends opposite would want some light upon this poinit. For 1 have a note here :	1 Our opponents may
say you spent that surplus of $19,000,000 and more too on capital account.' And 1 have noted here : True, and for what have you spent it ? Here I have the details of the capital and other special expenditures of the present government. We can call it all capital expenditure, for, as hon. gentlemen opposite understand very well, it all goes into capital account, although the special expenditure, such as my subsidies and the like, is kept in the books, as it has been under all administrations, under the heading of special account.
The present government has spent under this heading of capital, in the last five years, $41,622;572, as compared with $26,858,798 in the previous five years, or an increased capital expenditure of about $15,000,000. Thus, we have expended on capital account during our five years $15,000,000 more than hon. gentlemen opposite did. And, for my own part-I do not know howi others may feel about it-I am not in a mood to apologize for it, but rather in a mood to approve and commend it. For what services was this money expended ? These are the expenditures in round figures :
St. Lawrence river	canals'.. .. $10,890,000
Trent canal	 1,623,000
*Welland canal	 244,000
Sault Ste. Marie, canal	 645,000
Lachine canal	  883,000
Rideau canal	 13,000
Total for canals_______ $14,000,000


William Paterson: Government railways	 $8,700,000 Improvement, River St. Lawrence	 1,460,000
Railway subsidies, including
Crow's Nest Pass	 8,270,000
Militia	 1,670,000
Yukon	 1,043,000
South African war	 2,450,000
Dominion lands	 838,657
Small services account for the balance. Now, to what do hon. gentlemen opposite take exception In these expenditures ? Do they condemn the expenditure on the canals ? They had entered upon it themselves, and were proceeding with it at a very leisurely pace-and borrowing money to pay for it. But, when this government came into power they recognized the fact that all parties were agreed that the St. Lawrence canals should be deepened. We had fourteen-foot navigation from the great lakes, through the Welland canal and a large part of the St. Lawrence river, but there were parts where you could not send a boat drawing more than eight or nine feet. As the strength of the weakest link determines the strength of a chain so the shallowest point of your navigation determined the size of the vessel that could be brought down from the great lakes. We believed that the country would sustain a policy that would complete this system of navigation, and that the people would like to see it done while they were alive-for men	take more
interest in things when they are alive than when they are dead. We engaged contractors, and their electric lights blazed on the banks of these canals, making the night as the day, while double gangs of men worked in order to complete the system of navigation. And it is completed. As a result of this expenditure, you have made Fort William and Port Arthur, Canadian ports at the head of Lake Superior, fourteen hundred miles from salt water-you have absolutely made them ocean ports. A vessel loaded at those ports may pass through that mighty waterway down to Montreal, on to Quebec, and, if need be across the broad Atlantic and land Its cargo, as has been done, at Liverpool. Do hon. gentlemen opposite now say it would have been better to have sayed that $10,000.000 out of our $19,000,000 of surplus, not to have had the canal and still be $4,000,000 in debt. Is that the alternative hon. gentlemen opposite would favour ? Then, take the government railways. On these you have spent $8,700,000. Have you not an asset for it ? Have you not added to the length of the system ? Have you not strengthened and improved the railway in all directions ? This improvement was necessitated by the progress of railway business. We need to-day larger cars, heavier locomotives, and these entail heavier rails and stronger bridges. Of course, these things cost money meanwhile. But we have every reason to believe that this expenditure will result In an augmented revenue or les-

sened expenses. Who finds fault ? Who says the Intercolonial Railway should not have been brought to Montreal, the great commercial emporium, instead of being left to terminate in a field, as you might say, at Levis ? It is true that a cry was raised against this in days gone by, but we do not hear it to-day. Who objects to the $1,460,000 spent in improving the River St. ^Lawrence .
I represent an agricultural constituency, yet I approve that expenditure. Why ? Is it out of love for the city of Montreal ? I value Montreal and its residents very much, as I do other places in this Dominion and those who live in them ; but it is not wholly for that and without thought of the interests of my constituents that I favour this expenditure. I wish to improve this waterway and the harbour of Montreal primarily because the harbour of Montreal cannot take all the shipping that seeks to come there.
I want all the ships that will come to Montreal to have facilities for doing so. Why . The more ships that come there looking for trade the lower will be the freight rate ; and every cent off the cost of transporting a bushel of wheat, or every dollar off the cost of transporting a steer, means a cent or a dollar in the pockets of the farmer in my constituency. This is a Dominion question and one in which the producers of this Dominion generally are interested. Then, take the railway subsidies, including the subsidv to the Crow's Nest Pass Railway, the total being $8,270,000, and also the expenditure on the South African war of $2,450,000 which this parliament granted willingly. If these expenditures had not been undertaken, we should not have added a dollar to the public debt, and would have had all these other improvements besides. Do hon. gentlemen opposite object to these subsidies to the railways ? Does anybody object to the subsidy to the Crow's Nest Pass Railway ? We do not hear them say so One hon. gentlemen ventured to refer to it the other night-I think it was the hon member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor). He told us a yarn to the effect that he had found something crooked about it


Mr. TAYLOR.: Did not you increase the subsidy granted by the late government ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: What was crooked about it ?


George Taylor: Ask Joe Martin ; he will tell you.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman tells us to ask Joe Martin. If I remember well, the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Taylor's) statement-I have not had time to look it up in ' Hansard,' but if I am wrong the hon. gentleman can correct me- w-as that there had been some corrupt bargain with the Canadian Pacific Railway to take Joe Martin, as he calls him. and for this we w-ere to give an increase of subsidy.


George Taylor: ' And you did it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Where did the hon. gentleman get the news, and when did he get it ?


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) will not contradict it conscientiously.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Will the hon. gentleman tell me how long^ he has had this information and yet kept it from the public. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) refuses to tell us where he got his information and how long he has had it. But this we do know-that hon. gentlemen opposite were loud in their denunciation of the Crow's Nest Pass subsidy when they were upon the political platform addressing the electors. The Crow's Nest deal and the Crow's Nest steal was the way they rang the changes on the words.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Some hon. gentlemen say ' Hear, hear.' That is the way in which they do it. Well, Mr. Speaker, will you listen to this argument and see whether it is correct 1 I voted for the Crow's Nest Pass Railway grant, and I believed that it was in the public interest, and that being the case, there may be in the minds of some people an idea that I erred in judgment, that I made a mistake. P>ut they can forgive an error in judgment, they can forgive a mistake if they believe the man is honest in doing what he thinks is right. But if these hon. gentlemen opposite, as by their cheers they now allege, believed there was something wrong, _ something corrupt, and if they knew it and never voted against it, as they did not, I ask if the country can forgive them ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Louder.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Your shouts of ' louder ' will not drown the judgment of the people of this country. If hon. gentlemen imply there was corruption in the deal that was made in the House of Commons, and they sat there as one of the parties to it, the judgment of the country will be that, while they may forgive a man who honestly did what he thought was m the interest of the country, they cannot forgive men who sat there and knew that a corrupt bargain was feeing put through and never dared to record their vote against it That is the position. Now, what about that Crow's Nest Pass Railway ? Let me illustrate how I think a government can benefit a country by wise expenditure. Let me illustrate also how, under our system of raising revenue by a tariff and customs duties levied upon many articles, the operation of which may give more direct benefits to one section of the community than another-how it is possible that those other sections of the community may also benefit, perhaps not so much through the tariff, as I hy a wise expenditure of the money col-

iected from the tariff, to the advantage of che other classes who contribute, the artisans among them. Let me illustrate this principle by the bargain that was made with the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. By that bargain you opened up your vast Kootenay mining districts, a source of wealth to the Dominion of Canada, opened up a market for the farmers of Alberta, made running arrangements with other roads upon the payment of a fair rental to use their line and got 50,000 acres of coal land that are held by this government to prevent any monopoly of that valuable mineral in that district. What more ?
SPROULE. Two mililon dollars to the Globe ' newspaper.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Two million dollars to the 'Globe' newspaper, and the hon. gentleman knew it at that time, and yet supported the resolution ! feir, what more, I say ? This government, careful of the conditions of all the people of this land, recognized the fact that the bargain that was originally made with the Canadian Pacific Railway by our friends opposite, imposed terms and conditions with reference to freight rates to be charged over that road that could not be altered until the company earned 10 per cent of their capital. They have not done it. The settlers in_ Manitoba and the North-west felt that this was a very heavy charge upon them; the government recognized the fact and they recognized that no doubt while the Crow's Nest Pass bargain was of special benefit to the men who farm in that country, still the interests of all are so intertwined one with the other in this country, that they made a stipulation for a lowered freight rate over that road. It is not likely that, under the conditions that prevailed last year and which are likely to prevail for some time to come, with the amount of freight pressing upon them more than they could handle, the company would voluntarily have reduced the rate, and they agreed under this Crow's Nest Pass Railway bargain and subsidy, to a reduction of the rate by three cents per 100 pounds on all the wheat and flour that went out of that country. And what is the result ? It was in operation last year, and we are told that there is the equrs#ilent of 60,000,000 bushels of grain to be moved out of that country. What does it mean ? It means over $1,000,000 of actual cash that goes into the pockets of the farmers of Manitoba and the I1, orth-west, as actually as if it was paid out as a direct bounty by this government trom the Dominion treasury. Perhaps our non. friends will say that the government should have stipulated with the railway to keep back 3 cents on every 100 weight and pay it into the Dominion treasury to Help the revenue. They might say that it was not fair to ask other portions of and classes of the community who dwell in


William Paterson: cities and work in factories to pay a portion of this subsidy when the indirect benefits were felt chiefly by the farmers in the west. But the government did not take that view. They recognized that primarily, perhaps, these men are more benefited by it, but they recognized that in their prosperity is involved the prosperity of all who dwell in this country to a greater or lesser extent, and so they secured that reduction in the public interest, and I believe that as the years go by that arrangement will be found more and more to have been made in the public interest. It may be said that the company would have voluntarily thrown it off. Well, I ask if, under the conditions that prevailed last year, and that are likely to prevail, the Company would not, if they had the power, have charged the 3 cents per 100 weight more ? Why, to ask the question is to answer it, and having answered it, I leave it to the judgment of the House to say whether that .$3,300,000, which is included n that $8,270,000 of- subsidy, was not an investment redounding directly to the benefit of those men who farm our lands in the North-west, and incidentally to the benefit of all the people who dwell in this Dominion ?
AVhat more ? Remember the government can advance the interest of the community not only by the way in which they impose their taxation, but also by the expenditure of the money. Things can be equalized in that way. It may be that some classes are benefited a little more through the imposition of a certain tax-though it never can be justified except it is in the public interest-while another section will not get the same benefit. But in the expenditure of this money all sections benefit, though not all directly, and consequently there is something like justice, and there is regard for all the different sections of this community. There should be no legislation passed for any particular section of the community unless it can be justified as in the interests of the whole community. But where you have diverse interests, as we have in this country, then I say the way in which the taxation of this country is raised, and the way in which the people want it to be raised, through customs and inland revenue, is fair, and in the interests of the whole people of this country. Our interests are so intertwined that all legislation which we pass should have reference to it. But. I will not spend more time with the capital expenditure. I have asked my hon. friend to what he objects. Is it to 'the half million dollars of railway subsidies which has gone to the Great Northern Railway ? Who will say that is not in the interests of the public ? Who will say, having witnessed the grain blockade that has occurred in the west, that this expenditure is not a wise one ? That road is being pushed through the North-west Territories, it has reached there already, and it will be turned to ae-

count this year. The same applies to all the other lines that we have opened up. Who will say that we should not have done that, that we should not have opened up mineral regions and given an advantage to the miners-the miners who cannot be benefited by tariff arrangements, but who can be benefited by the expenditure of money raised under the tariff and to which others have contributed as well as themselves ? It is fair that money should be expended in this way and so we have en-* deavoured to hold the scales evenly and justly as between the different sections of the community, and the fact that this government and the friends who are behind them have succeeded moderately in their desire to do justice to every section of the community, is shown by the universal prosperity and contentment that I believe reigns throughout this country at the present time.
Then, my next note is that our opponents say that our resolution of 1893 expresses alarm at the large increase in the debt and that instead of using our surplus to reduce it we have increased it. Well now, that is true. Let us examine that. It is nominally true that we have increased the debt. I have a comparative statement here of the increase in the debt. When we speak of ordinary expenditure and capital expenditure, hon. gentlemen know -how the books are kept, but the final record is that when the ordinary and capital expenditure meet together and are offset by the total revenue from all'sources and according as the revenue is greater than ordinary and capital expenditure combined, there is a reduction of the public debt. If, on the other hand, the combination of ordinary and capital expenditure is greater than the whole revenue from all sources you have an addition to the public debt. We have an addition to the public debt. In 1897 we added to the public debt 83,011,163.69. In 1898 we added .$2,417,802.45. In 1899 we added $2,317,047.69, and in 1900 we had a surplus, thereby decreasing the public debt, of $779,639.71. In 1901 we added $2,986,196. In five years, deducting the surplus of 1900 from the amounts that we increased the public debt, the total addition to the public debt was $9,982,570.92, or an average increase per annum during the five years of $1,996,514.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about the $6,000,000 of temporary loans you have from the banks ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) got mixed up when he was speaking the other night. In 1892 there was a deficit on the part of our hon. friends opposite and I will not weary the House by referring to it. But, they added to the debt every year of their last five years and the increase for their last five years of the public debt was $20,688,402.26 as against $9,-
982,570.92 of an increase under us, or the average increase per annum under hon. gentlemen opposite was $4,137,680 while the annual increase per annum under us was $1,996,514. I have taken their last five years in office. If hon. gentlemen will take the public accounts and go through them they will find that during the whole IS years that they were in power they added over $6,000,000 to the public debt every year. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) when he made his speech the other evening asked us to drop out the years 1882. 1883 and 1S84, when they added $60,000,000 to the public debt, and he said that we would find that if we did that they had not added as much as they were charged with adding, a proposition in which I agree witli the hon. gentleman. Still, it is true all the same that we have to pay interest on the debt. But, my hon. friend will see that I have left out these years and that I have just taken the last five years for the purpose of this comparison. I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, what the resolution of the Liberal convention did, for I have it before me here, express alarm at the increase of the debt. Plank No. 4 was as follows :
We cannot but view with alarm the large increase of the public debt and of the controllable annual expenditure of the Dominion and the consequent undue taxation of the people under the governments that have been continuously in power since 1878, and we demand the strictest economy in the administration of the government of the country.
That was the resolution passed by the convention in 1893, passed under the circumstance that your ordinary expenditure was $38,000,000, and that with your ordinary expenditure at $38,000,000 your government could not pay it out of your revenue but were running in debt, borrowing money, and adding to the public debt, to say nothing of the expenditure on capital account. It was a period in which the prosperity of the country seemed to have shrunk away. It was a proper resolution to pass then. When the country was running in debt to pay its ordinary running expenses, it was time to express alarm. But, the conditions are entirely changed as compared with that time, because now we have paid everything out of the lowered taxation imposed upon the people and have had $19,000,000 in five years to the good in the way of surpluses. In reference to the public debt we have added a little to it. We would not have added anything to it if we had not to meet these expenditures on capital account, and I think the additions we have made to it are justified. There are two ways of reducing the public debt. The only method of properly measuring the public debt is to ascertain the debt per head of the population. It is self-evident to any man that if we could suddenly increase the population of the Dominion of

Canada to 10,000,000 of people and keep our debt where we have it now, we would cut it in two. We could reduce the expenditure in that way. What are the facts ? In 1891 the public debt amounted to $237,809,030. Based upon a, population of 4,833,239, according to the census of 1891, the debt was at the rate of $49.20 per head. In 1896, which was the last year of the Conservative administration, the debt of the country was $258,497,432. Now, assuming, which I do not grant, that the increase in population between 1891 and 1890 was in as great a ratio as during the last five years under the Liberal government, the per capita debt in 1896 was $50.66, or an increase in the debt of $1.46 per head over 1901. If you were to admit for the purpose of argument that hon. gentlemen opposite added one half of the population that was added during the decade you will find that while they were running behind in their ordinary accounts they were increasing the debt to such an extent that in five years it was $1.40 per head more. Now the public debt in 1901 amounted to $208,480,003. Calculating from the population as shown by the recent census, the debt amounts to $49.99 per head, or a reduction of 67 cents per head as compared with 1896. Not only were they running behind and not meeting their ordinary expenditure but in their last five years they increased the public debt $1.46 per head, while in our five years we have decreased it 67 cents per head ; and as the population increases, as it is increasing, and as the expenditure will bo kept in reasonable bounds as it will be, considering the demands of our great public works, you will find that the debt per head-if the Liberal government are permitted to remain in power-will go on decreasing as it has been decreasing during the five years we have been in office. It will therefore be seen that during the last five years of the Conservative regime the debt was increased per head $1.46, while during the five years the Liberals have been in power it has decreased 67 cents per head. The comparison is made all the stronger in favour of the Liberal administration when it is explained that during the five years of Liberal rule from 1897 and 1901 inclusive, the large sum of $41,622,572 was expended on capital account in connection with the development of great public works within the Dominion and other special services ; whereas during the five preceding years of Conservative rule the capital expenditure was $26,858,798. The addition to the debt during the last five years of Conservative rule amounted to $20,688,402, being as I said an average increase per annum of $4,137,680, while during the five years of Liberal rule the debt was increased by only $9,982,570 or an average per annum of $1,996,514.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: In brief -and I ask the attention of the House to this summary-in brief, the Liberals during the last five years spent $15,000,000 more than the Conservatives did for the previous five years on capital account ; added less than half the Conservatives did to; the public debt, and still decreased the per capita rate of the public debt 67 cents per head, as against an increase of $1.47 per head during the last five years of the Conservative rule.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I ask the attention of the House to the resolution I read when we expressed alarm, and with reference to which our Conservative friends attempt to say : That we have violated the instructions of that convention by our increased expenditure and by making an increase to the public debt. I ask the House again to bear in mind the wording of this resolution. It did not say what the expenditure was to be, but it expressed alarm at the expenditure of that time and at the increase that was being made to the public . debt under the conditions which I pointed out; and added this : That what did alarm them was the consequent undue taxation of the people of that account. Now then, what about the taxation. We have spent this money, but it may be said perhaps by our hon. friends opposite :	You may spend
money very freely if you go into the pockets of the people and take from them the money that should be left to them.'
But what has been our record with reference to this question of taxation and of taking revenue from the people. Briefly it is this. In 1896 the average rate of duty levied upon all goods dutiable and free coming into the Dominion was 18-28 percent. That was under the rule of our Conservative friends. On every hundred dollars worth of goods that came into this country there was levied upon an average a duty of $18.28 by the Conservatives. Under the Liberal administration of last year-as you will if you take the trouble to figure it- we only taxed the people $16.06 for every $100 worth of goods that came into the country.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman exclude the Indian corn that is being exported, when he makes that calculation.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I do not and for this reason : That the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) will find, that if for these years he excludes the corn and the coin and bullion, instead of there being a difference of $2.22 on every $100 in favour of the Liberal administration, it would be $2.29 ; so I am taking the figures that tell least in our favour.
And about this $2.22 reduction, the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) al-


William Paterson: cussion of which might be of profit, though no doubt it has 'been wearying too. This amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition does not touch upon that subject at all. If hon: gentlemen opposite view that subject with the alanm which some of them have professed in their speeches, I think it should have been voiced in their resolution; but instead of that they move :
That aU the words after ' that ' in the proposed motion be left out and the following substituted therefor :
This House regarding the operation of the present tariff as unsatisfactory is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and 'ndustries, as will at all times secure the Canadian market for Canadians. And, while thus firmly maintaining the necessity of such protection to Canadian interests, this House affirms its belief in a policy of reciprocal trade preferences within the empire.
This House is here asked to affirm that we regard the operation of the present tariff as unsatisfactory. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) rose to speak upon that resolution, he made a remark to the effect that when he heard it read, he fancied that if he were to shut his eyes and listen, he might almost believe he was hearing something that had been read in the House some twenty or more years ago-at which our opposition friends cheered. They thought he had made a mistake.


Mr. HUGHES.: Oh, no; they knew he had stuck his foot in it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Then they mean that that resolution is intended to signify that they prefer their old national policy to the present tariff. If that was the meaning of their cheers on that occasion, they have challenged a comparison of the two policies, and it is well we are able to make It. It is a very great advantage that we are in a position to see the results of the operation of both tariffs. Let us look at what these hon. gentlemen consider to be unsatisfactory. Let us take the trade of tire country-(the tariff has something to do with that-and let us see how it stands. Let us compare the trade of the country during the last five years under their policy with what it has been in the last five years under this policy, which they regard as unsatisfactory; and if you are persuaded by the result of that comparison that their tariff worked much more satisfactorily thau this one, then we can let them come in and put their tariff back. The aggregate foreign trade of Canada in the two periods under comparison was as follows :
From 1897 to 1901	$1,651,726,204
From 1832 to 1896	 1,193,453,797
Increase	$ 458,272,407
Perhaps this increase in the five years of Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
Liberal rule is unsatisfactory to the hon. gentlemen; perhaps they do not want this extra trade-a very strange state of mind to get into. I do not view trade as a bad thing; I consider it a good thing. I think we are all looking for more trade. What is good for an individual, I take it, is good for a nation; and we have had 458 millions more trade in the last five years than we had in the previous five years. I do not see how that can be unsatisfactory, or a reason why we should want to go back to the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, unless we want to crawl -backwards. Our imports for consumption have increased 190 millions. Our exports the produce of Canada have increased 233 -millions; our exports to the United States have increased 72 millions; our exports to Great Britain have increased 142 millions. So with our exports of fisheries, of the mime, of -the forest, of animals and their products and of agricultural products. So with Canadian manufactures, the exports of which have increased under our policy to $62,143,532, while un-der their policy they were only $39,561,961, an increase of $22,581,571. And then they ask us to go back to the old policy under which this restricted trade was done, and to declare tha-t the expanded trade, which is taking place under our policy, has not been satisfactory. Why, take the whole eighteen years under the national policy and compare it with the period under the present tariff, in that whole eighteen years the aggregate increase in the foreign trade of the country was only $66,000,000, while in the five years of our Liberal policy that trade had increased to $147,000,000. I need not go through -the whole list to show the wonderful increase in trade.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition said that if we deduct the gold bullion and concentrates the exports of Canada in the last fiscal year decreased as compared with the previous one. No doubt, Sir, there always will be variation in the export's of particular items, comparing one year with another. One year there will be a larger wheat crop or a larger mineral output or a larger fishery export. But to reassure my hon. friend, let me show him that our export trade has recovered itself in the other lines. He will be glad to know in the eight months of the present year, ending February, 1902, our exports increased by $9,000,000 over the same period last year, and while they increased to this extent, there was a decrease in the products of the mines to which the hon. gentleman made particular effort. The increases are in these lines :
The fisheries	$3,000,000
Products of the	forests	 1,000,000
Animals and their products- and
agricultural products	 7,000,000
Manufactures	 1,000,000
The foreign trade of Canada, Sir, is something of which we may be proud. Compare it with that of older and stronger nations,

and we have reason to congratulate ourselves. Tlie per capita export trade of Denmark is $27.67 ; of the German empire, $17.88 ; of France, $19.53 ; of Austria-Hungary, $8.44 ; of tlie United States. $18.27 ; Great Britain, $34.67 ; Canada, $32.51. Canada, therefore, stands next to Great Britain, within two dollars per head, and its export trade exceeds that of the United States by nearly two dollars to one.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: And it does not grow half as fast.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I expect that it will grow faster in proportion.


Bennett Rosamond: You are a long time expecting it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: As a business man. my hon. friend will agree with me that the more people we can bring into this country as settlers in the west, for instance, the better it will be for our manufacturing industries in the east. No doubt one of the great secrets of the success and prosperity of the American manufacturers was the great immigration that came to their shores in years gone by, when they might be said, to use a figure of speech, almost to have annexed the foreign market to their own by bringing the people there. That is a state of things which, we believe, is about to take place in Canada, and which will immensely benefit our manufacturing industries by furnishing them with a vastly increased market in our western territory.
But the great feature of our policy, compared with that of hon. gentlemen opposite, is the preferential tariff. We take credit to ourselves for that tariff, and I note that while our friends opposite may attack it in an underhand way, they have not ventured to ask by resolution for its repeal. True that is embodied in the spirit of their amendment, but is not openly stated. The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Ken-drey) came out last night plainly on the subject. He said that he was opposed to this preference. Some other gentlemen opposite have also expressed their disapproval of it, but they have not moved to abolish it except in a very covert way in the resolution before the House. What has been the effect of that preference ? In the first place, it has been one of the great causes of reducing the taxation on the people. I am not going into details, but to give you a test which any man can apply for himself. Take the Trade and Navigation returns for 1896 and 1901, divide the amount of duties by the value of the articles imported, and what will you find ? I am not taking individual items but general lines of goods, of which we import tens of millions of dollars. Take, for instance, iron and steel manufactures, under the tariff of 1896, they paid $25.65 per $100. Under the preferential tariff that has been reduced to $11.56. Take woollen goods, in the tariff of 1896, they paid $31.71 per $100 and that has been reduced to $23.


James Clancy: How much of the iron goods came in under the preferential tariff?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am dealing in great general lines. I have the figures showing the special reductions made on a long list of implements used by the farmer, but these have been given to the House before, and I do not want to repeat them. I am simply dealing with great lines of goods and taking the aggregate duties paid. Take the item of woollens, you know the millions of dollars worth that we import of this line of goods, the duty has been reduced from $31.71 per $100 to $23. Then take cottons, they paid $28.53 under the Conservative tariff of 1895, but under our preferential tariff they come in at the rate of $20.43 per $100. Earthenware and chinaware paid $30.20 per $100 in 1896 and now they only pay $20.02. On manufactures of flax, hemp and jute the duty has been reduced by the preferential tariff from $22.25 in 1896 down to $18. But let me give tlie items tabulated :
Articles.	Average rate of duty under Conservative Tariff on importations of 1896.	Average rate of \ duty on importations under Preferential Tariff, 1901.Iron or steel manufactures....	25'65	11-56Woollen goods	3P71	23-Cottons 	28-53	20-43Earthenware and chinaware...	30-20	20 02Manufactures of flax, hemp and	jute	22 25	18-Glass and manufactures of....	25-60	17 nHats, caps and bonnets	30 00	20 00Gloves and mitts . .. . 	35 00	23 33Leather and manufactures of. .	20 11	1070
I call your attention further to this fact that, in ail these lines that I have mentioned, Great Britain is an active competitor with the United States and with other countries. And any business man knows that if there are large importations of these same articles from the United States under a tariff of 30 or 35 per cent and also large importations under the preference from Great Britain, the Canadian consumer gets his goods from the American producer at the same price as the English goods, and that the public treasury receives hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in duties besides.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) tell the House how much reduction has been made on the iron goods coming from the United States because of the preference given to imports from Great Britain at the same time ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: As a business man-or one who was a business man-I can tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. COMMONS
Clancy) this, that if a gentleman representing an English house offered me an article in which 1 was dealing, quoting a certain figure, and an American commercial traveller also offered me a precisely similar line of goods-of course, supposing that the circumstances were equal, that is for instance, that I was not in a hurry, and therefore was not compelled to get the goods from the United States, the transport being quicker-I would add to the price quoted the preferential duty and the freight from England, and also the general duty and the freight from the United States, and, if the price quoted by the Englishman plus freight and duty, came to less than the price offered by the American, plus freight and duty, I would tell the drummer from the American house :	I can get these goods
cheaper from England, though you offer the same price at your factory as they do ; and, if the American did not lower his price, I would buy the goods from England. My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) shakes his head. He would buy the Yankee's goods and pay more for them. Hon. gentlemen opposite say this tariff has done no good to England. But their speeches contradict one another. They say the imports from Great Britain are damaging some of the industries of this country.


William Rees Brock: Does the hon. gentleman deny it ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: 
Mr. LENNOX.: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? In the matter of woollen goods, if you imposed a higher duty, would you not also assist the farmer ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I do not know. But I do trust that this government, in all its legislation, will not lose sight of the interests of the farmer, and I feel sure that they will not. Of course, there are differing views expressed on this side. You cannot get in the Liberal party- I doubt if you could get in the Conservative party-all men to think alike on these questions. I can understand a man being a Liberal and believing that the best way to raise the revenues of this country would Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
be to follow as closely as we might the British method of taxation, yet being frank enough to admit that the conditions of the country are not such as to make that the most advantageous system for the present time for us ; and, for the present he may move with the party that most nearly agrees with the view's he holds. I can understand a man holding Liberal views, a man who thinks for himself, and favouring the policy that was stated the other night by the hon. senior member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall). That hon. gentleman said that it would be better to have absolute free trade, to wipe out the customs and excise, and raise all the revenue by what is called the single tax, the tax on land values, the tax that would take for public purposes what is called the unearned increment or community value of the land- the value added to farms in the Northwest by incoming settlers and by extending the railways, and so with other lands. But that hon. gentleman himself admits that he is not prepared to advocate that as a means of raising the tariff at the present time, and says that he is content with a tariff framed on the lines of the present tariff and with the care that has been shown in arranging it. I can understand men taking such position as I have suggested, but some of the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite I do not understand. I cannot understand hon. gentlemen arguing that a preferential arrangement with Great Britain has done no good to Great Britain, and that, at the same time 'the vast imports from that country are ruining the interests of Canada. These are absolutely contradictory positions and cannot be reconciled.


George Taylor: The goods are made in Germany.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is a statement that has been reiterated in this House. The hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Kendrey) urged this very strongly upon us last night. If there are goods made in Germany coming in under the British preference, they are coming in contrary to the desire and intention of this government. And I tell hon. gentlemen opposite that the Prime Minister has asked me to go


William Rees Brock: Has not the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson), in his tariff directly made provision for that, by providing that goods made in Germany or elsewhere may come in under the preference, if 25 per cent of the labour employed in producing them was English labour ? Does not this give a preference 'on 75 per cent to Germany ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I was about to say that I trust that any representations made to this government are received with all the consideration they deserve. I take it that the Finance Minister

and myself, owing to the departments over which we preside, are brought in contact with the business interests of this country not with the manufacturers alone-pore than are other members of the administration. I think hon. gentlemen will give my colleague and myself credit for having endeavoured to give the utmost attention to all representations that have been made to us. I certainly do not believe that any man can sit quietly back in his chair and, out of his own inner consciousness, verify all the complex conditions of business in this age Therefore I am delighted to avail myself of all the information I can get from deputations, come with regard to what subject they may. It may be said that the manufacturers come to us oftener than others do. But 1 can assure our agricultural friends that they have good representatives in this House. I have listened to those representatives with the utmost attention, as they have pointed out difficulties that seemed to them to exist, and how they could be best removed. Wherever I have been able to get any information from a member from British Columbia or any other province as to how the prosperity of this country could be enhanced consistently with the general interests, I have been delighted to avail myself of that information. And, because there has been no action of the government in the direction that, perhaps, some gentlemen could have desired, that does not prove that attention has not been given to representations made. It must be remembered that, as has been pointed out by a previous speaker, when we have the actual results of the census showing the production of the various industries ot this country, we shall be in a position to determine much more accurately what increases and decreases have taken place in production. When hon. gentlemen have made representations to me about goods coming in from Germany, I have tried to find out the actual facts. So far, I have not found that these statements have been verified. But, as I have said, the first minister has asked me if I would go to England this summer with one or two of my colleagues to take part in the trade conference. If I should go, one of the reasons that would tempt me-for I have no love of the ocean-will be the hope that I shall be able to learn for myself the facts with regard to this matter which has been pressed upon my attention of foreign made goods coming in under the English preference. All I can say is that if 1 should find that is the case, I will lay the matter before my colleagues; and I can tell the hon. gentlemen opposite that if if it should be found to be the case, it is possible for the government to act in that matter without the intervention of parliament, as parliament has sufficient confidence in the government to entrust them with determining what proportion of English labour should be put upon the goods
to enable them to enter under that tariff.
I was remarking that hon. gentlemen opposite have objected that it was a fraud upon England. Now, is it not a waste of time in this House for any gentleman to take that line of argument ? If the English people are pleased with it, why do hon. gentlemen opposite worry over it ? Can they produce any testimony from any English source that the English people regard this tariff as a fraud upon them ? I defy them to do it. If, on the other hand, they were to challenge me to produce evidence from public print and from personal testimony as to the value placed upon it in England, it would not trouble me to give article upon article and testimony upon testimony. Therefore, I do not see why our hon. friends opposite should trouble themselves on that ground.
I desire to refer to one remark that was made by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), I think, it was, in regard to an industry which he specified, and I think his remark has been quoted by some of his friends opposite. He said that capital was being withheld from investment in this country for want of a declared policy of adequate protection. Now, I would ask where is there any evidence to prove that V Tlie hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) who addressed the House last night, asked the same question. I remember, however, that the hon. member for East Grey said that capital was being withheld in the matter of the erection of sugar factories, because we would not give a bounty upon sugar. I think the hon. member for Both-well (Mr. Clancy) will bear testimony that one or two factories are going up in his own riding. Out in Alberta and the Northwest Territories, there has been a contract entered into by Mr. Jesse Knight, a wealthy man from Salt Lake City, with the Northwest Irrigation Company, in which he bound himself under a deposit of $50,000 which he has placed in the hands of that company, to be forfeited if he does not finish the construction of a beet root factory costing not less than $300,000. That is an answer to the hon. gentlemen who attempt to bring up specific instances of capital being withheld from this country.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman permit me ? Did not the sugar interest make application to the hon. gentleman for assistance ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Well, I have no doubt they did. Yes, they did, but nevertheless they are going on with the erection of the factory. And I would remark to my hon. friend that if the factory is started, as it is about to be started, without that extra assistance, it stands on a stronger foundation when it does not depend upon tariff props than if it did. because public sentiment may change in reference to the tariff, and anything that is built upon the tariff alone is not as stable

as if it stood upon its own merits. So I say that, compelled as we are to raise a revenue by a tariff, and a tariff that I believe is right, a revenue not only to carry on the ordinary machinery of the government but one that *will give us millions of dollars that we can expend on public works to the benefit of all portions of the community, I say a tariff such as that must impose a large percentage of taxation on certain lines of goods, and there is no doubt it will be an advantage to those who are engaged in the manufacture and production of those goods. That has been the case under the operation of the present tariff which these hon. gentlemen say is their old national policy, so much protection do they find, or seek to find, in the tariff we have at the present time. Sir, there will be a special advantage to some persons where you levy duties, there can be no doubt of that; but when we were told to reduce the taxation and to reform the tariff, we were instructed to do so without working any injustice to any class of the community. And, Sir, I can appeal to this country, I can appeal to the prosperity of all sections of it, if in the tariff in its present shape, though I do not claim it is perfect by any means, we have not succeeded in framing a scale of duties that are on the whole satisfactory to the people of this country. I am quite sensible to the fact that changes take place in the trade conditions of a country, I am sensible to the fact that changes take place in other countries. New devices, combinations may I term them, may spring up, and policies may have to be altered. In that case changes may have to be made in the light of what has transpired. We have a notable instance of that in England at the present time. England for years, from Gladstone's time away down, refused to move when the Germans, French and Belgians were making a slaughter market of England for their sugar. English public men held that if foreigners would tax themselves to give the British people cheap sugar, the British people would accept it. And so it went on until the government, seeing that one of then- possessions in the West "indies was suffering under this unfair competition, has taken the step of using their in-huence, 0f making almost a threat, to compel these people to withdraw their system of slaughtering sugar, even though it means an increased expense to the users of sugar m the British Empire. I recognize these tacts. I recognize that there are immense tiusts and combinations formed upon the other side of the line, and it has been reported to me that the design and avowed object of some of these immense corporations is to crush out any industry in this country producing goods like their own. and after they have succeeded in crushing out such industry, then they will raise their prices and make the peopie pay. These things demand consideration, inquiry, that Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
we may arrive at a knowledge of the facts. I am not insensible that changes take place in trade and commerce, nor do I be-lieye that my colleagues or our friends on this side of the House, are insensible to changing conditions. I believe the hon members on this side of the House, having had confidence in us in the past, will continue their confidence until, by our declared policy-which must be a declared policy if aQy, changes are made and laid on the fable-they will then judge us, and I think they will continue to give us their confidence unless they feel that we have proved ourselves untrustworthy.
Sir, I wish only to add in conclusion, that I recognize the value of every man to this country. It is no part of the government's duty to legislate in favour of one man as against another. I recognize that different pursuits are followed by different sections of the community; I recognize the value of our manufacturing institutions. I do not lay the stress that some do upon the importance of the comparatively few individuals who own the capital by which these institutions are run; I lay much more stress upon the hundreds, and thousands, and tens of thousands of artisans that work in these factories ; and I recognize the fact that every man who labours in this country is producing wealth, and his labour is a source of wealth to others as well as himself.
I say then that he is a valuable member of this community. I recognize that the farmer, the miner, the fisherman and the lumberman are all producers of wealth, and that, under the tariff there are advantages given that cannot perhaps particularly benefit these classes, but when expenditures to which the whole people contribute are made for cheapening the cost of transportation, when we pay out money to enable the miner, the farmer, the fisherman, or the lumberman to reach his markets and to produce more cheaply, then, I sav he is benefited. Under the tariff the class least benefited is the class of hardy fishermen whose case I have alluded to. In their case I should say that in the expenditure of public money, if there can be means found by which these men can have advantages greater than they enjoy at the present time it would be only justice in their case that that expenditure should be made, as I believe it is in the case of every section and in the interest of the whole country, because our interests are so intertwined one with another, that care being exercised and fairness being given effect to, you cannot benefit one portion of the community without you benefit every other individual member of that community in a greater or less extent.
I see that the hon. leader of the opposition is in his place and I would like to say a word in regard to the resolution that he asks this House to adopt. I would ask him if, when the right hon. Prime Minister of this country, goes over to engage with the repre-

sentatives from different parts of the empire and from other colonies in the trade congress, which is to be held in London, this resolution embodies the instructions of the opposition to the Prime Minister as to the course he is to take at that conference. As X understand the resolution by the ' adequate protection ' which hon. gentlemen call for, they have gone beyond their national policy. Some goods did come in under that policy, but we have had interpreted by thejr speeches, that by this ' adequate protection ' they want us to declare that it will never be adequate until it absolutely prohibits any goods coming into Canada from any other country. The issue is clear between the parties. They believe in absolutely prohibiting all goods coming in and therefore prohibiting all the revenue from that source. We stand for a revenue tariff.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The laughter of hon. gentlemen-I was going to say, but it would be unkind-is like the crackling of thorns. I will not make the comparison for the hon. gentleman knows what Solomon says, but to laugh at our tariff being a revenue tariff that produces $30,000,000 as against $17,000,000 as in times past is really something to be wondered at. While there may be some amendments, and amendments must take place in a tariff, though there has been stability in this and stability is a great thing in the tariff, while, as I have said, there may be some change the change will not be the introduction of a tariff that absolutely prohibits all goods that we can produce in Canada coming into Canada from any other country. There is no other meaning to be taken from the resolution of the hon. gentleman. The speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite have enlarged upon it. The hon. leader of the opposition himself said that the tariff should be put at least as high as the tariff of the United States is against us, but the amendment goes even further than that. This adequate protection will only be adequate when it keeps out all goods that we can produce in Canada, and I suppose they will put it up notch by notch, keeping a continual state of uncertainty in the country until they get it up to the point at which they have killed any advantage that may be derived from it. What does the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) say :-
I hold that the tariff should be so arranged that, every institution in this country which is manufacturing goods to be consumed by the Canadian people should have sufficient protection to keep out the same class of goods made in any foreign country ; and I have no hesitation in saying that if that country should be England1, the policy of Canada should be framed in the interest of the Canadian taxpayer as against people who are producing the same class of gcods even in the old1 country under the same flag.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Hon. gentlemen say hear, hear. Our policy would be to make everything we can in this country except such things as we do not produce, and allow no foreign goods to come in.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: What I have to ask the hon. gentleman is this : Your tariff is prohibitory. By the resolution it is prohibitory. There is no doubt about it, and while you declare for preferential trade you declare for it on such terms that as far as Canada is concerned the Prime Minister of this country will be placed in this position. We will suppose that negotiations are opened with the object of seeing what arrangement can be made. The Prime Minister, we will suppose, will say : We want your products and we want to sell you our products, such as agricultural products, so that our farmers can get a preference. Very well. What do you propose to give us in return ? We are now making a bargain. The Prime Minister will say : My instructions from the opposition are that we are going to give you a reduced rate on anything that you produce which we do not. Then the Englishman will probably, and he will inevitably ask : What do we produce in this country that you do not produce over your way ? I would like the hon. leader of the opposition to write out a list of those products for the guidance of the Prime Minister. I know of nothing that is produced in England that is not or cannot be produced in this country under adequate protection. Sir, the amendment of the Opposition in respect to preferential trade is very similar to the position said to have been taken by parties in the United States. They professed to be ready for reciprocity, and if the report be true, their idea was to get an open market for their products in foreign countries, in return for which they offered to lower their customs duties on only such articles as would not interfere in the slightest degree with their own industries. Considering the fact that the United States manufactures almost everything required for consumption, it seems to me that an offer like that was an insulting offer. It looks to me that men who could really propose that virtually say to all other nations of the world that they must be foolish. What will England think of Canada if we go over there, make an offer for preferential trade on the lines laid down in the hon. gentleman's resolution, ask her to give a preference to our products in her market and announce at the same time that we will maintain a tariff here that will absolutely prohibit the introduction of a dollar's worth of goods ? That is the effect of their amendment, that is what they propose and to that amendment I believe hon. gentlemen on this side of the House will not give their adhesion. I fain would hope



for their own sakes, that gentlemen on the other side of the House will recognize the position in which they have placed themselves, and withdraw that resolution, and not insist on a vote being taken.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.


James Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I would indeed toe deceiving myself were I to think for a moment that I could add anything new to what has already been so ably said on this question by hon. gentlemen on tooth sides of the House. 1 must even ask the indulgence of the House for directing the attention of hon. gentlemen at any length however brief to the question before us at this late state of the debate. I was much struck with the opening remarks of the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson). He commenced by saying that for a debate to be valuable and to be worthy of proper consideration, the facts presented in the discussion should be presented with exactness. To that we can all subscribe. I had hoped that I might be able to congratulate the Minister of Customs ion having at least fairly adhered to that principle, but I am afraid that I cannot extend my congratulations to him in that regard. He gave us a very lengthy disquisition upon a great many subjects, but the House must conclude that they were largely composed of apologies, rather than directed to a vigorous defence of the government. From the commencement to the end, his speech was an apology for the conduct of the government of the day. The first task he set himself to was to try to prove that the population of Canada had vastly increased since the advent of the Liberal party to power. He told us that he would not attempt any discussion as to whether the census had been stuffed in 1891, or whether it had been underestimated in 1901, and the hon. gentleman has saved his reputation to some extent in avoiding that unpleasant discussion, and leaving that unsavoury task to others of his friends. As an evidence of the increase of our population he told us that there has been an increase in trade, an increase in exports, an increase in the deposits dn the banks, an increase in the discounts, an increase in the amount of freight carried, an increase in the earnings of the railways, an increase in the immigration, an Increase of settlers effects brought in, an increase in the number of letters passing through the mail, an increase in the sales of land in Manitoba and the North-west. Let us test that. Let us see about the increase of immigration and the sales of lands in the North-west. I have here the evidence given under oath by Mr. Pedley, superintendent of immigration, and he says :
The land sales that took place during the last fifty years in Manitoba and the North-west were
Hon. Mr. PATERSON,
as follows :	The Hudson Bay Co., sold 82,308
acres ; the railway companies sold 538,719 acres; the half-breed scrip or land sold under the authority of it, 231,076 acres ; lands sold by the department, 91,539 acres or in ajll 943,076 acres of land sold under these circumstances stated. Iu connection with rbhe sum of $400,000 spent on immigration, Mr. Pedley was asked if he could Identify a single person who was brought in by the Immigration Department and who was connected iin the remotest sense with an acre of that land, and Mr. Pedley answered, no. I now ask the Minister of Customs if he will look into the evidence given toy Mr. Pedley, and if he does he will see that his whole defence of the immigration expenditure toy the government was refuted long before he spoke this afternoon.
But 1 want to point to another thing. The hon. gentleman, in trying to show the economy and thriftiness of this government, claimed that although they were collecting a large sum of money from the people, yet after all the people did not pay it. That is rather a new doctrine-that money can be taken out of ttoe pockets of the people, and yet they do not pay it. He gave us some instances of the economy of the government in connection with the different services, particularly in the cost of collecting the revenues of his own department. He told ns that in 1894 it had cost this country 5Y3 per cent to collect the customs revenue, vhich is quite correct. Then he said that for the year 1901 it had only cost 3 86 per cent. That is quite time too. But the hon. gentleman held that the cost had been lowered to that extent by reason of the economy and efficiency of the government. Now, I ask the hon. gentleman if that is a fair conclusion. I ask him if it is not the case in his own business, as in every other, where in these days of keen competition every penny must be turned to the best account, that a large establishment can be carried on more cheaply than one conducted on a smaller scale ? And is there any rule that obtains with regard to the collecting of customs revenue that does not obtain in regard to every large and small business in this country ? The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that there was no necessity of Increasing the officers in many cases when the revenue doubled. The hon. gentleman knows that customs collectors are not a class of men who are overworked. He knew very well that the comparison he made was not a fair comparison. But the hon. gentleman went further than that. He selected the year 1894. Why did he select that year? The hon. gentleman told us at the outset that we ought to be fair, and 1 am sure be thinks he is fair. He selected the year 1894 because it was the most unfavourable year he could find In the 18 years of Conservative rule. If the hon. gentleman looks In his own report, he will find that In the last year the Mackenzie government was in power, the expenditure was $5.56 for every $100 of

revenue collected. The hon. gentleman may search in vain during the 18 years of Conservative rule until he comes to the year 1894 to find as large an expenditure compared with the revenue. That is a sample of the hon. gentleman's fairness. Has the hon. gentleman told the whole truth to the country ? Has he done himself justice in taking a position of that kind ? I do not think he has. The hon. gentleman thought we ought to be very candid and very decided about criticising generally the expenditure of the government of the day. He told us our duty was to point out the items to which we objected. If we were opposed to any items, we ought to move against them, and if we failed to do that, we were not doing our duty-in other words, we were quite insincere. Now, I ask the hon. gentleman if he wishes to lay down one rule of conduct for the opposition and another for the government with regard to criticising expenditures, and taking action, by vote or voice, against any that are objected to. I do not think the hon. gentleman will do so. I wish to point out that the hon. gentleman sat for 18 years in this House without moving a single resolution to reduce a single item of expenditure under the Conservative government. Was he sincere in his criticism of its items ? Was he doing his duty during that period ? Was he open to censure, as he would give it to be understood we are open to censure, for not having moved against the items he objected to ? If the charge is good against us in this ease, it is more than good against him for his own conduct during those 18 years. But somebody may say, although the hon. gentleman himself did not move against what they call extravagant expenditures it was done by his friends. I suppose that would be the hon. gentleman's answer. Now, I happen to have under my hand a list of the items of expenditure which the Liberal opposition moved against during the whole period of 18 years during which the Conservative party , were in office, and we will see what they were. In 1879 the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) proposed to make a reduction of $70,000 in the expenditure for civil government. In 1880 no objection was taken. In 1881 they were silent ; they did not move any resolution. In 1882 Mr. Mills proposed a reduction of $8,000 being payment for damages to a steamer known as the U. C. Upper. In 1883 no resolution was moved against the expenditure; in 1884 no resolution ; in 1885 no resolution ; in 1886 no resolution ; in 1887 no resolution ; in 1888 no resolution. In 1889 the present Minister of Trade and Commerce moved that the vote for Manitoba penitentiaries be reduced by $10,526. In the same year Mr. McMullen moved that the vote for Past Pictou river improvement be reduced by $500. In the same year, Sir Louis Davies, a late member of this government, 744 moved, that the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway be reduced by $200,000. Mark the reasons given for the reduction : because the railway carried coal from Spring Hill mine at less than cost and created a deficit of $368,000. In the same year the present Minister of Trade and Commerce moved that a vote for the Department of the Interior be reduced by $95,748. Mr. Som-merville, in the same year, moved that a vote of $195,135 be reduced by $50,000 because Mr. Henry Smith, who was formerly a member of the House, and Mr. W. A. Webster, who was immigration agent, had not furnished correct dates for their services. In the same year, Mr. McMullen moved that the salary of C. C. Chapman be reduced by $2,300 or left out.


Samuel Hughes: Who was that Mr. McMullen.


James Clancy: A gentleman recently appointed to the Senate of Canada. In the year 1890 no resolution was moved by hon. gentlemen opposite. Nor was any moved in 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895 and 1896. Therefore, this hon. gentleman who took the opposition to task this afternoon for not having moved any resolution, has in the same breath condemned himself and his colleagues in the past. Why, Mr. Speaker, during the whole period of eighteen years, in which there was an expenditure to the extent of $603,000,000 in round numbers, these gentlemen only objected in the irregular way I have mentioned, to $447,000 of it, I would ask the hon. gentleman to say now whether in view of the opinion he has given to this House, that he and his friends properly discharged their duties in the past. The duty of the opposition, sir, in this House and out of it, is not what the hon. gentleman gave us this afternoon to understand it was. That is an old trick resorted to in the back country school houses, but he knows perfectly well that the opposition put themselves sufficiently on record when they rise and criticise the various expenditures as they are submitted to the House. Would he not be quite ready himself to take advantage of any speech made in this House on any item of expenditure ? Would he not name the member who made that speech and call him to answer for his conduct, if the item was not one which should be criticised ? It would be for the opposition an impossible task to call for a division on every item of expenditure to which they object. If such a practice were resorted to, it would take up our whole time, and we would not be able to do anything else. If that were the only means the opposition of the day had of putting on record their objections to any item of expenditure (which they considered wrong, why. the whole session would be taken up in division.

The hon. gentleman has given, as an evidence of the increase in population, the increase in trade, the increase in exports and bank deposits and discounts and railway freights and railway earnings and settlers' effects, and letters and lands and so on. Let me say that there can be no room for discussion of the fact that we are enjoying a period of expansion. The opposition of to-day have no desire to imitate the conduct of hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in this side. We do not care to decry Canada as these hon. gentlemen were wont to do even in periods of great expansion. I challenge any one of them to show any instance in which they put themselves on record, even in periods of great prosperity, by a single sentence giving credit to Canada for being prosperous and progressive, Neither the hon. gentleman nor any of his colleagues can be accused of having given utterance to a single sentence on behalf of their country. Their cry was always to the opposite effect. Well, we do not propose to imitate a policy of that kind. We frankly admit that Canada is making great progress. But we say that in that respect Canada cannot be singled out from any other civilized country. It is an undeniable fact that the whole world is passing through a period of great expansion and prosperity. But we deny that Canada is enjoying the prosperity which she should under the circumstances. I deny that Canada is as well off as she might be if her affairs were properly conducted. Hon. gentlemen opposite take great credit to themselves for our prosperity, but everybody knows that in 1890, before they came into office, a change began to make itself felt. They knew perfectly well that the betterment began in 1896, not only in Canada, but throughout the civilized world. Our customers began to buy from us, prices advanced, we have had good crops, and indeed have enjoyed everything that can contribute to the advancement of our country. And in (that respect we are not alone, but the whole world in general has shared a corresponding advance in prosperity. These hon. gentlemen came into power when the whole commercial world started to move, and they went with it. They got on the merry-go-round and have been riding on it ever since, and seem to labour under the delusion that they were running the whole world. They appear to believe that they have made Canada. But let me tell them that it would have been impossible for them even with all their efforts-and they did their best- to stem the tide of prosperity that has come upon Canada and the world in general. I do not propose to dwell therefore on a subject that is not open to discussion, namely, whether we are enjoying a period of great prosperity or not. On that question both sides are agreed. But the question now fairly open for discussion is whether these hon. gentlemen have made proper use of Mr. CLANCY.
their opportunities, whether they are conducting the affairs of Canada as they should be administered, taking into consideration the great advantages we are enjoying.
The hon. Minister of Finance gave us, at the outset, his forecast for the coming yeaf, just as last year he gave us a similar forecast. Let me call his attention to this fact, that in not one instance last year were his previsions correct. Take, for instance, the first item. He estimated our revenue at $52,750,000 and it turned out to be but $52,574,000 or $235,299 short of his prediction. The expenditure on consolidated revenue he estimated at $46,400,000, but the actual expenditure was $46,866,000 or nearly half a million dollars in excess. Then take his estimate of expenditure on capital account, he put that at $10,700,000, whereas the actual expenditure was $11,116,000, or an excess over his estimate of $416,499. I now come to the estimated surplus, in which he disappointed the people although he has taxed them highly. That is not nearly what he said it would be. He estimated that at $6,330,000, but it actually was only $5,648,000 or $701,667 less than his estimate. Then he predicted what the increase of the public debt would amount to.
And he said that would be $1,800,000. And how much did he state the increase to have been ? Not $1,800,000 as he stated it would be, but $2,986,000, or $1,186,000 more than he had estimated. If his figuring is not more correct than that of last year, the House and the country need repose tout little confidence in his predictions. He said that in the coming year we shall have a revenue of $58,500,000. And he estimates an expenditure on consolidated revenue account of $51,000,000 and, on capital account of $14,250,000. He estimates a surplus on consolidated revenue fund of $5,800,000, and an increase-and this is where the charm of the surplus is felt by the people-an increase in the public debt of $6,000,000. I propose toi deal with that branch of the subject somewhat later on. In the meantime I wish to say a word about the tariff. The hon. Minister of Customs took a good deal of pains to show the House that the people were paying less taxes now than in 1896. I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. gentleman, and, if I am not correct I would like him to give his dissent now. I understood him to say that the people are now paying less in taxes than in 1896.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: At a less rate.


James Clancy: Then, my hon. friend qualifies it by making it a matter of rate.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am not modifying it, tout telling the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) what I said.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman makes a distinction between taking millions out of

the pockets of the people and the rate of assessment upon which his taxes are levied. I am glad to understand the distinction he makes, because it is important. Now, when hon. gentlemen opposite were in opposition they were in favour of what they called a revenue tariff. The Minister of Customs read this afternoon a resolution adopted by the Liberal party in 1893-or rather he read a portion of it. But here is the concluding part of that resolution, which will live as long as the Liberal party lives and tariffs are to be dealt with in Canada :
We denounce the principle of protection as radically unsound, and unjust to the masses of the people, and we declare our conviction that any tariff changes based on that principle must fail to afford any substantial relief from the burdens under which the country labours.
This issue we unhesitatingly accept, and upon it we await with the fullest confidence the verdict of the electors of Canada.
Does the hon. gentleman stand by that now 7 They will not stand by it, for they have been alarmed by the public sentiment of this country. They know that they must give the people a measure of protection, and that they must give a better measure of protection than would be given as an incident of a revenue tariff. But a revenue tariff and the protection incidental to it were what they declared for in unmistakable terms. Let me see what the Prime Minister said on this very subject. Speaking at Elmira, on the 24th of October, 1895, according to the ' Globe ' the right hon. gentleman said :
This is the platform on which we stand. We want the revenue to he raised by customs, but we do not want to have a revenue to be raised to have extravagant expenditure such as we hr ve, but simply to take from the pockets of the people only what is necessary to have economical, honest and efficient government.
When the right hon. gentleman made that speech, the amount being taken from the people was $42,000,000. He called public attention to this, and deplored it as a great burden of taxation. But to-day he is taking $57,000,000 out of the pockets of the people. Is it a revenue tariff which takes $57,000,000 instead of $42,000,000 out of the pockets of the people ? It is not a revenue tariff; it is a taxation tariff. The Prime Minister went further on that occasion :
This we denounce as an invasion of the rights of the people. I take this issue with the Conservative party. They believe in taxation to build up the country

That is very true. We do believe in so levying the taxes as to build up the country.
-we hold that taxation is an evil

Hon. gentlemen opposite do not seem to bold taxation to be an evil now. They all revel In at, as the Minister of Customs did this afternoon, when he told us that lie bad no apologies to make for it, but approved It.
-a very necessary evil if you will, but an evil that nothing will justify except the necessity of raising the revenues of the country and nothing else. We of the Liberal party lay down the principles that taxation is talcing away from a man a portion of h:s earnings, and we say that every man has a right and an absolute right to his own earnings and to dispose of it as he thinks fit.
Are they carrying this out 7 The Prime Minister went on :
We stand here against protection, in favour of a customs tariff based on the principle of revenue and nothing else.
Then we have the familiar speeches of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), but I will not trouble the House with them, they have already been embalmed in ' Hansard.' All will remember that that hon. gentleman denounced protection as a fraud and a robbery. Then we have the hon. Minister of Customs who made a speech at Harristown, which I find reported in the ' Globe ' of 14th of November, 1895. In that speech, the bon. gentleman said :
There has been an indirect taxation that has been paid that does not go into the treasury at all hut has gone to the support and maintenance of the industries of the country. I do not say and I do not claim that in all cases the amount of the duties is added to the article by the manufacturer who manufactured that article in the country, but it would be more than folly for any man to say that under a protection system the man who purchases home-made goods does not pay more than he would have to pay if there was free competition. What is protection put on for? It seems to me that it is a waste of time to talk about it in any other respect than that.
The hon. gentleman made a speech in London a few days before this, in which he made a reference to himself. I know the bon. minister's delicacy, and I realize how embarrassing it must have been to him on that occasion to make any reference to him-, self, and it is with equal delicacy that 1 refer to anything having relation to the hon. gentleman's own personal business. He was speaking to a large and Intelligent audience. He said :
What I want you to consider when you go home

He was speaking to all classes of consumers, he was speaking to the taxpayers of the country, whom he had been teaching that the system of protection was a wrong one and ought to be changed, he was pointing out its evils, and he gave an example. What was that example :
What I want you to consider when you go home is whether a law passed by the Tory government and placed on the statute-book, that made Paterson rich, has made you not rich, or some of you even poorer than you were before. Whether that is a just law or not and one that should be continued ?
Would you not expect, Mr. Speaker, that the

first thing that gentleman would do on coming into power would be to remove that stigma from himself ? Would you not expect that the hon. gentleman would take the first opportunity to wipe out a statute which gave the business in which he was concerned a large measure of protection ? Your surprise will be, Sir. that the hon. gentleman did nothing of the kind. That hon. gentleman does not want any protection, and yet-I do not say this in any offensive sense to the hon. gentleman-the hon. gentleman made use of that language to point out to the people that there ought to be a reduction in taxation, that the manufacturers had a large share of protection to which the hon. gentleman declared they Were not entitled. He selected his own case, and he declared this was an unjust law and ought to be removed from the statute-book. I ask him when he is going to remove that law from the statute-book ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Did the hon. gentleman say that I said it had made me rich ?


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman gave the inference to the public that lie was rich.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, no, tell the truth.


James Clancy: Very well, I will take the hon. gentleman on his own interpretation of his language. The hon. gentleman meant that it did not make him rich. If it did not make him rich, it did not make other manufacturers rich. The hon. gentleman has absolutely no means of escape.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon gentleman said I stated that it made me rich. 1 ask him if I said that ?


James Clancy: I will read it again.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I do not know where the hon. gentleman got his garbled extracts.


James Clancy: As I have already said, I am quoting from the ' Globe ' newspaper, I have given him the date, so I take it for granted the extract is an accurate report. This is what the hon. gentleman had to say :
What I want you to consider when you go home

Mark the words.

is whether a law passed by the Tory government-
Mark those words.

and placed on the statute-book, that made Paterson rich-


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: What preceded that, please ?


James Clancy: I will tell the hon. gentleman what succeeded it if he will wait a Mr. CLANCY.
moment. Wliat was the next sentence of the hon. gentleman ? It was an interrogation to the persons who were listening to him. What does be say ?

has made you not rich or some of you even
poorer than you were before. Whether that is a just law or not, and one that should be continued.
Is there any escape from the hon. gentleman's meaning on that occasion ? If the hon. gentleman wishes to revise it, I am quite willing.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: What is the date V


James Clancy: The ' Globe ' of the 5th of February, 1895.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I will look up the date, but I fancy the hon. gentleman will find that I was dealing with a statement made by a late colleague of his, Dr. Montague, that the national policy had made me rich, and on that I based the argument that if it had made me rich it should make them rich too. I did not say it made me rich.


James Clancy: Very well, I will take the hon. gentleman's own version of it. I will conclude that the hon. gentleman was not made rich, I will conclude that the hon. gentleman meant that Dr. Montague was wrong when he declared it had made him rich, I will conclude that when Dr. Montague included him with the other manufacturers as having benefited by the national policy, that he was wrong, and that he did not benefit by the national policy, and therefore the national policy was not taking money out of the pockets of the people. What was the hon. gentleman's contention on that very occasion ? It was that a large sum of money was being taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers of Canada, and that a great proportion of it never went into the public treasury, and therefore it was unjust taxation. Why was it unjust ? Because it made the people poorer by reason of the taxation, and for other reasons. I ask the hon. gentleman which of those two positions lie desires to choose; that he was telling the people things that were not true, or that I have been misrepresenting him. There is no escape from one of these two positions.
Then, we have the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). This hon. gentleman seemed to sing the same song during that period. It is very funny, Mr. Speaker, that during certain periods hon. gentlemen took a certain course and were generally pretty well agreed upon that course; but as soon as a turn of affairs came and it suited them to take another course, they did so. The hon. member for North Norfolk, speaking in the same campaign, said :
The farmer might rely upon this statement as being infallibly true, that no protective duty upon any product of which he raised a surplus

for export could Increase the price to the producer in Canada.
The hon. gentleman gave his views on that point. But he went further. He would level down everything, he was supporting the contention of the Minister of Customs and of the government of the day. I will quote what he said, and ask you to put it alongside the speech that he made here a few evenings ago :
Much has been said and still was said about making a slaughter market for cheap goods. In the interests of the consumer he was unable to see what evil consequences would result from buying articles we needed away below their value. He would advise every man to buy a dollar's worth of what he wanted for fifty cents if possible, and he had no hesitation in assuring him that the only party that wanted him to pay full prices would object to his having a chance to pick up bargains. Even if the importer of slaughtered invoices wanted to force goods upon him as a gift he could stand it. So far as the consumer is concerned, the cheaper he could buy goods the better, and the prejudice that was excited against permitting buyers to pick up bargains because some were living in the country, wanted to force sale at a ruinous sacrifice, was not a well founded one.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we had that hon. gentleman telling us a few days ago that we ought to have a defensive tariff. He told us that we could produce nearly all the goods that were brought in from abroad, and he gave the government a friendly warning of what he expected them to do in the future. That is the position of the hon. gentleman on the tariff. We know now about the difficulty of framing a tariff policy for the country. With the settled opinions as enunciated by the Liberal party in the past with regard to what their attitude is on the trade question, the government is placed in a difficult position; because the Minister of Customs does not dissent from the statement I made a moment ago that a revenue tariff and a revenue tariff alone, is suited for the interests of Canada, and that under what he calls a revenue tariff Canada has made great progress.
The Liberal party are pinned down to this position that their policy is a revenue tariff, and if there is any departure from that it is an evil. It is an evil to the extent which the hon. gentleman himself has said more than once in this House. The difference between the policies of the .two parties, as stated by the hon. gentleman on more than one occasion, is this : The policy of the Conservative party, as he states it, calls for a tariff that is protective. If any revenue comes from that tariff as an incident it must come as an incident because the principle is protective. The opposite to that is the position of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, namely, that their tariff is a revenue tariff and if any measure of protection arises from that revenue tariff as an incident the manufacturers and people of this country will have that protection to the extent of the incident and no more. I think I have correctly stated the positions of the two parties as understood by the hon. gentleman himself. They hold that every particle of protection that arises out of a revenue tariff as an incident is an evil. I would ask the hon. gentleman if he takes that position ? The hon. gentleman is opposed to every form of protection. It is well for us to understand the position of the two parties upon this great question. I ask the hon. gentleman, as he has set his face against protection in every form, if any protection arises from a revenue tariff as an incident, is it an evil ? Will the hon. gentleman answer ? I will sit down and ask the hon. gentleman to give an answer to the question because it is an important question.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We do not generally argue questions across the floor of the House. We make speeches. The hon. gentleman is not my catechist. Go on with your speech.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) tells me to go on with my speech. The hon. gentleman finds himself in difficulties. I tell the hon. gentleman that he and his party and his government, like every individual and everything that is started wrong, feels that he must play false to the end of the game The hon. gentleman is in a false position and he knows it perfectly well, namely, that when he enunciates the differences between the two parties he declares that the policy of the Liberal party is opposed to protection, and he tells the people that he grudgingly gives that protection which arises out of a revenue tariff as an incident ; yet, the hon. gentleman has not the courage to get up and deny the statement here this evening, that if any protection arises as an incident out of the revenue tariff it is not an evil to this country. I tell the hon. gentleman that he is a protectionist and that he dare not own it. The government of the day are doing things every day in regard to the tariff and other matters that they dare not own because they have been preaching other doctrines for many years. What is the difference between a revenue tariff and a protective tariff ? We frankly own that the object of the Conservative party in framing the protective tariff was to help the interests of Canada. We framed that tariff for the purpose of advancing the interests of this country. What is the difference between a protective and a revenue tariff ? One is a tax gathering tariff as the hon. gentleman admits it must be, and the other is a protective tariff. A protective tariff is the very opposite of a revenue tariff. What is the position of Canada to-day ? What is the position of every civilized country to-day ? We have a commercial war continually in progress between the civilized countries of the world. What are the weapons of defence that are used in the United

States, and wliat are the weapons of defence that should be used in Canada ? Are they not the tariff ? Does the hon. gentleman not throw them away when he refuses to use them and proposes to impose a dead weight upon Canada by means of a revenue tariff as he calls it ? Does he propose to throw away every weapon of defence we have against the United States? What does a protective tariff in Canada mean, and how is it viewed by the United States and by other countries ? Are not our tariff changes, as they affect the United States, a subject of great alarm ? They are, and properly so, because they affect the trade of that country and affect the rights of the people of that country to come in and take what belongs to the people of Canada. This is the only weapon that the people of any civilized country can use and it is the only weapon of defence that we have with which to protect the interests of the people of Canada. Yet, the hon. gentleman says we will give you just what protection you have as an incident. In every way he says protection is false and an evil, view it from whatever standpoint you may, and he will give you no protection. But the hon. gentleman is giving a large measure of protection, or rather, the hon. gentleman and his friends failed to take away, I am glad to say, the large measure of protection that was already given. In the whole revision of what the hon. gentleman calls the protectionist tariff, and which I admit was a protectionist tariff, less than 30 per cent of all the items were dealt with. Two-thirds of the items, I am glad to say, in the interest of the country, were not dealt with, but I regret to say that those that were changed were changed to the injury of Canada as a whole, as I shall be able to show later on. Now, one of the positions taken by' hon. gentlemen opposite in 1897 was this :	The
first thing the hon. gentlemen did was what we might have expected from a set of very intelligent gentlemen who .either never understood the trade of Canada or who put themselves in the position that they were not able to deal with it. In other words, the hon. gentlemen were shrinking from the consequence of their own conduct and teachings. The first thing that hon. gentlemen did was to introduce what they called a general tariff and a reciprocal tariff and they gave reciprocal advantages to every country in the world that was willing to take advantage of them. One year passed over and hon. gentlemen repented and repented with very great cost to Canada. Hon. gentlemen found themselves in a false position, namely, that they had undertaken a task that they could not perform, and when my hon. friend smiled when I said that the government of the day had either not studied the trade question of Canada, or that they had placed themselves in a false position to escape the difficulties of their past record, I will say to him that this Mr. CLANCY.
statement is perfectly true. After undertaking to have the Belgian and German treaties renounced they were obliged to forego the reciprocal advantages that they professed to give to the world at the outset. There are two conclusions to be drawn from this-either hon. gentlemen did not know what they were doing in 1897, or they were not honest in what they did in 1898. I will leave it to hon. gentlemen to take their choice if there is any choice in the matter.
What followed ? Why, Sir, the preference was given to Great Britain alone, and the outcome is that there is not one redeeming feature in the preferential tariff in so far as any benefit to the people of Canada is concerned. That is a very broad statement but it is as true as it is broad. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) attempted to show that some benefits did flow from the preferential tariff, but I tell him that a preference under any condition, even it were a reciprocal preference with Great Britain or with any other country, is a difficult thing to work out. I do not say that it is impossible to work it out ; I believe it is possible that it might be adjusted, but I say that the adjustment would be difficult. We cannot give England or any other country a preference without having to make two kinds of sacrifices. One is : That we must to some extent interfere with the industrial interests of Canada, and the other is : That we must relieve foreign importers from the duty which they would otherwise pay, and then the 'deficit has to be made up by taxation on the people of our own country. That would be the result even in the case of a mutual preference. But the government has made these sacrifices without obtaining a single iota of compensation in return for the people of Canada. In round numbers, customs duties have been removed to the extent of $2,000,000 last year by reason of the preferential tariff. I assert that the people of Canada have not benefited as a whole to the extent of a single dollar by that reduction. I am prepared to admit that some few persons in Canada may have been benefited, but the hon. Minister of Customs will not contend that we should have a tariff in Canada which benefits only a few, and in the benefits of which the people in general do [DOT]not participate. Any system of taxation is unjust under which the burdens are not fairly divided. Does the hon. gentleman say that the consumer in Canada pays one farthing less for his goods than he did before the preferential tariff was inaugurated ? Not at all. Every dollar saved in that way goes either to the wholesale man in England or to the wholesale man in Canada, and the consumer does not get a dollar out of it. We have lessened our revenue to that extent, and in one way or another the people of Canada will have to contribute the $2,000,000 which we have sacrificed, without receiving any compensa-

ti'on whatever. To that extent the preferential tariff is absolutely an injury to Canada. Let me point out that last year farm implements were' imported to the extent of nearly $2,000,000 on which was collected a duty of $388,000, and how much do you suppose the farmers of Canada- who in numbers represent one-half of the taxpayers-how much do you suppose they were relieved on that importation of $2,000,000. Well, they saved by the preference tariff the very magnificent sum of $2,493. That is the extent to which the preference helped our farmers.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) spoke about giving encouragement to the industries of Canada, and he said that with the exception of one, namely the woollen industry-with which he expressed his sympathy but which he made no effort to relieve- he knew of no other industry in Canada that was injuriously affected. But the hon. gentleman knows that liis attention has been called to numbers of industries that are injuriously affected ; some by reason of the preferential tariff and some by reason of the unwise changes which the hon. gentleman and his colleagues made in the tariff in 1897. Look at the refusal of this government to give any assistance to the beet sugar industry. The hon. gentleman told the House that two factories were being built in my constituency, that another was being built in the North-west, and that because these gentlemen had invested their money there was no reason to suppose that they needed assistance, and so the government refused them assistance. I can tell the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) that the fact that about $1,500,000 has been invested in the beet sugar industry in my constituency is no reason in the world why this industry should not be assisted by the government. He knows perfectly well that to a large extent the beet sugar business in Canada is an experiment. He knows it will be some time before that industry can be firmly established, and he ought know that during the period of its growth it should have encouragement from the government. The people from several districts came here and asked the government, either to increase the import duties on foreign sugar or to give assistance by way of bounty, but the government refused to give assistance in either way. The Minister of Customs invited the deputation to dinner and he gave them a stone to eat, and they have gone back home to live on that and to work out the difficult problem of carrying on their industry. It is quite true that two beet sugar factories are being built in my constituency, but I can tell the Minister of Customs that the people of that constituency have burdened themselves by giving immense municipal bonuses to encourage that industry. They have relieved these factories from taxation for many years, and although already overburdened
by taxation they assumed these responsibilities, hoping and believing that their efforts would be seconded by the government. In this they have been disappointed. That is the true position of the beet sugar industry in my county. Why was not the bept sugar industry given assistance as any other industry in the country ? I would like the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) to tell me, what is the difference between the sugar industry and the iron industry in Canada. Will any one tell me that there is a reason why there should be encouragement given in one instance and not in the other. For my part, I am utterly unable to see why both industries should not be treated in the same way.
It is another evidence of the false step hon. gentleman took in the past ; and what was it ? Why, Sir, with regard to the iron duties, they had been crying out from one end of Canada to the other for years that all the duties on iron ought to be taken off. That was the position of the Minister of Finance; it was the position of the Minister of Customs. It was the trend of the speeches of every member of the government and of every Liberal in public life at that time, that the duties ought to be taken off both coal and iron. When they came into office they foundi themselves bound to do what they believed was wrong. What did they do ? The first thing they did was to slash off the duties from iron goods coming from the United States, giving the United States manufacturers an advantage to that extent in the markets of Canada. Then they had to do something to offset that, and we have the words of the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Finance to the effect that having taken the duties off iron, they had to put their hands in the pockets of the people to grant bounties to the iron industry to make up for it. That is a case of burning the candle at both ends. In the first place, we have taken off a large amount of duties that would have been paid by the manufacturers of the United States in order to come into the Canadian market ; and, to make up for that, we are taking three quarters of a million dollars from the pockets of the people to pay bounties on iron made in Canada. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if that is a consistent position, or one that inures to the benefit of Canada. On the contrary, it is one of the most stupendous blunders a government ever made. I am not opposed to a fair measure of bounties on iron, if the government took care, when they gave the bounties, that Canadians would have the field to themselves in which to sell their goods, instead of throwing down the bars and opening the gates, ns the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) put it, and allowing foreign producers of iron to come in. I say there never was a greater mistake made in a revision of the

tariff than that was ; but in that, as in everything else they have done, the government had to act falsely. They took the duties off iron, to what purpose ? Let the hon. gentleman go to the farmers and every other class of consumer, and ask them if there is one article of iron manufacture which they can purchase more cheaply now than they could in 1896. Nor has the reduction of the duty gone to any great extent into the pockets of the manufacturers in Canada who were making farm implements. It has gone to the benefit of the iron producers of the United States to the detriment of Canada. If, on account of that blunder-and I say it was a great blunder- we can take from the pockets of the people of Canada, by way of bounties to the iron industry of Canada, I ask the hon. gentleman on what ground can he or his colleagues refuse to give similar encouragement to a great industry which will benefit the farmers of this country ? True, the farmers cannot come to this House and present their case. They have not the same organization ; they cannot make themselves heard; they cannot come here at short notice and thunder at the doors of parliament for their rights. But the hon. gentleman is doing a manifest injustice to them. What was the remedy the Minister of Trade and Commerce offered them the other evening ? That hon. gentleman is usually on all occasions a master of jibes and jeers, and he could not allow the farmers to escape. On that occasion he said : You cannot protect the farmers ; there is no use in trying to do that. All you can do is to give them bounties. We will give them bounties on their cows, their pigs, their grain ; it will only cost the country forty or fifty million dollars, but what is that so long as you are protecting the farmers ? I tell the hon. gentleman that the farmers are not going to take any such slurs ; because they know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was insincere when he made that statement, in order to ridicule the idea of giving aid to the greatest of all industries. The hon. gentleman is doing the farmers a manifest injustice by not granting them some assistance by way of bounty. I am not prepared to say that the government would be called upon to raise the import duties on sugar to a large extent. They have done that already to some extent in their revision of the tariff in 1897 ; but there is no reason that one can imagine why they are not bound to assist the sugar industry by way of bounties as they- have done the iron industry as a result of their mistaken course in taking the duties off iron.
Now, the hon. Minister of Customs has drawn a parallel between taxing the people and imposing a rate of taxation upon the people. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that a rate on the dollar means no more than a rate of taxation in a municipality, irrespective of the assessment. There Mr. CLANCY.
is no means by which the people may draw a more absurdly false conclusion than to say that the rate is the measure of taxation. The Minister of Finance knows that it is perfectly idle to take a rate of taxation independent of the sum taken out of the pockets of the people. Take the hon. gentleman's own municipality. I will suppose that the assessment in that municipality is $100,000, and that the rate of taxation is one cent on the dollar. I will suppose that that assessment is raised to $500,000, and that the rate of taxation is reduced to 99-lOOths of a cent on the dollar. The Minister of Customs would have us suppose that in such a case the taxation had been reduced instead of being as a matter of fact trebled. Let me give you an evidence of the way in which the hon. gentleman has lowered the taxation to the people of this country. The rate of taxation for customs and excise in 1896 was $5.42 a head, and in 1901 it was $7.31 a head ; or, taking a family of five, which is the average number throughout Canada, the extra sum paid in the latter period is $8.95 per family. The total revenue taken out of the pockets of the people in 1896 was $7.14 a head ; in 1901 it was $9.78, or an increase for each person in Canada of $2.64, or, for each family of five, an increase of $13.20. In other words the tax per family, in 1896 was $35.70 and in 1901 $48.90, or just $13.20 per family more than in 1896. Does the hon. gentleman call that lowering the taxation ? Will he go to the people and convince them that he is imposing less taxes and lower rates when he is taking out of the pockets of the people now $13.20 per family more to run the affairs of Canada than was taken by the late government in 1896. I think he will find great difficulty in convincing the people that he has done so.
Let me now take the rates of taxation which, the hon. gentleman says, he has lowered to the extent of 3-02. In 1896 the rate was 18-28, and the hon. gentleman was not fair when he said that it had been reduced to such an extent that there was a difference between the average taxation of 1896 and that of 1901 of 2 02 in favour of the latter. What are really the facts ? The whole importations into Canada of goods dutiable and free in 1901 amounted to $181,237,988. Of that amount there was Indian corn which passed through in transit, which was exported from Canada and not entered in the sense of being for consumption at all, which formed no part of the consumption of goods in this country, although so entered, under the new regulations of the hon. gentleman-of that sum, the Indian corn thus entered amounted to $5,506,542, thus reducing the amount of goods entered for consumption to $175,731,000 in round numbers, or giving an average rate of 16 '56, being 1:72 less than when hon. gentlemen took office. That includes, as the hon. gentleman knows well, the operation of the preferential tariff

which, as I have pointed out, was absolutely of no use to us. What then is the effect of that ? The effect is this, that while the hon. gentleman has given a reduced rate, as he says, of something like 2 per cent on the present tariff, he has not given any relief to the people, for he knows that that could not be anything but a mere fraction, even if the preferential tariff operated to the benefit of the people.
But let us take the iron duties. The hon. gentleman took off in duties from grains to the extent of $182,000 in round numbers, and the reduction on iron duties amounted to $971,000, making a total of $1,251,000 from which the people have not derived a particle of benefit. He knows that under the preferential rate, the iron goods which came in from England were only 15 per cent of our total importations, and that we got from the United States 85 per cent, so that the people of Canada in no sense received any benefit.
Then take the industry with which the hon. gentleman has so much sympathy. He asked the leader of the opposition for some advice to the Prime Minister with regard to the tariff of Canada and those questions in general which interest the colonies and Great Britain and which will come up for discussion in the London conference. He wanted some explicit declaration with regard to what the resolution of the opposition meant when it declared the present tariff unsatisfactory. He seemed not to be able to understand just what that meant, and wanted some light, not only to guide himself, but to guide the Prime Minister when in England. Well, I suppose, in view of the right hon. gentleman's refusal to consider the question of Imperial defence, it would be very difficult for the leader of the opposition to give him any advice which would cover that question, and therefore I think he would be quite absolved from doing so. But I want to point out where the tariff is unsatisfactory. Take the woollen trade of Canada, which we know is in a very unsatisfactory condition, owing entirely to the blunders of the government. They were wrong in the position they took before 1896 and have been wrong ever since. They made war upon specific duties in every case, as unduly taking money out of the pockets of the people and as being an unfair discrimination against the poor in favour of the rich. Let us see what was the effect of the specific duties on this industry. The rate that would have been paid upon the goods imported in 1901. under the tariff of 1896, would have been 31-82. That was reduced by the preference to 25-71, but the rate on goods that did not come in under the preference was 33-44. The people were thus taxed on these latter goods the difference between 33-44 and 31-52. Their burdens were increased to that extent, and still the protection taken away from the manufacturers. These hon. gentlemen took away the combined duties of 25 per cent and 5
cents a pound, which were charged on woollen goods under the tariff of 1896, and replaced them by the tariff of 35 per cent. If that had not been modified by the. preferential rate to the extent of the importations from England, the Minister of Customs must be aware that he would have been taxing the people more than they were taxed in 1S96 and at the same time have taken away the protection from our manufacturers. There is an instance in which taxation has been increased and the protection taken away from our own manufacturers on the goods imported under the general tariff, on which the tax is 33-44 as against 31-82 on those imported under the preferential rate. The taxes have been increased and yet the Canadian industries have been ruined. If these hon. gentlemen would restore the weight duty of 5 cents a pound, which existed under the Conservative tariff of 1896, our manufacturers would at least have their present condition considerably relieved and have a fair measure of protection. I am giving this as an instance, of which there are many others, to show how the present tariff is unsatisfactory, and how an increased protection may not mean increased taxation on the people.
There is just one more matter to which I wish to refer and that is the position of the Liberal party and that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am very sorry the hon. gentleman is not able to be in the House. Hon. gentlemen will remember that he wrote a letter to the newspapers on the 25th of October, 1894, in which he had this to say
What are the other planks of the Patron platform affecting Dominion politics ? They are these. First, economy in administration * second, purity and independence of Parliament ; third, tariff for revenue only ; fourth, reciprocal trade ; fifth, protection of labour from monopoly ; sixth, no railway bonuses ; seventh, voters' lists made by local officials ; eighth, no gerrymandering

We shall see what is to come-

ninth, lands for the settlers. Now, there
is simply no single one of all these objects' which the Liberal party have not been fighting for, moving resolutions for and doing their very best to obtain any time during the last 25 years. As to economy, how do hon. gentlemen opposite fulfil that ? The expenditure in 1896 was about $44,000,000, and in 1901 it has risen to $57,000,000. As to purity of elections and independence of parliament, their fulfilment of that is well illustrated by AVest Huron, Brockville, West Elgin, the St. James division of Montreal, and even the municipal elections in London. Tariff for revenue only has been fulfilled after the fashion of hon. gentlemen opposite by -taking $52,000,000 out of the pockets of the people last year as against $36,000,000 taken out of the pockets of the people in 1896-an increase of about 50 per cent. Reciprocal trade-their promise with regard to this has been fulfilled by the first minister declaring

that Canada no longer needs it. As to granting no more railway subsidies, which they were supposed to have been fighting for twenty-five years, that has been fulfilled by the hon. gentlemen opposite granting since 1897, no less than $21,736,000.
Now, I wish to say just a word with regard to the charges that have been brought in this House about the taking of the census of 1891. I am sure it must be a matter of sincere regret that hon. gentlemen opposite have taken the position with regard to this matter that they have taken in this House. I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce must have surprised the House and the country by the shocking declaration he made that the census enumerators of Canada had fraudulently lent themselves to the assistance of the leader of the government of that day, Sir John Macdonald, and that some 4,000 of these persons had deliberately banded themselves together and committed fraud, and, in doing so had violated their own oaths of office and so had committed perjury as well. This is a sad commentary upon the influence of the churches in Canada. It is a charge so shocking that the government cannot disregard it but must see the duty that is imposed upon it of making a full investigation. What are we to think of the morality of the people of the great province of Ontario, when we find such charges made against a large number of men of whom probably 85 per cent belong to one or other of the great brancnes of the Protestant church ? The Minister of Trade and Commerce took care to say that this is a matter that should not be spoken of or treated lightly. I know well what I have to say ; I understand the gravity of the situation ; but I shall give chapter and verse for everything I have to say. I defy any man in this House or out of it to find any word in the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that can be tortured into the form of a single reason in support of the charges he made. What were those charges ? One was that Sir John Macdonald was in a bad plight; the elections of 1891 had given him but a small majority, and he was likely to be compelled to face a new election ; therefore every census enumerator bad come to the assistance of Sir John and had falsified the lists in order to give a false impression to-the country. Is there a man in this House who believes that that charge has any foundation 7 The Minister of Trade and Commerce did not even make an attempt to do more than make the bald assertion that the enumerators had falsified the census. The government of the day must take notice of that charge and investigate the facts, or they will stand convicted before the people of having, under the shelter of the privileges of this House, made charges which they would not dare to make outside. I am not going to deal with the case of the province of Ontario just now, but with the province of Quebec.


James Clancy: I do not see the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) in his place. I do not see the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in his place. I do not see many of those who pride themselves, and justly pride themselves, upon being French Canadians. But I call upon these gentlemen to pay close attention to the charge made against that province. The last man you would think to make a charge against these people is the Minister of Agriculture. He says :-
Now, Sir, what have we found ? We have found, by a careful investigation, in so far as it has gone-and it has gone very far indeed in the province of Quebec, and a reasonable distance in the province of Ontario-that if that instruction was given, it was disregarded to such an extent that we must conclude that it was wilfully disregarded.
In other words that they had deliberately perjured themselves. Let us see the charge the Minister of Trade and Commerce made against the province of Quebec.
It is utterly impossible to compute the total extent of the frauds that were committed in Quebec ; but I do not think anybody will say that I am exaggerating when, after examining the evidence I have laid on the Table, I say there is every reasonable ground for believing that at least 60,000 or 60,000 souls were improperly counted in Quebec in the census of 1891.
Could a man make a more grave charge than that ? But that is not all. The Minister of Agriculture has taken special pains to single out the province of Quebec, to cast a stigma on the people of Quebec, although Ontario has been besmirched and the hon. gentlemen have done everything they could to take away the good character of the people of that province. What does the Minister of Agriculture add to the charges and insults that have been already mentioned ?
Now we did not wish to confine the investigation by any means to the province of Quebec. Although the difficulties were much greater in the province of Ontario, still a slight investigation was made to find out whether anything like the same conditions obtained. I may say at once that we did not find anything like as much of this sort of thing in the province of Ontario as we did in the province of Quebec.
In other words, as depraved as the people of Ontario are, willing as they were to commit perjury, still they must take second place to the people of the province of Quebec.


Mr. MONET.: So far as the Tories of the province of Quebec are concerned, because these people are Conservative employees.


James Clancy: Quite so, Mr. Speaker, we have the version of the hon. gentleman. Is the hon. gentleman sincere 7 Is he prepared to take the responsibility of saying inside or outside of this House, would any

gentleman on either side of the House so far forget himself as to say that because a man was a Conservative he was likely to be a perjurer ? Yet there is where the hon. gentleman draws the line of distinction. We have this sitate of thing trumped up, we have the hon. gentleman pursuing that course, and that ihe should back up the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture is not at all surprising. But let us see the evidence upon which they proceeded in the province of Quebec. What have (they done V Why, Sir, they started out in the first place upon a fishing expedition. Mr. Thomas Cote was employed as an assistant commissioner, and I challenge the government to say that Mr. Thomas Cote, from the hour he was appointed, and during all the time that he has been drawing the public funds of Canada, ever lifted one finger towards preparing a single figure or a single portion of the census of 1901. I challenge the government to say that he did one act in that census. But what did lie do ? Why, he started out on a fishing expedition. His business was to justify the false position, the slanderous position, which the government had taken. They were bound to have blood, whether innocent or guilty blood. Mr. Thomas Cote went out, and what did he do ? Why, 1 charge him before the people of Canada and before this House with having violated a sacred oath, and I charge the Minister of Agriculture with having violated his position as a minister, and he should no longer sit there in a parliament or in a ministry of Canada. Let me give you the proof. I will quote now, Mr. Speaker, from the regulations and instructions that were given to the census commissioner, the census enumerators and all the officers in the Census Department, on entering upon the work of taking, the census of 1901. This is wliat 1 find on page 8 :
Every commissioner, enumerator or other person employed in the execution of the Census Act must take and subscribe an oath binding him to faithful and exact discharge of his duties under the provisions of the Act, and in all respects as required by the forms and instructions issued by the Minister of Agriculture ; and every such person who makes wilful default in any matter required of him by the Act or the instructions, or who wilfully makes a false declaration touching any such matter, is guilty of a misdemeanour.
It goes on further to say :
Every officer or other person employed in any capacity on census work is required to keep inviolate the secrecy of the information gathered by the enumerators and entered in the schedules or forms. An enumerator is not permitted to show his schedules to any other person nor to make or keep a copy of them, nor to answer any question respecting their contents directly or indirectly. And the same obligation of secrecy is imposed upon commissioners and other officers or employes of the outside service as well as upon every officer, clerk or other employee of
the census office at Ottawa. The facts and statistics of the census may not he used except for statistical compilations, and positive assurance should be given on this point if a fear is entertained by any person that they may be used for taxation or any other object.
Now I come to the latter part of the instructions :
No result of the enumeration may be given to the public in advance of the printed bulletins or reports, except by the head officer of the census acting under the authority and direction of the Minister of Agriculture.
What has been done ? Why, Sir, information that has not yet been given to this House, for which no bulletins have been issued, has been peddled out and given, indiscriminately by Mr. Thomas Cote in the province of Quebec. What is the conclusion ? The conclusion is that the Minister of Agriculture lent himself to the scheme, and gave authority to use this information in procuring which Mr. Thomas Cote stands charged with having violated a solemn oath. Now the government of the day can take their choice of the two positions. The Minister of Agriculture may deny that he gave such information, but if he only gave authority to use it he is still guilty of an act that is disgraceful. If he takes the responsibility of saying so, we are quite willing that the country should judge what kind of a minister is at the head of that department. I say to the members of the government that are here to-day, that they should demand that man's resignation, he should not remain a member of a responsible government for a single hour if he takes a position of that kind.
Let me see what kind of evidence we have of the efforts that have been made for the purpose of fastening a charge of perjury on the people of the province of Quebec. Now we have a letter written by a gentleman who signs himself the Rev. J. B. Morin. I am tolid that the Rev. J. B. Morin is at present the parish priest at a place called St. Jean de Matha. He has been there for something like a year. 1 asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the evidence was taken under oath on so serious a charge against the people, and I was told that it was not taken under oath. I asked the question because, if two hundred, or three hundred are selected, or, two thousand, or three thousand, it is a fair indication of the character of the people throughout the Whole province. I asked the question because I think that when the pastors of the people in the province of Quebec had conducted so serious an investigation upon so serious a charge they ought to have conducted it under oath. I was told that it was not conducted under oath but that the information was given and that the investigation had taken place under the parish priests. I tell the hon. Minister of Agriculture now that this is a base slan-

der upon the parish priests of the province of Quebec, that the parish priests took no part in it. The parish priests did what the_v were expected to do, I suppose. They gave in that courteous and prudent manner in which they usually act such parochial census as they had in their hands and at their disposal. Beyond that they had no part in this unsavoury job. It is a sad thing that hon. gentlemen who sit on the other side of the House, of the same religion and nationality, living and growing up under the same teachings, will not rise and say one word in defence of these gentlemen, and I am sorry to say that it falls to my lot to say that the clergy of the province of Quebec took no part in this affair with the exception of one and I regret to iSee how disinterested that gentleman was and how anxious he was to convict the Tories of perjury. He wrote as follows :
Ir. answer to your circular letter dated Oct. 21 last, I have the honour to inform you that the movement of population in this parish of Sr Jean de Matha, county of Joliette, has been during the last ten years practically stagnant. The population must be about the same as in 1891, and we do not understand here the discrepancy of 717 between the census of 1891 and the census of 1901.
How does he get the information that there was a discrepancy of 717 unless Thomas Cote had violated his obligation and given that information to him ? He had no means of knowing unless Mr. Cote gave him that information through the connivance and through the assistance of the hon. Minister of Agriculture. He goes on to prove that and gives evidence of it. He says :
The census that i do take every year since I am in this parish agree with the figures of your enumerator. I have already sent you these figures, and you must have remarked their identity.
How did they come to agree ? Because the figures had been sent down there illegally, improperly and contrary to the regulations by the minister or his census officer, and gives evidence of it. He says :
The census I taka every year

What does this gentleman know about the people of the parish of St. Jean de Matha ? The man never was in that parish, so far as I can tell. He had not been parish priest for fifteen years until 1000 or 1901. That was the first time that he had anything to do with the parish so far as there is any record. I will not say what his zeal was.
We are all of the opinion that the census of 1891 was over-valued by at least that difference of 717 which is seen between the last census and the census of 1891. It would be very easy to discover the fictitious figures and I will do the work if you will send me copies of the figures of 1891.
They had no business to do that. Then he goes on :


James Clancy: If. would be extremely easy to check the lists and I will show you the names to he struck Off. We will willingly do that work to help you, to give you satisfaction and to show you that the enumerators of the last census have faithfully and conscientiously done their work.
In other words, that the Liberals were not perjurers and that the Conservatives were perjurers. Then, there is another letter from this gentleman dated 5th December :
Dear Mr. Cote,-I have received1 your letter and copy of the census tables used1 in 1891. I am conscientiously at work.
Mark this. Mark the tone of this disinterested gentleman employed to investigate a serious charge :
I am conscientiously at work. I have asked the help of two good citizens. You may expect results which will surprise you. For instance, a man aged 48 years and his wife aged 35 are put down as having eighteen children and the eldest is 24 years old or just eleven years less than bis mother. In a few days I Will send you my report which will be very carefully prepared with references to the schedules. This is rather a long work.
I venture to say you will see a pay list at the end of it.
But we desire to be absolutely sure of our facts and data, so as to enable you to use the same In due time. We find repetitions in the took also names of people who have left the parish in 1882 or of people absolutely unknown in this locality. Families of two or three children are gratified'

I do not know what this means.
-with a dozen of them. You must expect nothing but real astonishment.
When the bon. Minister of Agriculture dealt with this question he told us that this fortunate man who had eighteen children was Paul Guilbault, that his wife was 35 years of age, that he was somewhat older and that there was just eleven years difference between the eldest son and his mother. I am surprised that a man should pen this statement, and that the hon. minister should be silly enough, and I do not make any apology for using the word, to make such a statement in the effort to make out a case of perjury without investigation. It is quite possible, indeed it is probable, that that particular man not only had eighteen children, but that the son, as it is stated, was only eleven years younger than the reputed mother. Every hon. gentleman knows that there is no provision by which to enumerate whether the wife is the mother of the children shown in a particular family or not. Let us take the ages of the children as they were given by the hon. Minister of Agriculture. The oldest is put down as 24, the next 23, and the next 22, the next 20, the next 19, the next 18, the next 17, the next 16, the next 15, the next 14, the next 13, the next 12, the next 11, the next 10, the next 9. There are two eight years of age and the last is put down as

being three months old. What conclusion do you come to from that ? I am told that in some cases there are very large families in the province of Quebec, reaching as large as eighteen in number. They may be exceptional cases, but I am told that such cases do exist in Quebec. What are the facts as to the charge on the face of it ? That this was this man's second wife. What does it prove ? The space between the seventeenth child and the eighteenth child is considerable, as one is put down as eight years of age and the other as three months. Does not anybody know that that may be the case, that it is perfectly true, and that there is no falsehood in the statement which is cited in order to make out a case of perjury against the Conservative enumerators. I have no hesitation in saying that I believe just such a case did occur in the province of Quebec. What did the Minister of Agriculture say as a climax, and he was cheered by his friends. He said :
This is another specimen of the way the census was stuffed in the province of Quebec in 1891.
That is his final conclusion. Now, the Rev. J. B. Morin sends another letter with the result of his investigation, and you can understand what the report will be when I have shown the zeal of this gentleman. He says
You will receive by the same mail a ] aport of the census of 1891. You will notice by the reference which I have made to the census that the returns of ten years ago were frightfully exaggerated. The report which I am sending you has been prepared carefully and conscientiously. It is accurate. You may use it at your discretion. Dr. Turgeon, the notary and Mr. Dugas, both responsible citizens residing in the parish for the past fifteen or sixteen years are absolutely qualified to certify to the accuracy of the information I am mailing you. We are still at your disposal and if you ask for more details we will gladly furnish you with the same.
My hon. friend beside me asks me who Mr. Dugas is. If he asked me who Mr. Turgeon is and who Mr. Marcil is I could say without fear of contradiction and without making Inquiry, that both Mr. Dugas and Mr. Turgeon are active Liberal politicians who are endeavouring to bolster up a bad case for the government. Now, let me point out that this gentleman and his two responsible citizens bad from the 5th of December to the 16th of December, or nine working days, to do the work they undertook. Let us see what they did in that time. They were able to locate 380 heads of families ; they were able to locate 556 children of all ages ; they were able to hunt up their location ten years ago, and they were able to tell who were in the parish then and who were not in the parish then. In nine day's, they were able to do that and more. They were able to tell that a great many of them were in the constituency but absent during the census year
of 1901; they did all that in nine working days, and sent their report to this government. Well, Sir, I know of nothing more disgraceful to Canada, than what that piece of business discloses. I turn to the opposite side of the House because there should be men there who would rise up in defeuce of the enumerators of the province of Quebec, whose characters have been assailed in this way. I ask the member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) if he thinks this charge of perjury is a fair one to make against the enumerators of the province of Quebec. I ask him if he thinks his people have had fair play. I ask him if it is not the saddest thing that Canada ever contemplated, that the clergy made up of more than ninety per cent of one religious persuasion, and nearly all of one nationality in that province, have been so remiss in their work of centuries as to turn out such a body of perjurers as these enumerators are alleged to have been. I tell him and I tell his compatriots from the province of Quebec, that as a matter of fair play to their own nationality they should demand a most rigid investigation into the serious charges of perjury, and if they fail to do their duty in that respect they are no longer worthy of the confidence of the people. I repeat that it is the saddest commentary upon the religious teachings of the ministers, both Roman Catholics and Protestants, that Canada has ever had to contemplate in its whole history.
Let me say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that lam in favour of the resolution of the hon. leader of the opposition which declares in the most emphatic terms that the present tariff is not a satisfactory tariff. I shall vote for that resolution as a protest against the policy of this composite government made up of men of all kinds of theories with regard to our fiscal policy. We have the Minister of Finance telling us that he does not propose to make any tariff changes this year, because it is not a good thing to have constant tariff changes. In that we may agree with him. He tells us that conditions may arise with regard to our home trade and our foreign trade which it will be necessary to take notice of. His tariff is unsatisfactory because he does not take notice of these conditions. We have the Minister of Agriculture still trimming. He says that the tariff is satisfactory, but that conditions may arise when the interests of the country will demand a change. How can he better the country by a revenue tariff? That is a dead weight tax collecting tariff, but a protective tariff protects the interests of the people of Canada and it is the only weapon we can use against foreign countries who make commercial warfare on us. I will vote for the amendment of the leader of the opposition because it announces a policy that will give every Canadian in Canada the first chance, that will give every Canadian workman the first chance for

a day's work ; that will give capitalists security for their investment, and that will give to the producers of this country the first right to the markets of Canada ; a policy that will in brief, benefit Canadians first and before all others.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: Mr. Speaker, it appears to be my misfortune to come in near the close of this debate now extending over three weeks. From the very able manner in which this subject has been discussed by hon. gentlemen, I fear that little is left for me, but I trust to be able to pick up here and there some crumbs that may have dropped during the debate, on which I may be able to found an argument that has not yet been touched upon in support of the resolution of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. I am sure we have listened with pain, I think with extreme pain, to the statement which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) has been compelled to make in reference to the charges made against our French fellow citizens in the province of Quebec. I confess, Sir, that I have not lost my respect for them. I cannot understand why the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and still more I cannot understand why the Minister of Agriculture who has been for many years a citizen of the province of Quebec, should take so much trouble to decry and besmirch the reputation of honourable citizens of that province. I have no doubt the day will come when the French of the province of Quebec will reckon with the Minister of Agriculture for the stand he has taken in this House, where they have no opportunity of defending their reputation. I regret that the Minister of Customs has found it necessary to leave the Chamber. He opened up this afternoon a fresh discussion on the question of the tariff, and I do think it is his duty to be here when a question of that important character is under discussion. Notwithstanding his absence, a good many of my remarks will have to be addressed to him, because I intend to give some attention to the question he has raised. He began by intimating that he as well as his colleagues in the ministry had been unfaithful to the promises they had made to the people. He did not attempt to deny that they had been unfaithful; but possibly he thought the better way to get out of the difficulty was to make the confession, and appeal for mercy to his supporters around him. He took another plan, however. After having acknowledged the unfaithfulness of himself and his colleagues with respect to the expenditure, having increased it far beyond the amount which they assured the people would be proper, he commenced to throw dust in the eyes of h'is supporters as if to blind them to the fact of such unfaithfulness. He brings out a perfect mass of figures, which I will undertake to say he had the clerks in his Mr. CLANCY.
department engaged in preparing for the past three months. Every one of these figures was prepared at the expense of the people of Canada. I (have no doubt that collection of figures cost the people of this country thousands of dollars, simply and solely for the purpose of enabling the Minister of Customs to make a defence in this House. Then he called upon the opposition to answer this terrible array of figures. Just imagine the Minister of Customs, with a staff of eight or ten clerks in his department, spending three months preparing figures to make an attack on the opposition in this House, and, then, at the close of the debate-because he refused to be heard until the last afternoon, when there was no opportunity of looking up these figures-he boldly calls upon us to answer them.


An hon. MEMBER.: And then runs away.


David Henderson: And then runs away, as an hon. gentleman says. Surely he is a brave man. I have no doubt the Boers in South Africa would like to meet such men; I do not think they would have) much difficulty in establishing their position. Theu he tells us that we do not dare to formulate a resolution and submit it to this House condemning the expenditure of which we complain. The hon. gentleman who has preceded me (Mr. Clancy) has dealt very fully with that question. He has shown us that the hon. gentleman himself, during a long period of eighteen years, never dared to open his mouth when in opposition, iu condemnation of what he called the extravagance of the Conservative government. But the hon. gentleman is all wrong when he says that we dare not formulate a resolution. Has he forgotten that within twelve months a resolution exactly of the character to which he refers was moved in this House and voted upon ? And now, to refresh the hon. gentleman's memory, I will read that resolution, which was moved on the 22nd of May, 1901:
That this House desires to place on record its opinion that the expenditure for the year ending 30th June, 1901, and the proposed expenditure for the year ending 30th June, 1902, are excessive and extravagant, and it regrets that the government, with an exceptionally large revenue at its command, has not only'failed to reduce but has largely increased the public debt, and has not shown proper appreciation of the extreme difficulty if not impossibility of reducing in future years the very high standard of expenditure which is being fixed during a period of great prosperity.
What stronger resolution than that, I ask, would the hon. gentleman expect us to move ? And to a man we voted for that resolution. But where was the Minister of Customs ? If he thought, as be intimated at the outset of his speech, that the expenditure had been excessive, ,wby did be not join us ? I look in the division list, and I

find that all the thanks we got for introducing that resolution was that the hon. Minister of Customs assisted in voting it down.
The hon. gentleman referred to the question of superannuation, and I was very much surprised at a statement)' he made. I will not suppose that it was based on information which 'he himself obtained from the Blue-books. I am sure that was the work of one of the clerks in his department, because I am sure he would not have made the statement had he examined the record himself. He said that the superannuation was self-sustaining.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman is mistaken. The Minister of Customs certainly did not say that. He said there had been a change made in the system, and that under the new system it would be self-sustaining.


David Henderson: I certainly caught his words, that it was self-sustaining. Now, in 1901 the collections on account of superannuation were $10,916 less than they were in 1896, whereas the payments , were $13,276 more, so that, as 1 understood the hon. gentleman, he was wrong by exactly $24,192.
Then he took up the question of the reduction of postage. Now, I desire to say at the outset that I have no wish whatever to take away from the Postmaster General one iota of the credit that is due to him for anything he has done in connection with the administration of that department; but I want to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the -fact that before the present government came into power there have been Postmaster Generals who have to my mind done as great things for the country as the present Postmaster General. In 1868, the government of that day reduced the postage on domestic letters from 5 cents to 3 cents. The present Postmaster General reduced the letter postage 1 cent, and it was blazed all over the country as a wonderful thing, although it was only half of what was'done in 1868. In 1871 another reform was introduced by the Conservative government of that day in the matter of post cards, which gave the people a cheaper system of communicating with each other. I consider that this was a very great reduction indeed, in the postage paid by the people generally, but that was not the only reduction. In 1889 the postage rate was practically cut in two in a great many instances. On a letter weighing two ounces the postage previous to 1889 was 12 cents, or three cents per half ounce, but after that year a letter weighing two ounces passed through the mails for six cents. In many cases the postage was actually split in two by the reduction of the charge from three cents per half ounce to three cents per whole ounce. This no doubt affected the revenue very materially, and was a 75
great step towards cheaper postage, so that we find that previous to the advent of the present government our Postmaster Generals had done very great service to the country in that respect. We are told frequently by hon. gentlemen opposite that the postage rate has been reduced one-third. But they forget that a very large amount of postal revenue is derived from drop letters, which pay only one cent. These letters paid one cent before and are paying one cent still, and they furnish a very considerable amount of revenue. Then we have the letters in cities where there is a postal delivery. The old rate on these of two cents has not been changed, so that there has been no reduction whatever in the postal rates in the cities where there is a postal delivery. He charges also the same rate for registering a letter, namely, five cents, as before. Considering therefore the whole matter, the reduction in revenue by the change from three cents to two cents on ordinary domestic letters, does not amount to what the government claim credit for. I want to draw attention to another feature in this connection. It has been claimed, and claimed by no one more strongly than the First llinister, notably in his speech at the city of Toronto, that the government have wiped out the deficit or the difference between revenue and expenditure in the Post Office Department. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who do not ask the Postmaster General to make the revenue and expenditure meet. I do not think it fair to do so. Why should we take a department, such as the postal department, which comes the nearest to every man, woman and child in the country, in which every man, woman and child is more interested, I believe, than in any other department of the government, because that is the one which furnishes them with the means of communicating with each other- why should that department be starved simply to enable the government to declare that it is self-sustaining ? The other departments are not self-sustaining. The Department of Public Works does not meet expenses, nor does the Department of Railways and Canals. What other expending department of the government is self-sustaining ? And why should the postal system in which the people are more interested than in any other department of the government, be made self-sustaining at the expense of the service. I say that the government will act wisely if they will give us a better service, even if it "should cost us more than the revenue it brings in. The government claim credit for having reduced the deficit. Last year that deficit stood at $512,023 and the previous year it was $553,241. Of course I include in this both the revenue and expenditure in the Yukon district. I find, on referring back to 1891, that there were 8,001 post offices then in Canada. In 1896 there were 9,103,



[Stage Direction]
So, each year as I read my statement I will include the increased duty paid on tobacco and cigars for that year.
I take first the year 1898-
Imports for home consumption	$130,698,00*1
Less corn exported	 5,165,955
Net imports for home consumption. .$125,532,051 During that year, the customs duties paid on goods dutiable coming into the country were $22,157,188; increased duty on tobacco and cigars, $971,558; total $23,128,749. This made an average duty on goods, dutiable and free for 1898 of 18-34 per cent, and not 16-95 per cent as given in the return Of the Minister of Customs. I regret that I am obliged to read all these figures, but I desire to have them in ' Hansard ' that they may be carefully examined. Now, take the
year 1899 -
Imports for home consumption	$154,021,593
Less corn exported	 6,332,682
Net imports for home consumption. .$147,688,911
Customs duty paid	 $25,734,128
Increased duty on tobacco	 1,067,156
Total taxation	$26,801,884
This makes an average duty on goods dutiable and free for 1899 of 18-4 per cent
instead of 16-7 per cent as given by the Minister of Customs. Now, here are the
figures for 1900 -
Imports for home consumption	$180,834,016
Less corn exported	 4,757,595
Net imports for home consumption. .$176,076,421
Customs duty paid	$28,889,110
Increased duty on tobacco	 971,977
Total taxation for the year	$29,861,087
This makes the average duty on goods dutiable and free 16-96 per cent, instead of 15 98 per cent, the figures given in the Trade and Navigation Returns. Now, we come to 1901, the last year for which we have the figures :
Imports for home consumption	$181,237,988
Less corn not the produce of Canada 5,506,542
Total net imports for consumption. .$175,731,446
Customs duty paid	$29,106,779
Increased duty on tobacco and cigars. 1,206,817
Total	$30,313,796
Or an average duty on goods dutiable and free of 17-25 per cent, instead of 16-6 per cent, the figures given in the Trade and Navigation Returns. Now, 1 summarize these. I take the years 1892 to 1896 inclusive. These I take as they are given in the Trade and Navigation Returns, because by taking off the corn in transit and adding the increased duty on tobacco, I have brought the calculation to the same basis as in thege 754
years, and we are now in a position to make a fair comparison, which we could not do under the system adopted by the Minister of Customs. The following are the average rates of duty for the years 1892 to 1896 inclusive -
Average duty.	Per cent.
1892		17-56
1893		17-38
1894		17-13
1895		 16-99
1896		 18'28
A total for the years given of	87-34
Divided by 5 years gives an average of 17-46
This is the average for the five years under the Conservative regime on goods dutiable and free. Now, take the five years commencing with 1897, the first year of Liberal rule. I find that, according to the Trade and Navigation returns the average was 17'87 per cent. Only for a very small portion of this year was the corn free, and for only a small portion of it was the new tobacco duty in force, and so trifling was it that I did not take it into consideration. In 1897 the average rate of duty was 17-87. In 1898 the average rate of duty was 18-34 ; in 1899, 38-14; in 1900, 16-96; in 1901, 17-25, or a total for the five years of 18-56, divided by 5, gives an average of 17-71. The average rate of duty paid on goods coming into this country, dutiable and free, during the past five years, was 17-71 ; and for the last five years of Conservative rule It was 17-46.	1
challenge the government toy any conceivable plan to controvert this statement of the average rate of taxation ; and I trust when the hon. gentleman rises to speak in this House again he will not compare dissimiliar things in order to make a good showing for himself, but that he will be fair enough to give us the facts and make a comparison which is fair to ail parties. If he does so I am sure he will admit that his rate of taxation is higher than was the rate under the Conservative government for the periods named.
We have been told and I think the Minister of Finance reminded us in his budget speech, that had the same rate of taxation been applied to the imports of this country in 1901 as was applied in 1S96 we would have paid $4,000,000 more duty than we actually did in 1901. Now, I consider that that was a very unfair statement, because, strictly speaking, it was not absolutely correct. Of course tbe hon. gentleman was mislead by taking the figures of his colleague. However, he admitted that these figures were not correct, and he should have been more guarded before be made the statement. Now, what are the facts ? In 1898 we actually paid $1,104,572 more duties than we would have paid under the average rate of duty from 1892 to 1S96 ; and in 1899 we paid $853,607 more duties than we would have paid under the average
[Stage Direction]
rate of the last Are years of Conservative regime. In each year from 1897 to 1901 we paid an average of $390,866 more than we would have paid under the average of the last five years of Conservative rule.
Now, with reference to the additional $4,000,000 which the Minister of Finance tells us we would have paid had the Conservatives heen in power, I want to draw his attention to this fact, that free sugar was the Conservative policy. In 1891 the Conservative party placed raw sugar on the free list and gave the people of this country a free breakfast table. Sir Leonard Tilley, nearly ten years before, had placed tea and coffee upon the free list. Then Mr. Foster, in 18j)l, put raw sugar on the free list, and gave back to the people of this country what he might have collected between 1891 and 1895, a sum equal to $20,000,000. Mr. Foster was aware of the fact that a wave, not of prosperity, but of adversity was passing over the country, and he did what a good statesman should do, he took off the burden of taxation, struck off $20,000,000, to enable us to tide over the difficulties of those days. Had he retained that $20,000,000 of taxation he would not have had the deficit that the hon. gentleman talked so much about this afternoon. In fact, had Mr. Foster not removed that, the hon. gentleman would have scarcely had a text from which to preach to-day. But Mr. Foster did it in the interest of the people of this country ; and although in 1895 he was compelled, owing to the fact that he was unable to make the revenue and expenditure meet, to put back half a cent a pound on raw sugar, that was no evidence that Mr. Foster nor any other Conservative Minister of Finance intended that it should continue and with the return of better times and the improvement of business, there is no doubt in the world that in one or two years that half a cent would again have been removed, and that to-day we would be enjoying free raw sugar in this country instead of an increase of from 50 to 67 cents per 100 pounds. So that practically there would not have been a dollar of that $4,000,000, because with the duty taken off raw sugar amounting to $1,105,855, which was the tax in 1896, the average rate of taxation that year would not have been 18-28 but would simply have been 17-28, practically the same as we had during the past year of 17-25. Thus I say the whole burden of the song of the hon. gentleman about the favourable comparison between his own tariff and that of the Conservative party, when investigated, really amounts to little, and his argument fails altogether to support his contention.
Now, a very strange statement was made by the hon. gentleman to which I will refer just now. He stated that the public debt of this country had decreased during the five years of Liberal rule by 67 cents per head of the population. Well, I thought
David Henderson: that was an astounding statement. It staggered me, I could not understand it. An increase in the public debt of $16,000,000, and an actual decrease per head of the population-it was inexplicable. Well, I made a little investigation during the recess between 6 and 8 o'clock, and to my surprise, after allowing the most liberal increase for population, since our last decennial census was taken, allowing 100,000 to be added to the population from 1901-and that would be at the rate of 1,000,000 during a decade, I think I was liberal enough in my allowance-even after making sucli an allowance I find there was no decrease whatever, for five years to 1902 that there was actually an increase. The hon. gentleman told us also that in 1896 the average rate of taxation was 18-28 for 1901, he quoted his erroneous figures of 16-06, making a difference of 2-22. This is a point which I wish to draw attention to. Why, he said, that was not simply a decrease of 2-22, it was a decrease of 12 per cent-a most astonishing statement for the hon. gentleman to make. Now, if he would simply decrease it about a third more than he has done, about -71, he would bring the total decrease up to about 16 or 17 per cent, and we would have no taxation at ail. That just shows how utterly absurd the hon. gentleman's statement is. Of course he means 12 per cent of the rate of duty, but he intends that statement to go to the country as a reduction of 12 per cent in the duty. That was his intention. He intended that statement to be read by the farmers of the country who, through his speech will be told that the duty is 12 per cent on an average lower than it was. I cannot say that he is honest. I do not like to use harsh terms, but that statement has been made by other hon. gentlemen in this House and it is a statement that should not have been made.
Then the hon. gentleman spoke very boldly about the preferential tariff and asked: Why do you not move to repeal it ? If we had fifty of a majority on this side of the House, we would very soon repeal it. I would have no hesitation any day recording my vote in this House to wipe out the present preferential tariff. I never favoured it.
I do not expect to live long enough to be able to favour a one-sided preference such as we have now. I am a Canadian. Canada first is my motto, and if there are preferences to be given I am going to give them to Canada. I do not intend now to discuss the effect of the preferential tariff. If I had anything to say now I would limit the importation of goods coming into this country under the preferential tariff to goods wholly made in Great Britain. And I would do more than that; I would limit the imports under the preferential duty to goods imported through a Canadian seaport. If we did that I believe we would maim and wound and hamper this preferential tariff so

that it would not be so much of an injury after all, but, if we cannot get rid of it in that way, let the government bring down a resolution to remove that preferential tariff, and on that question I will assure them that they will have my hearty support.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). My hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) had better do it instead.


David Henderson: We practically are doing it now.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, you are not.


David Henderson: Yes, the hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) told us so.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Well do it.


David Henderson: He said that our resolution in favour of adequate protection and then a reciprocal trade preference within the Empire, but adequate protection first means practically the repeal of the one sided preferential tariff, and it is embodied in that. The hon. gentleman may not see it, but the day is coming when he will see it. I trust that the day will not be very far distant. I am prepared to vote for a bald motion to repeal it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Move the motion.


David Henderson: I do not speak for hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, but I presume there is very little difference of opinion on the subject.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Make a motion.


David Henderson: And in the country there is very little difference of opinion on that question. It is not a policy that has met with the approval of this country. Of course, the sentiment is very, nice. It is a nice thing to do something for the mother country, but as we have heard an hon. gentleman say, a 12! per cent preference would have accomplished all the sentiment that a 334 preference would accomplish. I do not think that the people of Great Britain fully appreciate Canada's preference, and they did not appreciate us one whit more when we lowered the rates of duty. How many people in Great Britain know that there is a preferential tariff ? Very few of them take more of our products because of that tariff. I will venture to say that out of the forty millions of people in Great Britain, not twenty millions know that there is a preferential tariff. I will undertake to say that there are millions of people in Great Britain who do not know but that Canada is part of the United States. It is absurd to say that they are buying our products because we give them a preference. What does the workingman's wife,
when she goes to the butcher shop in the morning to buy her bacon, her hams, or her eggs know about the preferential tariff ? She does not buy Canadian products at all. The products of Canada are not consumed by the working classes of England. Our hams, our bacon, our butter and our cheese are bought up at the highest prices by the wealthier classes in Great Britain. The working classes consume the products of the American farms, and the curse of the preferential tariff is that instead of providing a market for Canadian goods in this country, or in the old country, we are doing all we can to provide a market for the products of the American farmers, our competitors.
Just a few words as I pass along in reference to some remarks made by some hon. gentleman. I find that the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes), the other night made a very nice speech, and I must compliment him on it. It was the most erratic speech I have heard for some time. He said the national policy was rejected by the people in 1896 and again in 1900. We know perfectly well that the national policy did not decide the elections of 1896. I need not elaborate that for a moment. There is not a man in this House who will contend that the trade question of this country decided the fate of the government at that time, or in 1900 again as he contended. In the province of Quebec I think that the popular cry was ' Laurier,' ' Laur-ier,' where they did not stop to inquire what kind of a policy he favoured. It reminds me of a little story that I heard the other day. the right hon. leader of the House ran in the constituency of Richmond and Wolfe. It was just after he became a member of the administration of Alexander Mackenzie, away back in 1877 or 1878. It was reported through the constituency that he was a minister. The people voted against him. They did not believe in having a minister in parliament, and therefore they would vote against him. It is very peculiar sometimes what questions turn an election. In the province of Ontario I will undertake to say that the government did not gain anything from what they call their revenue tariff. Let me look around. I see the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Clare). Did you ever hear of a protectionist being elected for South Waterloo before ? No, but the people of that intelligent riding rejected the Liberal candidate who supported this revenue tariff. I look around and I see the hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. Tolton). Just fancy the redoubtable James McMullen having been laid aside after his advocacy of free trade principles for 18 long years and being succeeded by my hon. friend. Is there any evidence in that that the national policy was rejected by the people of Ontario ? Then, I see the hon. member for Centre Wellington (Mr. McGowan) leaving behind our old and esteemed

friend Mr. Semple, an ardent supporter of anything in the nature of free trade or a revenue tariff. Then I notice my .hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) who defeated a man who had some four or five hundred of a majority, and came out with a very respectable majority, condemning the policy of the government in that respect. The election of my hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Richardson), who is unfortunately absent to-night on account of sickness in his family, is another instance in which the policy of the government was condemned. Look at my hon. friend here from North Leeds and Grenville (Mr. Lavell), and look at my hon. friend sitting next to him from Cardwell (Mr. Johnston). They are all over. The woods are full of them, and when the government again comes to appeal to the province of Ontario let me tell them that a revenue tariff is not a policy on which they will appeal if they are going to succeed in the country. How is it that there are a hundred members on that side of the House who dare not rise and support the government, who are compelled to sit mum and not say a word on behalf of the government that they are going to vote for. How is that ? I will undertake to say that there are hon. gentlemen on that side of the House who dare not go into their ridings and tell the people that the government are justified in putting cream separators on the free list; and yet these hon.. gentlemen are going to vote against the resolution of the hon. leader of the opposition, and they are going to go home and justify their vote by saying that it was a motion of want of confidence, while at the same time they are voting against their own conscience.
Here is a peculiar thing that I am going to read. Within the next two months the hon. G. W. Ross is going to appeal to the electors of Ontario. He is an astute politician, and he knows the sentiment of the people of his province perhaps as well as any member in this House. In the budget debate in the Ontario legislature on the 22nd January last, the hon. G. W. Ross uttered the words which I will read. He knew he was going before the electorate and he knew he had to be in sympathy with the electorate, or otherwise he would not secure their support, and he delivered his speech which was intended to secure the votes of the people of Ontario, and it was a speech in direct opposition to the sentiments expressed by the hon. gentlemen who support the government in this House. Mr. Ross opens out thus :
It has bean, within, the last half century at all events, the policy of the governments of all countries to aid in the development of the natural resources of the countries which they respectively represent, to foster the industries which occupy the attention of their citizens, and generally to promote trade and commerce, and by that means add to the wealth and power of the nation.
How different Mr. Ross Is from the hon. gentlemen opposite, who tell us we cannot Mr. HENDERSON.
protect the farmers of this country, and that the manufacturers of Canada have no right to government consideration. Mr. Ross knows the sentiment of the people ; he is looking for their votes, and he knows which side his bread is buttered on. He says further :
The American government, sixty or seventy years ago entered upon a policy of fostering its industries by protection. Germany, France Italy, Russia and latterly the Australian Commonwealth, has followed in the foot-steps of the United States.
Again he says :
Railways have been built by subvention in land and money, for the development of the latent resources of the country. The states of the Union, including the federal government, have given nearly one million acres of land for that purpose, as well as large cash subsidies. The Dominion government did so for the C.P.R., and no doubt that road would never have been
built unless so aided	The object of
my argument is to shew that it seems to be admitted all around that a government in modern times has something more to do than merely discharge administrative functions. It has to be the pioneer, if possible, at all events the foster parent, of manufactures and commerce.
How well Mr. Ross can gauge the sentiment of the people of Ontario. He further said :
It would be an easy thing for a government to say: 'Give us so much money and we will administer the affairs of the country, see that offlc'ers are appointed for the various duties, see that checks are issued for salaries'-that would be an easy duty. It is another matter for a government to assume the responsibility of leading the nation, or leading and educating the people to apply their minds to the development of industry, and to the fostering of manufactures or to the development of latent resources, or to any other purpose which may be of more immediate advantage to one or more sections of the country than to the whole country.
Again Mr. Ross says :
I am proud to he able to say that in the province of Ontario, as well as at Ottawa-we have addressed ourselves to the solution, or rather to the discharge, of that duty. In fact, I do not know but the Dominion government, the Conservative government at Ottawa years ago, realized mere quickly than perhaps some of us did-'(Opposition members-Hear, hear)-what seemed to he the direction-of universal opinion, I was going to say-or rather the direction of all civilized governments at that time, and, realizing that view, they struck out a course which in many respects has been followed since, and has been accepted by some other countries since that time.
I turn to another page and I will read a few words more.


Rufus Henry Pope: Go on ; it Is good.


David Henderson: And I suppose the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) will be supporting Mr. Ross very shortly.


Mr. EDWARDS.: What about the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson). Is he going to support Mr. Ross 1


David Henderson: No.


Mr. BENNETT.: Mr. Ross is a dead horse.


David Henderson: We have a better policy than even Mr. Ross has. What Mr. Ross says further is very delightful reading, and I am sure that the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) will endorse it. This is what he says :
No nation that does not aim in certain matters as being self sustaining can be great. No Iran that does not endeavour to feel that spirit of self-reliance which will enable him to go out and compete with his fellows will ever attain to anything. The Americans have become strong largely by that dominant strain which has permeated American legislation and commerce for the 'last thirty years, and they have become self-sustaining to a great extent; and the British navy has been dominated by the idea since Nelson's time that the Eritish navy is invincible.
I ask the attention of the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) and the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) and a number of these hon. gentlemen opposite who are going to vote against our resolution, I ask their attention to this language which was used by tbe bon. G. W. Ross :
And so will we Canadians, by being inbued with the same spirit of manufacturing our own goods as far as we can, developing our own resources where we have the means, so will we become self-sustaining, applying ourselves with energy and tact to whatever comes to hand.
Well, Sir, if the Conservative party comes into power I would not at all object to giving tbe hon. G. W. Ross a seat amongst us in this House if he still retains sentiments of that kind, as I have no doubt he will. These are the sentiments of the Prime Minister of Ontario, and he is now wooing the electors, and he believes in making a people self reliant by aiding them and fostering the industries of the country. He speaks in that way because be is speaking the sentiments of the people of Ontario.
Now, Sir, I come to deal with the amendment offered by the hon. leader of the opposition-this doubtful resolution as gentlemen opposite say. I come to deal With this resolution which we 'are told no member on that side of the House can understand. 1 am surprised at that. To my mind it is a piece of very plain Queen's English, and I do not understand why it liis so unintelligible to them. I wonder if they understand what a revenue tariff means ? I know that the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Holmes) was perfectly at a loss the other night to understand the difference between a revenue tariff and a protectionist tariff. He thought it was somewhere between 25 and 30 per cent. I may be very ignorant of things of that sort, but I thought a revenue tariff was one imposed on articles which we do not produce in the country. If
you put a tax on tea or coffee, that is a tariff for revenue only, because we do not produce tea or coffee in this country. If you put a tax on raw sugar, that is a tariff for revenue only, because we do not produce raiw sugar in this country. If you put a tax on apricots, prunes, and other dried fruits which we get from California-and I think every dollar of duty should be taken off these things-that would be a tariff for revenue, because it does not interfere with any industry in this country. Take the duty off tea, or coffee, or sugar, and you will not hurt the woollen industry of this country or any other industry. On the contrary, you will help it, because you will enable the workingman to get his tea and coffee and sugar cheaper. The fact is these hon. gentlemen have not got a revenue tariff at all, although they call it by that name. Whether it is adequate or not they do not know, because they do not seem to know the meaning of adequate. The Minister of Finance finds that it is not adequate, because he has to add six millions more to the debt of the country. I do not suppose it is my duty to schoolmaster hon. gentlemen as to the meaning of the word adequate. If it were, I would tell them it is exactly the opposite of Inadequate. We know when an industry is not adequately protected. I think I have something here which will give an idea of what adequate protection is. The Canadian Textile Directory states that in 1885 there were 107,879 spindles running in the woollen industry of this country; that is, the industry that is making cloth; I have no reference to looms or cards. Under the 'benign influence of adequate protection, the number of spindles had Increased in 1899 to 194,086, nearly double. Now I think lion, gentlemen will see what adequate protection means. it means that there are more goods made in the country, more work for the workingmen, a better market for beef, mutton, cheese, butter, eggs and all other products, which are consumed in the country. Now go back two years and a half to the time the preferential tariff took effect on the Woollen industry, because it was only then that serious "injury began to he felt. Since that time we find that there were new mills or additions to old ones to the extent of 3,960 spindles, but during that same time there were closed out 10,705 spindles, a total loss of 6,745 spindles. Here is an evidence of what inadequate protection produces. 1 will trouble the House to read an extract from this very valuable journal. After quoting the figures which I have given, it says this :
While in previous periods there has been an increase in the manufacturing capacity of Canadian mills, there has been a new loss since June, 1899 (when the preferential tariff had got into full swing), 6,745 spindles. These figures do not include the mills which are at present idle, but is simply a record of mills that are out of business entirely, either by insolvency,

abandonment by the proprietors, or destruction by Are. It is worthy of passing note that of the half dozen or more mills that have been burned down in the past year or so, not one has been rebuilt. Moreover, the insurance companies have in a number of cases cancelled their policies on woollen mills, and it is difficult to effect new insurance on any terms on small mills. These facts of themselves should be sufficient to convince the government that they have brought disaster on an industry that was once one of the most substantial and prosperous in the country, and which, notwithstanding the periods of depression, showed a steady growth up to the date of the preferential tariff.
And yet we find a minister of the Crown in a western part of this Dominion telling the people of the country-and we find it reiterated in this House, I believe in one Instance by the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes), that if the woollen industry cannot exist on 23 per cent, it should go under. That is the manner in which they treat men who invested their capital in good faith under a policy which gave assurance that the principle of protection to the industries of this country would be continued. In a banquet speech delivered in Montreal last autumn, the Minister of Finance gave the strongest reason I have ever read why the woollen industry cannot be successfully carried on in this country. He struck the key-note, although I am sorry he is legislating contrary to his convictions to-day. At the banquet in Montreal he said that he deplored the lack of Canadian sentiment. The people of this country, he said, would go a thousand miles to buy goods instead of buying them at home, and it was that lack of Canadian sentiment that prevented people carrying on business in this country. Why, what is the hon. gentleman doing himself ? He is actually putting on the statute-books in this country an Act of parliament to legislate away and destroy Canadian sentiment-an Act telling the people of this country that if they buy their goods in Germany, in England, in France, in Austria, he will give them a reduction of 33J per cent off the duty. He is legislating to destroy, instead of encouraging the sentiment which he so much deplored the absence of when talking to the manufacturers in Montreal. Business men all over the country know that the Minister of Finance was correct in that statement. I will undertake to say that fifty Canadian ladies out of every hundred will prefer to buy American-made gloves to Canadian gloves just because they are American, though they may not be so good an article. The same thing applies to shoes. Our people do lack Canadian sentiment, and it is the duty of the government to encourage Canadian sentiment. When the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York, now the Prince and Princess of Wales visited this country, you know how thousands and tens of thousands of young voices cheered them and showed an exuberance of loyalty. We were glad Mr. HENDERSON.
to see that display of loyalty, because on that sentiment depends the lives and liberties of the people of this country. We believe that the Duke and Duchess will some day be our King and Queen, and we rejoice that that sentiment is so strong, but what we want is a commercial sentiment in keeping with the loyal sentiment-not a sentiment that will educate our people to go to the old country for our goods. It is quite sufficient for us that we should take our King and Queen and our Governor General from the old country, but we do not want to purchase there everything we require. What we should cultivate in Canada is a commercial sentiment, and I hope that the time is not far distant when the legislation of this country will shape in that direction, and when the Minister of Finance will correct the very thing which he deplored when speaking to the manufacturers at the banquet in Montreal.
I think I have explained pretty fully the meaning of adequate protection. I think that hon. gentlemen opposite understand it. Speaking of taxation, I find that in 1901 we collected in customs duties $28,425,284. and in excise $10,318,266, or a total of $38,743,550. In 1896, on the other hand, we collected a total taxation of $27,759,285, or the taxation in 1901 was increased by $10,984,265. But hon. gentlemen opposite may say that that is increased protection. I say it is nothing of the kind. High taxation does not mean high protection. The fact is that we have too much taxation and too little protection, and that requires to be remedied. We want more protection and less taxation. We do not want to bleed the people white by taxation, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce used to say in days gone by, but there is no danger in doing that if taxation be put on for the purposes of protection. And I reiterate again that the mistake of our tariff is that it has too much taxation and too little protection.
It was said, in the early days of the present tariff, that the Liberals had stolen our clothes. I never said so, but of course when the preferential duty was only 12* par cent and when on coloured cotton goods and many other goods the duties were practically the same as under the Conservative regime, there was some reason for perhaps coming to the conclusion, without due consideration. that the Liberals had stolen our clothes. But I do not consider that they have done anything of the kind. I am only sorry that they did not, for it would have been better for the country if they had. Their tariff is instead just the antipodes of ours. Ours gave protection with as little taxation as possible, and theirs takes more taxation from the people and gives as little protection as possible. The government could remove raw sugar to the free list and thus reduce taxation by $2,000,000. nearly as much as the reduction by the preferential tariff on goods from Great Britain, which

only amounts to about two millions and a half, and as my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) has well said, the money does not go into the pockets of the consumers. 1 question if one dollar of it finds its way into his pocket. I believe it all goes into the pockets of the manufacturers of the old country and the importers in this country. When you get it down to the consumer, it is so infinitesimally small that you cannot divide it. What would signify the reduction on a yard of cotton, retailing at five cents, even though there was one-eightli of a cent taken off the duty. The dealer gets it every time. An hon. gentleman opposite-I think the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) was boasting about the great reduction on locks from the duty on which two and a half per cent was taken. Well, that article costs about six to ten cents, and I wonder whether he or his customer gets the benefit of the reduction. I am one of those who believe that adequate protection does not increase the prices of goods. We never had cheaper cotton goods or woollen goods in this country than when the national policy was in full swing, and I am prepared to return to that policy in its entirety. I am satisfied that under it people would get a better and cheaper class of goods than they do to-day. We may possibly be getting a class of woollen goods at lower prices, but they are not the quality that we got years ago, and for quality and price combined they are not at all equal to what we got under the Conservative regime. If we only could buy our goods in the United States free of duty, these hon. gentlemen say, how much cheaper would we get them. They want to buy agricultural implements in the United States, which is one of the highest protected countries in the world. But why not protect our own country and then get cheaper goods here ? Why do we go to the United States to buy $62,000,000 of dutiable goods ? Evidently because we get them cheaper. But why not imitate their policy, and by protecting our own manufactures be in a position to get the goods cheaper at home and not have any freight to pay, and besides furnish a home market for the products of the farm. Every farmer would be delighted to have the better market which would be furnished him at home if these $62,000,000 worth of goods were manufactured in this country. The hon. Minister of Customs tried to persuade us this afternoon that the Americans, who sold goods in Canada, simply sold them at so much less because of the preferential tariff. If the hon. gentleman will take the matter into his consideration. I think he will find the reverse to be the case. Take an article, which we may buy indifferently in the United States or Great Britain or France or Germany or Belgium. Last year I illustrated my argument by a spool of thread to show how much the people were robbed by this preferential tariff.
I showed how they had to pay $1,000,000 more for spool thread in consequence of this preference. I may take that simple article because small things often serve better the purposes of illustration than large ones. A spool of thread of 200 yards, six cord, is identically the same whether made in the United States, Great Britain, France or Belgium. If I can buy that article in the United States and lay it down in Canada after paying 25 per cent duty, just as cheaply as I can by purchasing it in Great Britain and paying 17 per cent duty and freight, of what advantage is the preferential tariff to me ? If I cannot do better in Great Britain, of what advantage is this preference ? As a matter of fact, I cannot. We buy just as cheaply in countries which pay a duty of 25 per cent as in Great Britain which	pays only 17	per cent, and
that fact is evidence to me that Great Britain does not sell that class of goods any cheaper than the United States. The fact is the British manufacturer will not sell the thread cheaper. Of course, it costs about 8 per cent more to get it into Canada from the United States than from Great Britain. The British manufacturer knows that, so he simply adds 8 per cent to his price and makes us pay 8 per cent more than we would pay in the United States. The statement is as absolutely correct ns that of the Minister of Customs. In England there is a combine that keeps up the price of that article so that, you cannot get it at its actual value. This proves the- case conclusively that you can buy the article cheaper in a country where there is not a preferential tariff, in the big protection countries such as the United States, France and Germany. We buy $112,000 worth of thread from the United States and pay 25 per cent duty, and we buy $131,000 worth from Great Britain and get it in under a 17 per cent duty. This is conclusive proof that the British manufacturer adds the 8 per cent to the price of his goods and makes that much more money out of the Canadians.
I have already referred to the question of the woollen goods, I stand by what I said. My experience is that these goods were cheaper under the national policy and better also than they are at the present time. Now, we have been told over and over again that the agriculture interests of this country cannot be protected. I am one of those who believe that the agriculture interest is well protected. Do we not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly in the experimental farms for the benefit of agriculture ? And the provincial government is doing the same thing. All over the country we have these experimental farms. Then, look at what we are spending for cold storage. Cold storage is not necessary for the shipment of manufactured goods but for the benefit of the farmer. We are

practically giving a bonus to the farmers in that ,elass of expenditure. And by protecting other industries, I say, we are protecting agriculturists. Take the woollen industry. What is the woollen industry but a by-product of agriculture ? And it is out of the by-products that the money is made very often. For instance, everything from axle grease to chewing gum is made out of petroleum. The profit is not made so much out of the coal oil as it is out of the by-products. Unless you can gather up and dispose of the by-products your main article of the manufacture may result in a loss. We have been told that the woollen industry should go down if it cannot live under a duty of 23 per cent. When the hon. minister says that I wonder if he thinks that the Intercolonial Railway which in the last five years has cost us 813,000,000 more than we have received from it, should be closed up. I wonder if the hon. gentleman does not consider that the government of this country should resign because they cannot run the country without a loss of $6,000,000. The woollen industry buys the wool from agriculturists and this class are' benefited to the extent that it makes a market for their wool. We know it to be a fact that, since the time the preferential tariff came into full effect, the price of wool in this country has gone down. The farmer does not realize the profit that he did formerly, and there is no hope that under this government the industry is to be put on a sound footing. I regret to see, I think it was in an evening paper, an item which would indicate that the cotton industry cannot be successfully carried on in Canada against the competition that is brought to bear upon it, as was so fully explained a short time ago by my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). I notice that at the annual meeting of the Dominion Cotton Mills Company, only yesterday, it was announced that no less than $312,000 was their loss on last year's business. How long is the Dominion Cotton Company going to stand that ? But all the sympathy they get from hon. gentlemen opposite is : If you cannot work under the present tariff, you may go under. These hon. gentlemen kill the industry by slow degrees. Now, not only does the woollen industry buy the wool from the farmers, but the people engaged in that industry afford a market for perishable products of the farm, products that cannot be sent abroad to a market. So these industries, like the woollen, cotton and other industries are the by-products of the agriculture industry. And just as these by-products thrive so will thrive the great industry of agriculture. Until these various industries are in a healthy and prosperous state, the agriculturists need never expect to acquire great wealth. I read in a newspaper a few days ago, apropos of this point, that a gentleman in Toronto, a dealer in hogs-and that is a very important in-Mr. HENDERSON.
dustry in this country-was asked how it was that hogs were higher in Buffalo than in Toronto. The answer to that was very simple ; it was that, in the United Stat.es, they consumed 80 per cent of their hog products and exported 20 per cent, but we in Canada consume 20 per cent and export 80 per cent. This shows the importance of having such industries as the woollen industry and the cotton industry to give employment to working people and to create a market in this country for as much of the products of our farms as possible. It is estimated-and I presume it is a fair estimate-that the entire products of the farmers of this country in one year would be worth about $400,000,-
000.	We export- about $80,000,000 of that, or about 20 per cent, and we consume about 80 per cent What a grand thing it would be for this country if we could find a home market for a much larger percentage. We should not then be troubled so much about the transportation problem, the providing of facilities for taking goods out of the country. What we want is to get people into the country and to get live industries here, as was suggested by the Hon. G. W. Ross, who says that this is necessary in order to make Canada self-reliant. When we can do that, then the value of what is consumed at home will be increased and the country will be benefited. They tell us that under protection there are combines. But combines exist in Great Britain under free trade. So much has been said on the subject of coal oil that I almost fear to touch it. But one thing I do know is that, under the tariff in force prior to 1897, we had cheaper coal oil than we have had since, and cheaper, I believe, than we shall have until the policy of the government is changed. I do not believe that, under our style of government, variable and very liable to be turned out at any time, you can get men in Canada who will invest their money in enterprises to bring about the same competition that we had before and keep the prices down. Coal oil is now at a wholesale price, at any rate in all points of western Ontario, 3 cents a gallon higher than it was five years ago; and as I said before, I do not believe that we will ever get back to the old price. So much for this tariff of high taxation and low protection.
Now, I referred a short time ago to what the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) said about the national policy being rejected. He gave two or three instances, and I want to refer to them before I go any further. He not only said that the national policy had been rejected in 1896, but that it had been condemned recently in several instances, and one instance Ee referred to was Beauharnois. I thought that he had a great deal to be proud of when the majority was reduced by one-half in a by election. I thought that was a condemnation of the government policy and an

approval of adequate protection. Then he referred to some other cases. He did not refer to Laval, represented by my hon. friend here (Mr. Leonard). He did not say a word about that county, where a majority in favour of the government of between 300 and 400 was converted into a minority. He never mentioned St. James division, Montreal, where a majority of 1,600 odd was reduced by 1,000 ; and if there had not more ballots come out of the box than went in, it might have 'been wiped out altogether. He did not say a word about Lisgar, yes the riding of Lisgar, where the Minister of the Interior fought until he almost bled, and had to go to a watering place to resuscitate his shattered nerves after the shock he received up there, after suffering a defeat of 400-because the government candidate polled 400 less votes than were polled against him, an utter condemnation, even in free trade Manitoba, of this principle of inadequate protection.
Ml-. McOREARY. What about the Conservative candidate in that county ?


David Henderson: There were two sets of candidates, one was for the government and the other was against it, and the gentleman who was running in the interest of the government polled fewer votes than the other two who opposed the Government. Therefore, the government were defeated, and the Minister of the Interior got ill from it, and had to go down to the southern states in order to recuperate.


An hon. MEMBER.: What about West York ?


David Henderson: Why, the government candidate became a protectionist, and he cannot open his mouth in this House to-day.


Mr. McCREARY.: The hon. gentleman has misrepresented the case in Lisgar. The Conservative candidate, the only one of the three who advocated a raise in the tariff, lost his deposit.


David Henderson: All right. But the facts are plain that there was a government candidate there supported by the Minister of the Interior with all the machine force, no doubt, which he could bring into play. I am not finding any fault with him, he wanted to support his government. There were two other men running, they were both opposed to the government and the two polled more votes than the government candidate polled, a clear condemnation of the government from a free trade constituency.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I realize, perhaps, that I am unfair to the House in continuing my remarks at this late hour, but I am waiting for the Minister of Customs to return, and if he stays out until three o'clock I am not sure but I will talk him into the House. I sat here, Mr. Speaker, and listened to the Minister of Customs and heard every word
he had to say, and I think it is only fair that he should give us five minutes, at any rate, of his very kind attention.
Now a word about the Minister of Finance and his budget speech. We must refer a little to that, it would not be courteous if we closed this debate without complimenting the hon. gentleman on his very excellent speech. Of course, just as we expected, the old story of Canada's prosperity formed the first chapter ; and in the next budget speech I hope the same old story will be repeated when the hon. gentleman rises to address the House. Every one of us on this side of the House re-echo our great pleasure at the fact that there is a very considerable degree of prosperity in this country. I think the minister perhaps was a little more modest this year in claiming that he was responsible for that prosperity. I think he allowed Providence a little higher percentage this year than he formerly allowed. Last year the hon. gentleman seemed to be getting somewhat pessimistic. Two years ago he warned us that the pendulum that swings one way to-day is going to swing another way to-morrow, and lie had some vision of a near future when the pendulum was going to swing back. I am glad that it has not swung back yet, I am glad he is not as good a prophet as we took him to be. But last year he had another vision. He thought we were on the crest of the wave, and he seemed to think we had gone just as far as we could go for two or three years, and he said in all probability Canada will take a rest. He did not think she would slip back, but he thought there would be a rest. Now,
I can quite understand why the hon. gentleman was so nervous about Canada's position ; I can quite understand why he thought we were arriving at a period of rest when there would be no further improvement. The hon. gentleman was aware of the fact that new life and energy had been infused- into this new Dominion of ours by reason of the national policy, and that under a system of higher taxation with less protection that energy was becoming exhausted. Realizing that fact, the hon. gentleman began to think that possibly there would be a reverse. Of course I give the hon. gentleman credit for having something to do with the prosperity of this country. I believe he has had something to do with it, at any rate the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has, perhaps even more than the Minister of Finance. We know that you cannot expend $20,000,000 of money in the Dominion of Canada on public works, even if many of them are useless, without benefiting the people among whom it is expended. If you throw that money broadcast throughout the country it is going to help trade, there is no question about it. So to that extent I believe the hon. gentleman did help to bring about prosperity in this country. I remember well the time the Grand Trunk Railway was built,

about the year 1856, through the county that I live In. Large sums of money were expended, and though there was a cry of hard times, the people in that riding were enabled to tide over those hard times. Tens of millions of pounds sterling were spent in Canada, and it was the salvation of the country at that time. But what I complain of is this; Although admitting that the expenditure of large sums of money will benefit us, the present is the wrong time to spend it. The time for a large expenditure, In my opinion, is not in years of prosperity, but in years of adversity. Now is the time that we should be reducing our public debt. Instead of adding $6,000,000 of money to the debt, we should be taking off $5,000,000 or $6,000,000. If we have a surplus we ought to apply that to a reduction of the national debt and preserve our great resources, our great wealth, our borrowing powers for the time when the lean years come, when the pendulum swings back and when we need help to tide over these years. Then Canada would never need to take a rest but would go on and on for ever.
Since the advent to power of hon. gentlemen opposite we have disbursed $250,550,000, an enormous amount of money to expend even in this big country. We have only collected $22S,677,000 so that we have actually disbursed $21,873,000 more in five years than all our revenues amounted to. Of course, I desire to be fair to the hon. Minister of Finance. A portion of that is applied to the reduction of our debt by means of what is called the sinking fund. Here, I am going to take issue with the hon. Minister of Finance. I do not think that the sinking fund is treated in a fair way. Each and every year the sinking fund is charged to the consolidated fund account and then immediately on the other side it is deducted from the account and applied in reduction of the present year's indebtedness. What is the meaning of a sinking; fund ? Every hon. member has been connected with municixial institutions. You borrow money for a period of twenty, thirty, or forty years and you issue bonds or debentures. You lay past a certain sum of money each year to meet this indebtedness as it falls due. What would you think of a municipal officer, who, instead of saving the sinking fund to meet these debentures twenty years hence, simply applied it to the present year's purposes. If he did so in the province of Ontario he would be put in jail because there is a penalty provided for that sort of thing. He is compelled to invest it for the purpose for which it is designed. But here you do it in another way with the result that the country does not realize the actual fact that our 'deficit each year is much larger than it really appears. Next year it appears only as six millions, $6,000,000, but if you take into account the sinking fund it will actually be about $8,500,000. The hon. Minister of Mr. HENDERSON.
Finance brings it down to $6,000,000 by deducting the present year what should be deducted in years to come. The United States have adopted the principle I suggest. Of course, during the first three of the last five years they had a great war on hand and they were compelled to use all their revenues for the purpose of paying their war expenses, but during these few years, these years of prosperity they have been putting past money to pay off the national debt. They have set aside in two years $157,000,000. They have not spent all their revenues. They are making provisions for days of adversity in times of prosperity. They are preparing for adversity and when the pendulum swings back they will be able to utilize this $157,000,000 for general purposes to help the country, to reduce taxation and in some other ways to assist the people to tide over their difficulties and thus we will expect that in the United States, with such foresight, good times will continue while we in this country must suffer for our improvidence in making no provision in the fat years for the lean years that are sure to follow.
I desire to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Finance to the manner in which the Public Accounts of the Dominion are kept. I believe the time has come and I know it is the feeling in the country that the people ought to know where we stand in regard to finances. As a matter of fact the people do not know. Last year fifty or seventy-five per cent of the people were under the impression that we had a surplus of $5,648,333. That is what goes forth to the country and our local newspapers will publish the statement that the surplus is so much. They forget to tell the people in many instances, or to make it plain, that this is simply the difference between the two sides of the consolidated account, whereas there is a large sum charged to capital account. Last year the total disbursements were $57,982,866, and our total receipts $52,514,701, showing a deficit of $5,406,533. Now, that is a statement that ought to go to the people and if the hon. gentleman persists in keeping books by double entry 1 say that lie ought in fairness to the people, in large type, over and above the whole thing, print one statement that will show them exactly how the finances stand. At the expiration of the present year, ending June, 1902, we are told that the revenue will be $50,800,000 and that the expenditure on consolidated fund account will be $51,000,000, leaving a surplus of $5,800,000. To the ordinary reader that is very satisfactory. It looks nice. But, we have a capital expenditure of $14,250,000 which, added to $51,000,000 of expenditure on consolidated fund account makes a total expenditure of $65,250,000. As the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock) says it is the vastest expenditure that has been. Then

the hon. Minister of Finance tells us that this government has increased the national debt simply by $6,000,000 instead of $8,450,000 which is actually the case as his result of manipulating-I do not use the word in any offensive sense-the sinking fund of this country. Now, just one word in answer to the statements made by a great many hon. gentlemen who claim credit for the government of this country for having done a great deal to bring about the present era of prosperity. No hon. gentleman seemed to argue that the imports of the country have very much to do with the prosperity, but they talked largely about the exports and to my mind the exports are a very good test of the country's prosperity-that is what we export out of the country and realize money for. But all exports are not evidence that the country is becoming wealthier. We can extract gold from the mine or coal from the mine, which is so much national capital taken out. I do not know that the government have in any way helped to increase that export. The total exports of Canada for last year were $196,4S7,632, of which there were foreign products and coin and bullion to the amount of $19,050,246, leaving the net exports of home products for 1901 at $177,431,386. In 1897, the first year in which the Liberals were really in power, the first year when they controlled the affairs of this country, the net exports of the country were $123,632,540, showing that there was an increase in the preferential tariff period of exports of $53,798,846, a very creditable increase.
But how much of that was the government responsible for ? How much did they influence ? The increase of the products of the mines from 1897 to 1901 was $29,068,763. I don't think the government caused one dollar's worth more to be dug out of the ground than would have been if the Conservative party were in power. The increase of agricultural products from 1897 to 1901 was $6,798,846. I am not aware that the government claim any credit for the increase. They had a crop of 60,000,000 bushels of wheat in the North-west this year, against possibly 30,000,000 last year. Surely the government would not claim credit for the difference. They have no right to claim any credit for any increase in the export of purely agricultural products. It is a fact that in 1S98 we shipped 10,000,000 bushels of wheat to the old country more than we did in 1901. The government did not control that. In 1897 we exported 1,000,000 barrels of apples more than we did in 1901, simply because we had 1,000,000 barrels of apples more to export. As fat-back as 1893, even before the cold storage system of the Minister of Agriculture, we shipped out of this country $1,000,000 worth more of all kinds of fruit than we did last year. Nobody holds the government responsible for that. I say that the government has no right to claim any credit for these increased exports. We find that when we deduct minerals and agricultural products which together gave an increase of $35,867,614, the balance of the increase is $17,821,232. What is that amount made up of ? It is made up of the increase of the products of the fisheries, of the forests, of animals and them products and of manufactures. I go back to 1893 and 1897 ; I take the previous four years to see how it compares. You will be surprised to find that in the last four years of the old regime the increase in exports in articles that the government might control was actually about as large as the increase during the past four years, the difference being only $2,014,232. Of that $2,000,000 of increase during the last four years, I wonder how much the government was responsible for ? What have they done to increase these exports '! One very large item of that increase is $],-742,946 for agricultural implements exported last year. They tell us : See what we have done for agricultural implements: why, we have reduced, the duty on iron and we have reduced the duty on steel and we are helping the manufacturers so that they can make implements to send to foreign countries. Well, the old government gave as large protection as the present government to the manufacturers of agricultural implements. Under the old government the rule existed with regard to rebates on exported articles, so that the present government has done nothing more to encourage the export of agricultural implements, or carriages or hardware or machinery of any kind, than the old government did. The whole thing .is worked on the same principle as formerly, and therefore this government is not entitled to any credit for that.
I desire to close my remarks, Sir, by drawing attention to one other matter, and I am sorry the Minister of Customs has not put in an appearance, because the condition of affairs I desire to draw attention to is one of the most deplorable that exists in the country. I say that the farmers of this country; the great producing classes of this country are unfairly treated in this preferential tariff. We on this side say that it is an unsatisfactory tariff and our resolution is put in that way. It is unsatisfactory because it imposes too much taxation and gives too little protection. It is unsatisfactory because it gives us no new markets and has closed up the second best market that this country had for the products of Canada. We are voting conscientiously when we say that that Liberal government tariff is an unsatisfactory tariff, and I cannot for the life of me see how the Minister of Public Works is going to come here tonight to vote against that resolution after the declaration which he made in Montreal when he said he was born a protectionist and had no reason to change his faith, and

that he could not tor the life of him see why we could not be protected in this country just as well as the people of the United States. But what I desire to refer to more particularly is the preferential tariff as it has affected our market in Germany. 1 am not going to discuss the question as to whether German discrimination against Canada has been brought about by reason of this preferential tariff or not. 1 think that is admitted on all hands. If there had been no denunciation of the Belgian and German treaties there would be no discrimination against Canada by Germany. That is admitted and I leave it at that. What is the position we now find ourselves in. Against Canada in Germany they put up 43 cents per hundred pounds of a discriminating duty against our butter. That is a considerable discrimination against us. On beans they have a discrimination of 3i cents; on oats a discrimination of 4J cents; on peas a discrimination of cents. That is the difference between the conventional tariff and the general tariff. Of course we have been giving offence to Germany by the denunciation of the German treaty and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when in Toronto a year or so ago, was very careful to tell the people there that he was instrumental in having the treaties denounced. | Therefore the government must take the full responsibility for this discrimination against Canada. On rye, there is discrimination of 9 1-12 cents against Canada, and on wheat a discrimination of 91 cents against Canada. I read an extract from a Berlin paper on March the 19th, the very day after the budget speech of the Finance Minister the ' Berliner ' declared :
Canada is, economically speaking, a completely autonomous state and therefore she cannot establish differential duties in favour of England without exposing herself to retaliatory measures.
That is what a leading Berlin paper wrote the day after the budget speech was delivered In Canada. They say that Canada being responsible for her own tariff, she must take the consequences if she persists in doing what she has done.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Do 1 understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) to condemn the denunciation of the Belgian and German treaties 7


David Henderson: I condemn it if it is for the purpose of securing a one-sided preferential tariff.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman is aware that both political parties for years desired the abrogation of these treaties?


David Henderson: Not for the purpose of obtaining a one-sided preference.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No matter what the purpose is.


David Henderson: 


David Henderson: The pun-pose is everything. That was only one part of the policy of the Conservative party, but no such wild policy would have ever been adopted by the Conservative party as a policy calculated to destroy Canadian Industries and Canadian agriculture.
Now, I want to show how we are handicapped in that country by this policy. I picked up the ' Globe ' newspaper of the 14th of March, containing the market reports of the 13th of March ; and I find that on that day red wheat No. 2 was selling at Buffalo at SS cents, whereas at Toronto the highest price quoted for it was 78 cents, or just 10 cents less than the price at Buffalo. The Buffalo man could send his wheat to Germany and realize on it 10 cents a bushel more than the Toronto man. Consequently the farmer who drove his wheat to the Buffalo market got 10 cents a bushel more for It than the farmer who took his wheat to the Toronto market. At Liverpool on the same day red wheat sold at 87f cents. It used to be said that Liverpool ruled the market, but under the preferential tariff Buffalo fixes the price of wheat. Germany last year took from the United States more wheat than the entire export from the Dominion of Canada to Great Britain, and this is the market that is closed against us, while German goods are allowed to come Into Canada under the preference at a reduction of 33J per cent. The same thing could be said about rye. On the 13th of March rye sold at Buffalo at 051 cents and at Toronto at 58 cents. In 1901 Canada exported to Britain 9.739,759 bushels of wheat, to Germany we sent only 28,369 bushels. This may have been inferior wheat. We know that we have damaged grain, we can find a market for it in Germany when the millers in England and Scotland will not buy It; but even for damaged grain we are practically excluded from that market. In the same year the United States sent to Germany 10,267,622 bushels of wheat, or more than all the wheat we exported from the Dominion of Canada. I listened to hon. members from Manitoba and the North-west talking about their need of transportation facilities, and telling us of the millions of bushels of wheat that were lying about the country in bags exposed to atmospheric influences and liable to be destroyed for the lack of the means of transportation ; and yet these lion, gentlemen are ready to vote for a policy which prevents this wheat being sent to Germany through the United States. Any port in a storm would be my policy, and if we could not get transportation for our products through the Dominion of Canada I would send them through the United States and out by New York. But even if we did so, we could not take advantage of the German market, because when an attempt was made a short time ago to export from Manitoba through New York, mixing it with Ameri-

can wheat, the fact was discovered by the German consul, and it was stopped. We were not permitted even to smuggle our wheat to the German market through New York. Germany is determined not to trade with a people who refuse to trade on equal terms with it. I wonder at these hon. gentlemen from the North-west talking about that loss, while they are ready to vote for a preferential tariff which shuts them out of a market where they could get 10 cents a bushel more than they do for the article which they produce in the largest quantities. How do they expect us in the older provinces to provide better means of transportation if the farmers of Ontario and Quebec and the other provinces as well as the manufacturers are to be handicapped by the very policy they are voting for ? If these hon. gentlemen would join us in voting down this preferential tariff, and give us an opportunity of doing something to help them, they would find a justification for their votes ; but until they do something for the country, I fail to see how they are going to justify themselves to their con-situtents. In 1899 Canada exported 327,486 bushels of rye to Great Britain, to Germany we did not send a bushel, but the United States sent to Germany 4,036,554 bushels. By the preferential tariff we have turned that market fully over to the United States. Of barley Canada exported to Great Britain in 1901 2,386,000 bushels, to Germany we did not send a bushel, shut out by the preferential tariff ; but the United States sent to Germany 3,385,140 bushels in 1900. Of oats Canada exported in 1901 8,155,000 bushels, but not a single bushel to Germany-the second best market in the world closed to us by reason of the preferential tariff. Of oats the United States sent to Germany in 1900 1,295,609 bushels. Of pease Canada exported to Great Britain in 1901 3,064,389 bushels, and only 60,351 bushels to Germany. In 1901 Canada exported 310,416 bushels of beans to Great Britain, we did not send a dollar's worth to Germany. The same thing applies to butter, of which Canada exported in 1901 16,335,526 pounds, but we did not send a pound to Germany, shut out by reason of the preferential tariff.
Now, I wish to draw attention to this fact, that notwithstanding that we are excluded from the second best market in the world for our agricultural products, we are to-day taking large quantities of manufactured goods from Germany. We took last year $7,021,405 worth, not including the German goods which were smuggled through the ports of Great Britain by reason of the preferential tariff. We exported to Germany $2,141,552 worth ; but these exports were not the home products of Canada. Of home products we only sent her $1,374,716 worth, so that practically our trade with Germany was only fifth or sixth class. Belgium, with a population of 6,000,000, took from us more goods than Germany. In
1901 Belgium took from us $1,728,484, whereas, Germany, with a population of 56,000,000, only took from us $1,374,716 worth. We took from Belgium $3,828,450 worth, or about one-half of what we took from Germany.
I assume that the hon. the Minister of Customs has gone on a journey or he is asleep. If the latter, I hope he sleeps soundly, but I would have been very glad indeed if he had given me the light of his presence. I can assure him that whenever he speaks in this House, I shall, if possible, always be present to hear what he says. Not because what he says is always so very entertaining or interesting, but because I always like to know, when I have to reply to an hon. gentleman, what he has said in order that I may not misrepresent him. When the hon. gentleman said that this government had reduced the rate of taxation, I declare just as emphatically that they have not, but on the contrary, have increased it, and I should have been glad had the minister been in his place to hear the arguments I advance in support of my contention, and to point out the errors, if he conceived there were any, in these arguments. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for the kind attention given to my remarks.


Mr. LEMIETJX (Gaspe).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I do not rise at this stage of the discussion, and at this advanced hour of the night, to participate at any length in the debate that is now in progress. I may even say, that it was not my intention, after the many speeches we have heard, to have intervened in the debate ; but I feel it to be my duty to say a few words in reply to the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), who has directly appealed to me. I must confess to my astonishment at the new role played by the hon. gentleman who has constituted himself the guardian of public morality, and the champion of the province of Quebec. This is quite a new departure from the record of the hon. gentleman and his friends on the other side of the House. I should rather say that if I wished to account for the splendid isolation-to use a word that is now classical-in which my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) finds himself, I should assign no other cause for it than the unwarrantable language used by his own colleagues on the other side of the House.
The hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), referring to the census, asked whether, after the disclosures made by the hon. Minister of Agriculture, in connection with the parish of St. Jean de Matha, in the county of Joliette, it ought to be inferred that all the census enumerators in 1891 have been perjurers? Sir, that was not the charge made by the Minister of Agriculture. I listened very attentively to his speech, the other day. He did not say that

the census enumerators had deliberately perjured themselves, nor did he state that they had received ambiguous instructions, through which they were enabled to stuff the census ; but he said that some enumerators in the province of Quebec, and in other provinces of the Dominion, had unduly swelled the numbers, and exceeded their instructions. Moreover, apart from the county of Joliette, still more shocking facts have been brought to light.
The same conditions, as I said, prevailed also in the other provinces. The hon. member for Bothwell was at a loss to understand how a parish priest, the reverend Mr. Morin, could have presumed to write a letter, in order to contradict facts that had been sworn to by the census enumerator. The hon. gentleman failed to understand how a priest, who has been a resident in this country but for a couple of years, could have given an exact enumeration of the people living in the parish of St. Jean de Matha in 1891. I think all the hon. gentleman's doubts would be removed did he know how scrupulously the registers are kept by the Roman Catholic priests in the province of Quebec.
In each Roman Catholic parish, registers are kept by the parish priest, in which the acts of civil status, such as the acts of birth, of marriage, of burial and the number of communicants are inscribed. In a parish like St. Jean de Matha, where you can hardly find five Protestants, I hesitate not to say that the name of every man, woman and child in the parish is inscribed in those registers, and these registers, mark you, are handed down from generation to generation. It is a well known fact, that there is no religious denomination in the world, the ministers of which keep the registers of civil status with greater care than is shown by the ministers of the denomination to which I may say-though in no spirit of vain glory-that I am proud to belong. Those registers have been kept in our Roman Catholic parishes from time immemorial ; and should you pay a visit to the early settlements of Quebec, you would be surprised to find old dusty registers dating from the French dominion. As early as 153G, under Francis I-and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier may bear witness to what I say-through an ordinance which lias become famous, the Roman Catholic priests were bound to keep the registers of civil status in their parishes, missions or chapels. Duplicates of those registers are deposited in the prothonotary's office of the Superior Court.


Mr. F. D. MONK.: (Translation.) Would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? Does he think that he has succeeded in clearing the province of Quebec from the charge levelled against it, and from the imputation cast on its honour by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


Rodolphe Lemieux: (Translation.) Surely, the hon. gentleman is not in earnest, when he so unfairly brings to task the hon. Minister of Agriculture. The hon. minister did not say that the shocking state of affairs described by him prevailed in the province of Quebec alone, because he showed that there had been stuffing of the lists in the counties of Colchester, West Huron, Cornwall, Antigonish and Annapolis.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) The hon. minister said it was worse in the province of Quebec than in the other provinces.


Rodolphe Lemieux: (Translation.) Does the hon. gentleman think that from the fact that a census enumerator is denounced for having violated his oath and having perjured himself, it follows that the whole province of Quebec is besmirched, and that the charge of perjury is fastened upou the whole people of Quebec ? One cannot expect to find absolute perfection here below, even in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, when I rose to address the House, in the French language, I washed to speak out my mind, and so to say, to unbosom myself to the House, as to the general policy of the government ; and I am now going to address myself to this task. Let me say, first, that they were labouring under a strange delusion, who, after 1896, fancied that the Conservatives had laid down their arms. As a matter of fact, the Conservative party were not long In assuming the offensive again. The Liberal party, they said, composed as they are of unruly soldiers and sharp-shooters, will not fail in creating such a disturbance in the conditions of the country with their fiscal policy, as will cause to rise in arms against them the trade interests and the manufacturers of the country. They also said : ' The Conservative party, strongly rooted as they are in the soil, having at their command the long enjoyed assistance of high and powerful influences, supplied as they are with the sinews of war by generous and large-hearted followers, will not be long in resuming the reins of power. As giant Antaeus, in the fable, acquired new strength every time he touched the earth, so, they said, the Conservative party will gain fresh energy, and be nerved to new exertions from their crushing defeat. There was not to be found a single man among the Conservatives, who did not believe that the check the party had met with was but a temporary one, and that at the next sound of the bugle the rout of the Liberals would be complete, and their defeat irretrievable.
Mr. Speaker, it is very true that faith will move mountains. But, after the general elections of 1900, and the recent by-elections, our opponents, to use the language of poetry, had to come down from the paradise dreamed of, and to face the cold and stern realities of existence.
I referred, a little while ago, to the splendid isolation in which my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier finds himself, a man to whose talents and strength of mind I am happy to pay homage. He is not by no manner of means to blame for that isolation in which he finds himself. The guilty party is the electorate, or should my hon. friend like it better, I shall say that the guilty party is the Conservative party ; because their political record for the last twenty years is one of intestine quarrels, and of family feuds ; so that the hon. gentleman, when surveying the ruins heaped up all around him, may well exclaim : ' Ceci a tue cela.' It was those suicidal quarrels that killed the party.
However, let the hon. gentleman cheer up and remember that parties are by no means eternal. Till brighter days dawn, let him not forget to look after the electorate. I heard, a little while ago, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) tell us a little story, which gives an insight into our political manners. He told us that in 1877, Mr. Laurier, who had just become a minister in the Mackenzie administration, was running in the county of Arthabasca, and that his opponents circulated the report, in the backwood parishes, that he was a Protestant minister. The story told by the hon. member for Halton is perfectly true, and it goes to show-although those who make such silly appeals to prejudices and passions generally fall short of their design-that in the province from which I come they stop at no language, however strong, at no imputations, to compass the defeat of a Liberal. I said that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier knew that the acquaintance of the electorate was worth cultivating. As an instance, I may tell the House that last fall, he addressed the members of the Club Morin of Montreal, and that he did not hesitate to represent the right hon. prime minister as most unworthy of the confidence of his fellow-countrymen. I have not the verbatim report of that speech in hand, but I have here an extract from the Toronto Mail of the remarks made by the hon. gentleman. Here are the headlines :
Laurier Fails in Duty to Quebec. His Premiership of No Aid to French Canadians. Notable Speech by F. D. Monk.
And the 1 Mail ' goes on to say :
'Ey the very nature of his position Sir Wilfrid Laurier was obliged every day to make concessions. In the same way when the subsidies to the Provinces came up for consideration Prince Edward Island received a bonus. New Brunswick will also receive one, but Quebec's claims are left without consideration. The same thing applied to Experimental farms. Every other province had one, but Quebec was left out. In the Immigration Department, conducted by Mr. ' Sifton, the French Canadians were practically eliminated. The immigration was directed to the far west, to the detriment of Quebec. Referring to the Montreal harbour works, Mr. Monk said that the necessary works have been 76
delayed for years simply because the government is afraid to do anything for the province of Quebec, which gives Canada its Prime Minister. AM along the line Mr. Monk claimed that Quebec Province had gained nothing, but, on the contrary, had lost in prestige and advantages by having one of its own sons at the head of the government.
Those appeals to racial prejudices and passions among French Canadians, against the government, have had the result contemplated by our opponents.
Take, for instance, the county of Laval, where the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) has succeeded in having a young man of talent returned to parliament. It must be borne in mind that there were two Liberal candidates in the field, and that but for the split in the Liberal ranks, Mr. Wilson, the government candidate would have carried the county. Take as another instance, the county of Beauharnois. Now, in that county, if the old majority of 1900 was not polled in favour of the Liberal candidate, let us not forget that it was owing to the fact that 300 voters of Valleyfield had neglected to have their names registered on the voters' lists. But for that neglect, our fried, Mr. Loy would have been returned by a larger majority. In the electoral division of St. James, Montreal, the fact that the majority polled by our candidate was smaller than formerly -and it is a matter of public notoriety-is due to the split in the Liberal ranks. Let it suffice to say that, up to the very day preceding nomination day, there were two and even three Liberal candidates in the field.
Mr. Speaker, the capital grievance formulated by our opponents against the government is that they have no well defined fiscal policy. The name of Mr. Alexander Mackenzie, the old Liberal leader, has been evoked during this debate, and it has been stated that he was the apostle of free trade ; that his successor, the Hon. Edward Blake had, in his Maiverne speech in 1882, pronounced in favour of moderate protection; that later on, the right hon. Prime Minister had successively advocated such platforms as unrestricted reciprocity with the United States, commercial union, a revenue tariff policy, and that finally he had become a worshipper at the shrine of protection pure and simple.
Now, what are the facts ? In 1896, when the Liberal party, after they had passed twenty years in the cold shades of opposition, were put at the head of public affairs by the will of the people, a commission was appointed which held its sittings in the different parts of the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and obtained all kinds of information, during their investigation, from all classes of the community ; and after having gone thoroughly into those informations and grievances, during the session of 1897, the hon. Minister of Finance framed his fiscal policy, and as a consequence, the Fielding tariff was put in force.



' What were the results of that policy ? An unprecedented era of prosperity was ushered in and a fresh impetus given to trade and industry.
Of course, Sir, the ideal which is cherished by all friends of liberty is free trade as it is understood in Great Britain. But there is many a slip between the cup and the lip. In a young country like ours, placed as it is in the immediate neighbourhood of the great American republic, I do not know of any rigid and unalterable principle that may be laid down in fiscal matters. Of course our infant industries need protection, but that protection should not be eternal. All depends on the conditions of the country. Did not the hon. Minister of Finance state, upon two different occasions, that the manufacturers should prepare and make provision for the time when, their industries having been built up, the mouldering branches would be lopped off and the duties reduced ? This is a most wholesome warning by which all the interested parties should profit. As I said, in matters fiscal, there is no absolute and fixed principle, and everything depends on circumstances. In the course of this debate, reference was made to the names of Cobden and Bright, the two champions of free trade in England. But does anybody pretend to say that, had they lived under Cromwell, those two champions of commercial freedom would have taken the position they did take in this century ? Was not Sir John Macdonald himself, prior to 1872, a free trader ? And yet, In 1878, he evolved into a full-fledged protectionist. Did not Sir Robert Peel, in 1846, move for the abolition of the Com Laws, thus passing from protection to free trade ? It was the same statesman who, on the 29th of June, 1846, gave utterance to the following words :
When proposals are made, apparently at variance with the course which ministers have heretofore pursued, and subjecting them to the charge of inconsistency-it is perhaps advantageous tor this country, and for the general character of public men, that the proposal of measures of that kind, under such circumstances, should entail that which is supposed to be the fitting punishment, namely, expulsion from
office	 In relinquishing power, I shall
leave a name, severely censured I fear by many who, on public grounds, deeply regret the severance of party ties.... I shall surrender power
severely censured also by others who, front no interested motives, adhere to the principle of protection, considering the maintenance of it to be essential to the welfare and interests of the country. I shall leave a name execrated by every monopolist who, from less honourable motives, clamours for protection because it conduces to his own individual benefit ; but it may be that I shall leave a name sometimes remembered with expressions of good will in the abodes of those whose lot is to labour, and to earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow, when they shall recruit their exhausted strength with abundant and untaxed food, the sweeter because it is no longer leavened by a sense of Injustice.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Now, listen to the utterances of Mr. McKinley, the apostle of protection in the United States, when on the day before his assassination, he delivered an address before the immense audience gathered on the exhibition grounds of the world's fair at Buffalo :
The period of exclusiveness is past.
The expansion of our trade and commerce is the pressing problem.
Commercial wars are unprofitable.
A policy of good-will and friendly trade relations will prevent reprisals.
Reciprocity treaties are in harmony with the spirit of the times. Measures of retaliation are not.
So. Mr. McKinley, who was the champion of high tariffs in the United States, stated that he was in favour of reciprocity treaties, and of entering into negotiations with the South American republics and Canada. All which goes to show, as I siaid, that the fiscal policy of a country is a growth of the times and circumstances.
But, Sir, to adopt the amendment now under discussion would be to take a step backwards, and to revert to the policy of 1879 ; for if you compare the amendment with the motion brought down by Sir John Macdonald in February, 1878, you will find that they tally, and that the wording is exactly the same. Now, is it desirable for this country to revert" to that policy ? In this connection, I beg to submit to the House a few figures, in a tabulated form, which speak for themselves :
Increase for trade of Canada, over
1896	$150,515,526
Increase for exports of agricultural produce and animals, over 1896.	40,377,553
Increase for exports1 of cheese, over
1896	 6,740,380
Increase for exports of butter over
1896	    2,243,574
Increase for exports of bacon over
1896	   7,111,900
Deposits in banks, in 1895-Conservative regime	 183,103,038
Deposits in banks, in 1901-Liberal
regime	 315,000,000
Deposits in savings banks, in 1895-
Conservative regime	 44,450,498
Deposits in savings banks, in 1901-
Liberal regime	  75,000,000
With such increases, Sir, I say that we have no reason to regret the old regime, to which the hon. leader of the opposition would fain have us revert. The prosperity of the country is so palpable, so clear, that there is no need of statistics to prove it. Why, then, should we revert to the old state of things ?
However, there is also a dark side to the picture. The census, it must be confessed, was a disappointment to all of us. The population of Canada lias not increased in the ratio that we had reason to expect it would. Still, from the standpoint of the province of Quebec, I find that we have room to rejoice ; for, from the census re-

ports, not only have Montreal and Quebec added to their numbers, but Valleyfield, St. Hyaclnthe, Sliawinigan also show an increase. As to the city of Quebec, I am glad to say that it is developing so rapidly that, before many years have elapsed, by reason of its geographical position, it will prove a most dangerous rival to Montreal. I sincerely rejoice in the progress made by the city of Quebec, within the last ten years ; the more so, as I have the honour of being one of the representatives from the Quebec region.
Not only have our manufacturing centres progressed ; but I wish to emphasize the fact that the increase of population was more particularly marked in the regions opened up to settlement, such as the country to the north of Montreal, the Gatineau Valley, the Temiscaming region, the Lake St. John valley and the Gaspfi district. I have no hesitation in saying that in those vast regions there is room for thousands and thousands of hardy settlers who will find there a rich and friendly soil and vast natural resources, yet undeveloped. Those results, I must admit, are due to the labours of our colonization and repatriation societies and to the Quebec government who have spared no efforts, within the last five years, to promote the cause of colonization. In this connection, I may be allowed to quote from a report of the department of colonization for 1901. I find, page 203, that Mr. Lussier, the representative of two railway companies, publishes a tabulated statement showing that, from June, 1900, to June, 1901, 10,011 French Canadians have come back to Canada. The accuracy of those statistics cannot be called in question.
While I am dealing with this question, I would like to offer a suggestion to the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton). I have no doubt but that the Galicians and the Doukhobors are first-class settlers ; but I am free to say that I place more reliance on those Canadians who, though living for the time being in the United States, would be delighted to come back to Canada, should they be offered proper inducements to that effect. I have before me a tabulated statement recently published in the American papers, showing the number of French Canadians in the United States
Maine	 85,000
New Hampshire	 95,000
Vermont		70,000
Massachusetts	  310,000
Hhode Island	 80,000


Connecticut ..: And an annual grant in aid of each province shall be made, equal to eighty cents per head of the population, as ascertained by the census of one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and in the case of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, by each subsequent decennial census until the population of each of those two provinces amounts to four hundred thousand souls, at which rate such grant shall thereafter remain. Such grants shall be in full settlement of all future demands on Canada, and shall be paid half yearly in advance to each province ; but the government of Canada shall deduct from [DOT]such grants, as against any province, all sums chargeable a.3 interest on the public debt of that province in excess of the several amounts stipulated in this Act.
I say without the least hesitation that this section of the federal Act is most unfair to Ontario and Quebec.
As a matter of fact the west and the maritime provinces, with a total population

of 1,240,000 souls, receive an annual grant of $1,016,649, while Ontario, with a population twice as large, only receives $1,116,572, and Quebec with a population larger by one third, only receives $893,528, or 11 per 100 less than these more favoured provinces. I have just said that this section is unfair, and I shall endeavour to prove it. Here is a comparative tabulated statement giving the decreasing progression per capita of the federal grant of 80 cents paid to the province of Quebec, and also the increasing progression per capita of the amount contributed by the province to the federal revenue :-
Years.	Federal Revenue per head.	Federal Subsidy per head.
	$ cts.	$ cts.
1861	4 05	0 801871	5 50	0 751881	0 83	0 651891	7 96	0 601901	9 48	0 55
So, in 1861, the province of Quebec, for the administration of local affairs, received 20 pei1 cent of its contribution to the federal
revenue ; but from decade to decade, the rate has decreased from 20 per cent to 14 per cent, from 14 to 9, from 9 to 7, and at last from 7 to 5J per cent per head of our population ; that is to say, when the proportion of the federal revenue derived from the province of Quebec has increased by 135 per cent, the rate of the subsidy has decreased by 33 per cent. In other words, from 1867 to 1901, our contribution to the federal treasury amounted to over $412,000,000, and the total subsidy paid to the province during the same period, was only $39,315,232.
As far as Ontario is concerned, we are met with a still greater anomaly. From 1867 to 1901, that province has contributed to the federal treasury a total sum of $617,558,902, and the total grant paid to that province, during the same period only amounted to $49,142,368. In that province also, the per capita contribution to the federal revenue has increased by 135 per cent, and the per capita subsidy has decreased by 36J per cent.
During all that period the other provinces of the Dominion have been receiving 80 cents per head of the population, and in that way they have secured from the Dominion treasury an additional subsidy of $10,410,000, as shown by the following table :-
Surplus of the federal subsidy paid to the Maritime Provinces and the West.
-	1871.
	$ 46.000 27.000 11.000
New Brunswick		
	
	
	
	
1881.	1891.	1901.	Total.s	$	$	$56,000	55,000	50,000	2,140,00055,000	56,000	63,000	2,010,00023,000	23,000	18,000	750,00033,000	107,000	182,000	3,220,00013,000	62,000	154,000	2,290,000 10,410,000
Now, Mr. Speaker, if the same rule had been applied to the two larger provinces, the province of Quebec, for her share would have received from 1867 to 1901, $9,500,000 more, and Ontario would be the richer by $18,000,000. During the present decade, the Quebec yearly subsidy would be $403,253 larger, and the Ontario yearly subsidy would be $617,500 larger.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, in these figures are to be sought the causes that have paralysed, to a certain extent, the development of the two great provinces. The situation is certainly abnormal, to say the least. Why, Sir, the federal government pays annually 80 cents for every immigrant, be he a Chinaman, a Doukhobor or a Galician, that settles in the other provinces, while Ontario and Quebec never had a. single dollar for any of the Canadians bom since
the census of 1861, nor for any of the immigrants that have settled within the limits of these provinces since that date. I say that the revision of the federal constitution in the direction I have outlined is a necessity. Every year the federal government come out with a large surplus, and if they were willing, to deal fairly with the two older provinces, which were truly the constituent parts of confederation, they would put in the estimates, under the head of ' federal subsidy,' an additional sum of $1,020,765, that is to say, $403,255 for the province of Quebec and $617,510 for the province of Ontario.
The revision of the constitution in this direction is a pressing need, for in their present situation, there is no inducement to these provinces to increase their population, since every addition to that population


Rodolphe Lemieux: is a new burden upon local revenue and the profit to be derived therefrom goes to the federal treasury.
The provinces that have constituted the federal power must be in a position to carry on effectively the administration of local affairs. Their revenue is out of proportion to the heavy expenditures they have to meet. I do not think I am going too far in saying that they have been deprived of the sources of revenue they should have.
In 1867, the Fathers of Confederation made provision for an amount of $1,500,000 to meet the cost of provincial administration. But it stands to reason that this amount is altogether inadequate, considering their increased population and their increased territory. The expenditure has increased in proportion to the new needs of the provinces. Sir A. T. Galt, the then Minister of Finance, said that a sum of $1,500,000 would amply cover the expenditure for the maintenance of asylums, the administration of justice and other branches of the service. But he had not foreseen the extraordinary development of the provinces. I shall give the House a few figures compiled from the Public Accounts of the province of Quebec.
In 1868, the cost of maintaining the asylums was $97,946.63 ; in 1900, that same service entailed for the province an expenditure of $348,000. The cost of administering justice was $322,000 in 1868, and $661,242.37 in 1900. To-day, the annual subsidy paid by the province to charitable institutions is $100,000; the local government pays $184,845 for colonization and $173,759 for agriculture. I maintain that even with the strictest economy it is impossible to curtail by a single dollar these necessary expenditures.
As far as the administration of justice is concerned-I mean criminal justice-we must not overlook the fact that the provinces are, after all, only enforcing federal laws. We must not forget that the expenditure under that head is increasing from year to year, and it is only reasonable that the Dominion authorities should be called upon to provide for the enforcement of their own laws.
The provinces are entitled to live. In the position in which they are, under section 118 of the British North America Act, as the saying goes, they exist, but they do not live. We are told toy the champions of federalism : ' There are three ways, for the provinces, to extricate themselves from the entanglement in which they find themselves to-day, that is : direct taxation, loans, sale of public property.'
As far as the province of Quebec is concerned, I might say that the people of that province want no more taxes, no more loans. As to public property, is it right, is it wise to sell it, and deprive thereby our children of their inheritance ?
This is toy no means a new question ; it is a question above party politics. In
1883, the first minister of the province of Quebec, Mr. Mousseau, leader of a Conservative administration forwarded to the federal authorities a memorandum to that effect, and the treasurer of the day, the Hon. Mr. Wurtele, held the same views, as did also Ms predecessor in office, Mr. Robertson.
Later on in 1887, under a Liberal administration, the Hon. Mr. Mercier convened the prime ministers of the different provinces of the Dominion to a conference which was held in Quebec, and resolutions to the same effect were passed with the endorsation of the present first minister of Ontario, Mr. Ross, and the then premiers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick (Messrs. Fielding and Blair). I do not wish to encroach in the least upon federal rights. Every one is familiar with the title of the pamphlet published by Sieycs, when the States-General were called together in 1789 : ' What is the Third estate? Nothing. What can it toe ? Everything.' I say likewise: What are the provinces under the Confederation Act? Nothing, or almost nothing. What can they be ? Something !
Before concluding these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two on the question of imperialism, with which the political atmosphere is fairly saturated just now. The South African war, the sending of the contingents, the past and future colonial conventions, editorials published in newspapers and periodicals here and England, a certain decision given by the Privy Council, of which I had occasion to speak in this House, such are the, causes that have given rise to a movement hailed with enthusiasm by some and fiercely denounced by others.
To my mind, imperialism made its appearance in this country under three different forms. We had, first of all, political imperialism, then commercial imperialism, and lastly, sentimental imperialism.
Political imperialism, or imperial federation would entail the creation of an imperial parliament, where would meet the representatives of all the colonies. A most zealous promoter of that contemplated federation, a member of the bar, in Montreal, gave the following redistribution of seats in this parliament in London :-
England	 465
Wales	 30
Scotland	  72
Ireland	 103
Canada	 90
Australia	  63
Need I say that such a plan could not stand a thorough examination? Who would -ever think of sitting in parliament three thousand miles away from Canada to consider and discuss measures affecting Canadian interests with representatives from India, Cape Colony or Australia ? What would be the influence of ninety Canadian members in a parliament numbering 750

members ? Such a question is settled as soon as it is stated. But then the Imperial federation league is no more ; there is no more reason to dread that imperialistic system. Moreover, let us bear in mind that at the colonial conference of 1897, the Prime Minister of Canada himself presented a resolution stating that the political intercourse between England and her colonies should not be interfered with. We know that that resolution was carried by the unanimous vote of all the colonial premiers present at the jubilee festivities.
And lately we have gathered from the correspondence that passed between the Colonial Secretary and the Canadian authorities that the political connection between both countries would not even be discussed, but that the question of our trade relations alone would be debated at the conference following the coronation celebration.
I now come to commercial imperialism which in its concrete form is a policy of reciprocal trade preference within the empire. I have always thought, Mr. Speaker, that to ensure the validity of a contract the co-operation of two parties was required.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask if he favours the present one-sided preference ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Undoubtedly, I favour that one-sided preference because it tends to alleviate the burden of taxation that lay heavy upon the consumers under the old tariff. The volume of our trade with England peremptorily demonstrates that fact. True it is that the colonies, particularly Canada, would be delighted to supply with their produce, the markets of Great Britain, all other nations being excluded. But it must be borne in mind that, barring a few enthusiasts, such as Sir Howard Vincent and others, that proposal has been rejected by the most prominent statesmen of Great Britain. The English people, with their practical common sense, are aware that that reciprocal trade preference, while it would promote colonial trade, would also prompt other nations to fiercely retaliate. Let me quote from a speech delivered in June, 1901, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, speaking on the resolution of Mr. Fowler, M.P., asking for a 331 per cent reduction of duty on sugar imported from the colonies or His Majesty's Dominions :-
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he did not see how it would he possible to make distinctions in the treatment of the colonial products ; and this opened up a prospect of material reductions in the yield of revenue. In pursuance of the same policy, Canada might ask that a duty should be imposed on all corn and flour imported not produced in Canada (hear, hear), and similar claims might be advanced on behalf of Canadian timber, Australian wool, and meat from New Zealand (hear, hear), and so on, through all articles preference would be claimed for colonial produce. (Hear, hear.) But this was not all. When he had done all that, which he supposed Mr. LEMIEUX.
would be by mutual concessions, foreign countries would make similar offers for reciprocal treatment, and what would be the answer ? If we agreed, then the colonial preference in favour of the empire would disappear, and we would be caught in the meshes of the * most favoured nation ' clause. (Hear, hear.) If, on the other hand, we refuse to foreign nations the treatment extended to our colonies, what would happen ? We had an export trade with foreign countries double the amount of the trade with our colonies, and were we prepared to risk the loss of this trade by declining to give to foreign countries in return of the same concessions the treatment we gave to the colonies ? He warned the committee of this-that he was aware that while he was speaking there was a strong feeling in Germany upon this subject ; and, if parliament were so ill-advised as to adopt the proposal of his hon. friend, we would run very serious risk of losing that most-favoured-nation treatment for our commerce with Germany we now enjoyed. (Hear, hear.) Having regard to what he had said; he trusted the committee would refrain from imposing on a Chancellor of the Exchequer such difficult conditions as his hon. friend proposed. He believed they would be injurious both to this country and to the colonies, and were based on an entirely mistaken idea of the right fiscal policy. He said that apart from any antiquated notions of free trade to which his hon. friend had alluded and for the reason he had endeavoured to place before the committee, with every desire to assist West Indian trade, he declined to take a path which would lead to as bad a fiscal mistake as this country could make. (Hear, hear.) It would be a reversal of a policy which had been successful in promoting our foreign and colonial trade for the last 40 years. (Cheers.)
This reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer ends the debate. I could also quote from the correspondence that passed two years ago between the Postmaster General of Canada and the Duke of Devonshire, and even from a speech recently delivered by Mr. Asquith, one of the leaders of the Liberal-Unionist party, for in both cases the plan of a reciprocal trade preference between Great Britain and her colonies was pronounced impracticable.
What is there left of all that agitation ? Sentimental imperialism.
That sentimental imperialism exists I admit, and I may add that should it rest upon the most absolute freedom, upon a mutual regard for the privileges of the various parts of the empire ; should it aim at a higher development of civilization, art and literature, I do not see any objection to it. What I dread is not words, but deeds. It must not be forgotten that Canada has freely and willingly done her large share to uphold and extend the influence of the empire on this continent. I shall quote a few figures from an eminent publicist :
Surrender of territory embracing
Maine, Wisconsin, Oregon, etc., 300,000,000 acres at	$1 per acre	$300,000,000
Building of the Intercolonial Railway	  30,000,000
Expenditure incurred through the
Fenian raid	 2,000,000
African contingents	 2,000,000

Purchase of the North-west	$ 1,500,000
Building of the C.P.R	 100,000,000
Expenditure on militia since 1867 .. 35,000,000

I have just mentioned the expenditure incurred through our sending contingents to South Africa. You should hear what the hon. gentlemen opposite have to say on that score in the province of Quebec. When a byelection took place in the county of Laval, in January last, Mr. Bergeron, the former member for Beauharnois, who was fighting by the side of his leader, the hon. member from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) publicly stated in my presence that the government had exacted a tribute of blood, by sending Canadian troops to a foreign land. However, that same Mr. Bergeron had said, in 1899, at a banquet in the province of New Brunswick, before an English audience, that the government was in duty bound to send to the Transvaal, not one thousand, but five thousand men.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is the hon. gentleman aware that Mr. Bergeron has denied having uttered those words in the province of New Brunswick and in the county of Laval ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Bergeron did state at a banquet in Moncton, in the presence of Mr. Foster, the former Minister of Finance, that the Laurier administration should send five thousand men to the Transvaal. His statements were published in the leading Conservative organ, 1 The Star ', of Montreal. As to what he said in the county of Laval, I know this much. A meeting was held at St. Martin ; I was replying to my hon. friend, the member for Jacques Oartier, and Mr. Bergeron, who came next, made the statement which I have just attributed to him. I have still a vivid recollection of what transpired on that day.
The former member from Beauharnois took a very prominent part in the contest in Laval, and if I am correctly informed, he delivered similar utterances in other parishes of that constituency. That is the way our opponents wage war on the government in the province of Quebec.
True it is, Mr. Speaker, that I, as a Canadian, would rather see our volunteers go to the front to repel the enemy, should they ever invade our territory. However, I realize that being of French extraction, I cannot be moved by the same sentiments that cause my fellow-countrymen of English origin to tingle in sympathy with the mother country, when they hear of what takes place on the battlefields of South Africa. How could they remain insensible while this gigantic struggle is going on, in which England's supremacy is at stake ? I should be false to that old chivalrous spirit of France, which characterizes my own race, were X to deny them the privilege to go and fight for the flag of Great Britain.
The members of the contingents who are serving in South Africa are under no obligation to do so. They have volunteered their services, and how, I ask, could any one find fault with it ?
At all events, it is on record that when the secession war broke out no fewer than 35,000 Canadians enlisted in the American army. If these men were permitted to serve under a foreign flag how could we object to their enlisting under the British flag which, after all, is our own flag ? I, as a Canadian, love England because of her enlightened parliamentarism, and because for the last fifty years she has acknowledged our rights, privileges and political liberties. I know that in some quarters the sending of the contingents, has given rise to a campaign of prejudices against the province of Quebec. My fellow-countrymen have been taunted with a lack of loyalty, on that occasion. At this late hour, I do not propose to refute those slanderous statements. In concluding, I shall merely quote one sentence from Gambetta. The war of 1870 was over, every Frenchman, irrespective of party ties, was weeping over the loss of Alsace and Lorraine. Every one was breathing ' revenge '. But soon after the political parties turned to practical use that rallying word to overthrow the republic. When addressing his constituents at Belleville, the great orator said : Revenge ! gentlemen, let us always think of it, but let us never mention it ! In Canada, we have too frequently made an abusive use of words and of the noblest feelings, therefore shall I say : Loyalty, gentlemen, let us always think of it, but let us never mention it !


Rufus Henry Pope: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is scarcely necessary for me to apologize for rising at this late hour, or at this early hour, as an hon. gentleman reminds me, to make a few remarks in connection with the subject before the House. I sometimes regret, Sir, that the rules of this House do not permit morning meetings during a long debate of this character, as I think that possibly we might in this way dispose of these debates from day to day much more rapidly and without so much night work.
If it were necessary to seek something in support of the Conservative policy of the last twenty-five years, if we felt the need of arguments on which to base an opinion as to whether those men who preceded us in the leadership of that great party, placed before the people of this country a proper policy when they inaugurated and put in force the national policy, we could find nothing more convincing than the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite in the debate which is just about to close. Scarcely one of them dared to address the House without offering some excuse for supporting the government. From ocean to ocean, from all the provinces of Canada, they have come here, representing nearly all the varied interests of this country, and in advocating the requirements of those In-

terests as affecting their various provinces and constituencies, they have pleaded with the government to do something, and finding all their pleadings futile and unheeded, they find themselves compelled to offer an apology to this House for the vote they are going to give on this occasion.
Mr. Speaker, the men who conceived and put in force the national policy have nearly all passed away from the political arena. They have nearly all retired from active political life, and consequently we who are in active political life to-day ought to be able to view their work dispassionately. Do we think, when we look at the upbuilding of Canada, which followed the great work of retrievement performed by the Conservative party as soon as they found themselves intrusted with power in 1878, when we remember the condition of Canada under the so-called tariff of free trade .policy-if hon. gentlemen choose to call it so -of the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, and when we contrast that condition with the position of this country in 1896, when the late government left office, we cannot but admit that from 1878 to 1896 a glorious work was done as regards the development of the intelligence of our people, the increase of our prosperity, and the promotion of our better education. Look at our increase in wealth, as demonstrated by our bank account, look in any direction of life you choose, you cannot fail to recognize the immense benefits which this country has enjoyed through the policy and administration of the Conservative party. And during all that period of time from 1878 to 1896, the Conservative party were fought to the bitter end by hon. gentlemen upon the other side, and when I heard the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), in his valedictory remarks the other day, preparing for his departure from public life to that safe and comfortable seat which the right hon. the first minister has waiting for him in Toronto-and we must remember that no Liberal was ever known to leave one office on salary until he got his hands safely upon another-I could not help but think that that hon. gentleman might have spared himself some of the outbursts to which he gave vent upon that occasion. When he went back into the past history of Canada, even though that history was built up by the Conservative party-I would like to see any Liberal go back into a past history and not find it built up by the Conservative party, I would like to see him search for a page that he would not be ashamed of which could possibly belong to gentlemen on the other side-I say that when the hon. gentleman went back into our past history he might have done something more worthy of his valedictory remarks than to search out the darkest pages of corruption which he could find in connection with the Conservative administration of twenty years. It Mr. POPE.
is not my intention to go very far in the direction of reply to that hon. gentleman, but as he stood there, engaged in this congenial occupation, I thought that there was some recent history more worthy of his vitriolic attack than that which he singled out for his splenetic outburst.
I fancied that there were other issues besides McGreevy and Langevin to which he could have applied his caustic speech. For, Sir Hector Langevin, Sir, is after all a man who did great public service to Canada, a man whose name, notwithstanding the misfortune he met with in political life, stands higher to-day in Canada than the name of Sir Richard Cartwright will ever stand. I say, Sir, that he might have thought of the names of Cap. Sullivan, of Bole, of Pritchard, of Vance, and of that kindly gentleman Mr. Preston, who hugged the whole machine as worthy of mention. He could have gone to the local amateurs in West Huron, or he might dabble in the graves of statesmen who have passed out, in the province of Quebec. He could have raked up the memory of the administration of the Hon. Henri Mercier. He could have placed that in the category of evil things. He could have told thisi House about Mr. Pacaud, a man without reputation when that hon. gentleman came into power and a pauper, and he could have told this House and this country that he stole from the province of Quebec thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars, which he spent in an effort to put into power the right hon. gentleman who leads this House, and he might have said that the very deposit that was made in that hon. gentle-* man's interest in Richmond and Wolfe was some of that stolen money. Mr. Speaker, I will not follow this subject further. We know that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I regret' to say it, is weakening physically and that with this physical decline possibly there comes mental decline as well. He is not now so capable of throwing off the spores of disease and contagion, and I think his weakness has had an effect upon his mind by absorption, the absorption of the corruption around him.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Chair, chair.


Rufus Henry Pope: Chair, chair again.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is disgraceful.


Rufus Henry Pope: The hon. Minister of Justice seems somewhat angry. Iam not referring to him. Why should he interrupt me 7 Cannot he stand a little reference of this sort ? We stood it from the hon. gentleman the other day. Hon. gentlemen opposite will get from me precisely what they sent over across the floor of this House, and if I can give change back with interest I will do it. I am not selfish in that particular.

I cannot understand why the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce should have gone so far out of his way to offer what I consider insult upon insult to the history of certain hon. gentlemen who have passed out of political life in this country. Of these great men I call the late Rt. Hon. Sir John Macdonald, the greatest man who fought the battle of Canada against men who went around pleading to the electors of Canada to sell this country to the United States under commercial union, under any sort of flag, making their speeches and shouldering their muskets in the Saskatchewan, but the old Tory line that fought them inside and outside of this House was composed of the great men whose names will live down through history so long as Canadian history continues to be read. Now we will leave that hon. gentleman in that position with these kindly remarks that 1 have considered it my duty to bestow upon him.
In order to carry out any policy, be it free trade or national, it is essential that one party or the other shall agree upon a substantial line of principle that may be formulated into a policy and put into force for the advantage, or disadvantage, as the case may be, of the country. Consider the exhibition we have had from the other side of the House. Among the hon. gentlemen who have taken part in this debate we have seen differences of opinion, but, there is a vacant chair on the opposite side of the House that has not been occupied since the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke. I am now referring to the chair which belongs to the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). He has not been in his chair. They dare not even bring him into this House. In fact, so great has the difference of opinion become between these hon. gentlemen that not only is this House not big enough for him, but they have had to ship him down to the United States. I would like to hear from the hon. Minister of Public Works. I would like to hear him stand up in this House and support the free trade doctrines and'warnings given to the hon. gentlemen who sit on the opposite side of the House by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, if they dare to go one inch in advance in the direction of protection. They never can. However, we are to have an exhibition of what their principle is. We have been promised it but we have to wait twelve months, at the end of which time we are to hear again from hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. Once more we are delayed from year to year, but I am here to say that with all the diversified opinions that exist on the other side of the House, with the differences that are to be found between the different provinces and between the different nationalities, represented on the other side of the House, with the jealousies, with the knives that are not always in the pockets of one
minister but are directed against a colleague, we cannot expect them to bring down to this House a decided policy of protection for the benefit of the Canadian people. That, they cannot do. I do not take their past history into account. There was a day when I had some respect for those things which were called principles by hon. gentlemen opposite, but the last six years have entirely wiped that out. I am too busy a man to try to hunt up the history of these hon. gentlemen. We know that there is only this difference of opinion existing amongst these hon. gentlemen. There was that sympathetic meeting between the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his colleague the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair), a few days ago, when the right hon. gentleman noticed with great pain that the face of the hon. Minister of Railways betokened illness, and he suggested a long rest and retirement from his portfolio. But the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, true as he ought to be to his chieftain, faithful as that hon. gentleman ought to be for the kind consideration that has been bestowed upon him by office by the right hon. gentleman, said : My dear premier, if I go we will go together. Then, they say that they are going twelve months from to-day to offer to this country a united and definite policy, that they are going to come down here twelve months from to-day and say to the people : We believe in protection. But there is not one of them who dared rise and speak except the hon. gentleman who gave us his valedictory, and say what we were going to have, and even he hesitated.
I must not forget the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton)), I see he is not in his seat, but that is not my fault. I was interested and amused by the hon. member's speech. I have never been a great admirer of the hon. gentleman-I do not suppose he expects better of me-but with all the peculiar feeling I have toward that hon. gentleman, I do not wish him any worse luck or any greater punishment than to be obliged to sit with the mixture they have over there. I was reading-and I wish to apologize for it, I was going to say to you, Mr. Speaker, but I mean to this side of the House-the old speeches that have been delivered by the hon. member for North Norfolk when his party was previously in power from 1873 to 1878. I read also speeches of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce and others. And as I read those speeches, I realized how true it is that history repeats itself. Elected by false promises, this government has a following of a most confiding character. As I read the speeches of the hon. member for North Norfolk, I observed that as a prophet he was a dead failure. My advice to any man in this country, if he does not want to get stuck is to be sure not to follow the advice

of that lion, gentleman. If he does he will never get there-he will always be wrong. I heard the hon. gentleman with astonishment the other evening when he said, in effect: What is the use of trying to build up great industrial markets in this country north of the American line ? He told us that it would cost us so much money to build factories in Canada, that Canada had better go back on her history and forget herself. So long as the hon. gentleman holds these opinions, and hon. gentlemen opposite are satisfied to have him hold them, we do not want him to change sides in this House. Sir, if the hour has arrived when we are afraid to face the responsibility of building a nation north of the American line; if we can see no better future than that which the hon. member for North Norfolk offers us, then I say let us give up the race by annexation to the United States-let us have a policy with some sort of a future to it. But I do not believe it. I believe that, with a bold policy for the upbuilding of our industries, for the protection of the labour and brain of young Canadians, with a strong, well-defined transportation policy ; with a matured and definite policy for developing the resources of this country and the turning of our raw materials into finished goods for consumption here and for export to the outside world, we shall make our Canada a great nation. It is such a policy as that that I am prepared to support. That is the reason that I am prepared to vote for the resolution moved by the leader of the opposition. Not that it suited me altogether


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Rufus Henry Pope: That is all right. The resolution that I would have preferred would be a resolution for a Chinese wall all round. I would have a resolution so framed that [DOT]no immigrant should come in here who was not clean and capable of being made into a true citizen of Canada. I would have preferred a resolution saying that no man shall remain inside the Dominion of Canada who will not take up arms and fight for Canada and the empire. There are many things that I would have liked that resolution to contain. But the resolution declares plainly that the policy of the hon. gentlemen opposite is not satisfactory. And I know that it is not satisfactory, and I know why. It is an imitation of the product of the weakest moments of the Conservative party when in power-it is an imitation of our faults, not our qualities. It was not a national policy we left them, in my judgment, but the wreck of what had been a national policy. We must not forget how hon. gentlemen opposite went up and down this country seeking to destroy that policy. We must not forget particularly how the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke wherever he could get an audience, and wrote in any of the reviews


Rufus Henry Pope: that would publish his articles, doing everything he could to decry the country. He decried the great west, and he spoke of the provinces down by the sea as mere fragments. There was no element of the country from its manufacturers to the geographical divisions of the Dominion that the hon. gentleman did not decry. He did his best to convince the people that the national policy was made only for the manufacturers and the monopolists. And even the men who framed that policy, owing to the work of that hon. gentleman were not able to enforce as strong a policy as they would have liked to do. I am not ashamed to stand up here and say so. But when these gentlemen come to us now and say : By copying all the weakest elements of your history, by taking the most miserable of your products, we seek to win grace from the people of Canada, we ask the electors to bow to us, it is hardly to be wondered at that I will heartily support the resolution that condemns their policy.
Now, the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) dwelt upon the fact that we had not offered a resolution against the expenditure, and that this particular resolution had not embodied that idea. If we were to frame a resolution that would denounce all the faults of hon. gentlemen opposite there would not be paper enough manufactured at Eddy's mills during the next twenty days to print it all. The hon. gentleman should have been fair enough and reasonable enough to recognize the resolution that was moved in the House last session and that was read by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson). I cannot forgive the hon. Minister of Customs for that. His memory went back for a period of twenty years and picked out many things that he desired to have remembered. Surely, a man with such a remarkable memory ought to have remembered the resolution of last session. Now. we do not object-at least speaking for myself, and though I can only speak for myself, I do not object-to the size of the expenditure. That is not what frightens me. .
It is what we get for this $55,000,000. I say the Minister of Finance has no right to allow one dollar to go out of that treasury which does not go for a work that can be declared to be for the general benefit of Canada. When we see our money being used to build wharfs for private parties, wharfs down by the sea that lead to nowhere, that are only so much additional value to private property when we see them spending our money in every direction upon private works, municipal works and provincial works, and neglecting the great arteries of transportation by which the products of our great west may be carried to the seaboard,
I say we have a right to protest, we have a right to cry ; Halt, gentlemen, and show us what you are spending this money for.
Near the close of last session, before the Minister of Public Works became a re-

sident of the United States, when it was possible for him to remain in this country, even amongst people who fight like blazes, this question came up, and I asked the hon. gentleman to show me where he was expending this money. I said, what are you doing with that 50,000,000 odd dollars that you are expending, in place of the $38,000,000 of a few years ago ? He said, the hon. gentleman is intelligent ? I said, not sufficiently intelligent for that. And he rose and informed me that he was deepening the St. Lawrence channel, that he was working in some harbours of the great lakes, and doing canal work as well. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what government since confederation has not been doing this kind of work and has not spent many millions upon it. Sir, it is astonishing to me to hear hon. gentlemen splitting up a cent into quarters and fractions even smaller, to prove whether taxation has been increased in this country or not. There has been some of the finest figuring done by hon. gentlemen opposite to prove that $57,000,000 is less than $38,000,000 that I ever saw.
Now, we know what the population of Canada is, it has just been counted. Of course hon. gentlemen are not satisfied with their count. They are grumbling and trying to blame it off on something that happened ten years ago. We had an exhibition here yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture, which was met to-day by the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), and coming from the section of country from which the Minister of Agriculture comes, I am bound to recognize that hon. gentleman in the cabinet as my representative, but I must say, after the exposition that was given of the tactics of that hon. gentleman by the hon. member for Bothwell, even I myself, and that is going a long way, felt ashamed of him. That the hon. gentleman can understand how a family could increase so rapidly, I could appreciate that ; he has not been in that business-at least I suppose he has not.
Now, Sir, the Minister of Customs made to the hon. gentlemen opposite a very strong appeal to support him. I was struck by the tone of his voice-I do not say his little voice-when he asked them to wait, grant us one year more. I believe he will get every Liberal vote in this House. I do not believe that even the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) who is known to be a free trader, will resist that appeal, not absolute, but so near absolute, that what was lacking was made up by the size of the voice that delivered it.
Now, Sir, if we wanted other evidence that hon. gentlemen opposite are divided we had it in the speech of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux), and his description of the causes which lost them Laval. He says there were three candidates. Well, they are not only divided in Laval but they
are divided in this House, and I came to the conclusion three years ago, and so stated publicly, that I did not believe we would ever have from hon. gentlemen opposite any other great proposition than one for them to remain in power. I am of that opinion still. I do not believe we will ever receive from them a change of policy excepting what is wrung from them. But that we shall ever receive from them a national policy worthy of the great and growing possibilities of Canada, as the national policy was worthy of Canada in 1878, I do not believe it. For that reason I am prepared to support the resolution of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, which says that the policy of the government is not satisfactory. We want a policy that will make it possible for Canada, not only to retain her own markets, but to encroach upon the markets of the world, instead of being a slaughter market for other countries. We want moreover a bold policy of transportation. This patch work policy olf transportation which hon. gentlemen opposite are offering us, we want nothing of it. I would not like to say that they are not sincere in their peculiar propositions regarding transportation, but if they are sincere in the peculiarities of their proposition, they do not appreciate what transportation means in Canada. We must provide means to get out our grain products from the great west, that country which is to be the home of millions of people, and which is destined to make of Canada a far greater country than even its founders ever anticipated. There are many thousands of people going in there to-day, and I say that if the Conservative party was right in 1878 in building one railroad into that country before there was a solitary soul in it, the time has arrived, if we are going to relieve that country of the crop of four years hence and to take it down to the sea, when we must adopt some plan very different from that hon. gentlemen have suggested.
If we do not meet that situation with a bold national policy, a policy affecting not only the tariff but also the transportation question, we shall have a cry from the great western country far louder than we have heard hitherto. If the mere handful of people now settled there could overtax the capacity of the Canadian Pacific Railway, what will be the case, after the hundreds of thousands of people who are now going in multiply the productions of the country. I may be told that we shall have the Canadian Northern Railway. You can put in the Canadian Northern, and then another Canadian Northern, and still you will be unable to meet the possibilities of that great country. More than that, when the product reaches Fort William, what preparation are you making for bringing it down through Canadian waters ? And after you get it to Montreal or to Quebec, where is your fast line of steamers to take it across the At-

lantic and land it in the European markets, so that the men who are living in the western part of Canada will be able to realize as good a price for their wheat as the people in the western states ? If we expect to settle up our great west with people from the western states, as it is boasted we are doing, we must afford them facilities equal to those which they have left behind, or they will be dissatisfied; and it would be better that we had not 50 per cent of the immigration which we are boasting of today. The responsibility for all this rests on this government. I have the greatest possible confidence in that country. I have travelled over it many times, and always with the greatest pleasure-not alone to see the vast resources of the country and the fertility of the soil; but every time I travel over that railroad, it reminds me of the time when lion, gentlemen opposite sat on this side of the House and denounced our policy and belittled that country. It makes me proud that I am a Conservative, and proud of the history of the Conservative party. I believe hon. gentlemen opposite are in power at the right time. If there ever was a time in the history of Canada when the country ought to be governed by the Liberal party, it is in good times, when the country can take care of itself. It is a good thing for the Conservative party to have a rest on this side of the House, where we can formulate the larger national policy of an Imperial character, as we watch the gentlemen on the other side of the House amusing themselves after their peculiar manner. As we watch them, we will prepare the public mind of Canada to receive the broader ideas that will be forthcoming in the near future. When the hour arrives for Canada to move forward once more, she will have to turn to the party that has always been the progressive party of Canada; and we will give her a policy bold and well defined-a policy whose watchword will be Canada for the Canadians every time, which Wall hold the market of this country for our own people. What shall we say to England ? Shall we say, as the right hon. gentleman did when he went over there : We have sacrificed ourselves at your feet, and we do not want anything in return ? Not much; we will not say that. We will say to Mr. Chamberlain, who is in my judgment one of the brightest and cleverest men in public life anywhere on the globe to-day : What do you want to do with this empire ? Do you want to build it strong in all its parts ? You do not want to take our hearts out. No; you want our . hearts; you want them to be kept loyal, because we never know when we may want to use them. We want to make Canada a great part of the empire. I know there are some gentlemen- supporters of the government-who do not like imperialism, and who are going through the province of Quebec attempting to scare the French Canadians at the results of imperialism. I say to the French Canadians, whether in this House or in the province of Quebec, are you not enjoying the greatest liberties that any Frenchman, either in France or in any other part of the world, are enjoying ? And under what flag are you enjoying these great liberties ? Under the British flag. Then let us fight for that flag. I have confidence in the sound sense of the French Canadians, and I do not believe that the three or four men to whom I have refered are going to shake the habitant from his good sense and clear sightedness. When he realizes that he is going to have a better price in the British market for his butter, his pork and his other products, under a commercial zollverein, nothing under the sun will induce me to believe that we shall not have behind us the French Canadians of the province of Quebec. I can understand that to-day, following the lead of the right hon. gentleman so faithfully as they have done, they are dazed. Why would they not be dazed ? For twenty years they were taught the doctrine of free trade; for some years they were taught the doctrine of commercial union; other years it was unrestricted reciprocity; then they were led to give England a preference without getting anything in return. Do you suppose that the French Canadian people, who have followed the right hon. gentleman so sympathetically and so blindly, would not be dazed ? I understand that at the moment I am speaking there are puzzling thoughts in their minds. But I have great faith in those people. They will realize that if Canada is to be great, it must be under an empire; if it is not under one empire, it must be under another; and I believe they will be as true and faithful under a flag which has given them so many blessings as the English speaking people of Canada are. I know that in the province of Quebec appeals have been made for many years to race prejudices and to nationalism. There has never been an election in the province of Quebec in which one side or the other has not been accused of making national speeches and appealing to national sentiments. Sir, we have to rear up in the province of Quebec men who are free from that sectionalism, and my belief is that we can do so by presenting to them broader and better ideas than those of provincialism or the narrowness of the confines of Canada, great as it is. But as a Canadian and a representative in this House, I fully realize the duty I have to perform. My salary is given to me as a member of the House of Commons of Canada, and in that capacity I have to bend all my energies to the accomplishment of that which is nearest to us, namely, the development of the country which we represent. Sir, in the resolution before us, 1 think more of the first part of it than I do of the last. I believe in a policy that will


Rufus Henry Pope: make Canada what we would like to see it become, a country worthy of the widest ambitions and thoughts of the great men who laid its foundations. And I trust that when the hour comes-it will not come tonight because I know that after the sympathetic appeal of the Minister of Customs we cannot expect a single vote from hon. gentlemen opposite-but the time is sure to come when public opinion will be found in our favour, and when that day comes we will formulate a policy for the government of Canada that will protect all interests in Canada, that will give Canadian markets to the Canadian people, be the duties we impose export or import, specific or ad valorem. That policy which we shall propound will be one which will carry out, only in a more extended degree, the objects aimed at by the policy which our political fathers adopted in 1878.


Mr. G. W. GANONG (Charlotte).: At this late hour of the debate, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose taking up a great deal of time, and I assure you that I should not have ventured to address the House bad I not believed that it was a duty I owed my constituents and the country as well. I believe that it is but just that I should give credit to the present government for the wonderful record of progress they have made in certain lines. Since this government has assumed office, it has assumed as well the functions of Divine Providence. Of that we have ample illustration in the speeches of the Ministers of Finance and Customs. My hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) wonders where the Minister of Customs can be. He is probably out giving Providence a few pointers. Or if not, he is praying that he may be forgiven, after the speech delivered by my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), for if certainly-ly anything can have the effect of converting that hon. gentleman, it will be that speech. These hon. gentlemen, since they have come into power, have not considered Providence at all. All our great crops were Grit crops ; our increased productions of minerals were Grit minerals ; the productions of our forests were Grit products. Well, they have indeed a lot on their hands, for the whole world is just In the position which Canada is enjoying, so that they must be running the rest of the world, including the great republic to the south, the United States.
But this is not the only point on which 1 wish to congratulate these hon. gentlemen. I am interested in trade matters, and I am always very much interested in seeing up-to-date methods in trade. In this country there was a certain line of trade which, up to within a few years ago, was don't on two different principles. 1 refer to the clothing trade. One was the shoddy readymade clothing, and the other clothing made to order, when a man went in and gave his
measure. But in these late days, a new development has manifested itself, and we have now the fit-reform trade. Well, we had in 1890 what was termed the Reform party, but to-day we have a fit-reform government-nothing more, nothing less. Analyse the speeches, delivered in this budget debate, and if they do not prove that we have to-day a fit-reform government, there never was a fit-reform business in this country.
The first principle laid down by these gentlemen is to be elected, no matter in what way or shape or form. First get your election, and as I listened to my hon. friend from Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux), whom I could not understand, unfortunately not being versed in the French tongue, I was wondering whether he was telling us anything about the election in GaspS in 1896. I was wondering whether he told us what was represented to be correct-and I believe it is-that he is the only gentleman In the House of Commons of Canada whoever repudiated his own father. I wonder whether he told the House that his father had been sworn in as returning officer in his own district under a false name. I trow, Mr. Speaker, that he was careful not to say anything about that incident. We have also some hon. gentlemen in this House with records. What about the representative from the county of West Huron (Mr. Holmes) 1 No doubt be was told :	Get
elected and we have a fit-reform suit ready for you. We will fit you, and all you have to do is to get elected. We have also another gentleman who came here recently from the St. James division in Montreal (Mr. Brunet). It did not make much difference apparently how he got here. These hon. gentlemen opposite found a place for him, and you will no doubt find him voting to-night for this fit-reform government. Then there is the county of Victoria, N.B., where the worst fraud ever perpetrated on a community was perpetrated in the last election. I would not like to say that the hon. gentleman who sits in this House for that county to-day (Mr. Costigan) was conversant with all the facts, because I think he lived too long in a Tory administration to be guilty of what was done, but there are gentlemen in this House who could give you, Sir, a full account of all that took place. They could tell you that the day before the elections, the opposition candidate was bought off in order to obtain the hon. gentleman's election by acclamation in that county. No doubt he too will vote for this fit-reform government. They have a suit all ready for him. What about the representative from Nipissing (Mr. McCool) ? The election in that county was a credit to the Liberal party, and you will find that hon. gentleman also with a fit-reform suit on voting with his party. Then there are West Queen's (Mr. Farquharson) and Westmoreland, N.B. (Mr. Emmerson). Why we

had two would-be Ministers of Marine and Fisheries down there, and it is a surprising fact that when they got there they found another gentleman had the fit-reform suit on, a $7,000 suit. I really feel sorry for those two gentlemen. They have my sympathy, but they should have been honest and told the people that they never expected the portfolio, or else they should have held the government to its pledge and voted against it. The latter would have been the honourable part. I am sure that the hon. member for South Oxford (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) is another shining example. We have that hon. gentleman stating that he went back on all his principles for the sake of his party. It certainly is a great incentive to decency and honesty, when a gentleman who has occupied so high a position in the councils of his party, will make such a statement publicly, and when that statement was not only made by him but confirmed by his own leader.
You can look over the whole combination, and you will find it in just about the same position. Take the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). In the statement he made, he told us that he was in accord with the right hon. leader of the government when he went over to the United States to talk. He might just as well have told us that he had a commission from that gentleman. Shortly after that, the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) rose to speak, and while he was speaking the hon. member for North Norfolk was over receiving the congratulations of the First Minister, the Minister of Finance and other members of the government. And the hon. member for Russell talked against protection. Why, I heard that hon. gentleman deliver one of the strongest protection speeches ever heard in this House-but it was to protect W. C. Edwards. When it was proposed to build a railway to his timber limits, he spoke strongly. What was his excuse ? Why, it would set fire to the neighbouring country. But, what cares he if you burn a workingman's heart out with the worst fire, the fear of starvation ? Such is their consistency. Then we have the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd). His suit is fit-reform, and fits him to a nicety. All he asks is that the suit should be made in Brantford. He did not get through before he besought the government to hitch his cheap wagon and the cheap horse of the hon. member for As-siniboia. Then there is the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) who has been so silent. You will not hear anything from him to-night. He is a great protectionist, but he will vote just the same. Then there is a gentleman from whom you heard years ago, long before I came here. You will find his speeches occupying pages of ' Hansard '- ten thousand of them or more-the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Flint). Prohi-Mr. GANONG.
bition ! but when he got here the chief artist, the right hon. leader of the government brought him into line, fitted his little suit upon him and told him that prohibition would not do for the province of Quebec. And the hon. gentleman has voted with them ever since-just the same old fit-reform suit. Then we have the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Morrison). He does not care much if only you will load up lead heavily enough. All he asks is ' protect my own little interests.' I have for years felt sorry for that lion, gentleman. He went out to look over the Yukon, and came back conscientiously determined to get up and make a speech-the hardest effort of his life -to justify the government's management of that country. And I believe that he lias regretted it ever since. No doubt he will be here with his new suit on. I do not pretend to know what the country thinks, but I believe that the country will say of the hon. member for Guysborougli (air. Fraser) that they have had more buffoonery from him on questions requiring thought than from any other hon. gentleman on either side of the House. I believe that the right lion, gentleman who runs the circus over there knew just what class of suit to put on that hon. gentleman. He also has his fit-reform suit. And the hon. member for Annapolis (air. Wade)-where does he find himself ? He tells us that it is not correct to say that every man in this House is a protectionist to some extent, that there are men on that side that are protectionists to a certain degree and others who wish to be free traders as far as they possibly can be. They have all kinds over there, but they have all walked into the fit-reform place and been fitted. Then you will all vote right when the time comes. Then, there is the hon. senior member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall). I believe that he has some little wish to be honest once in a while. He says that he defies us on this side to show whereby a protective tariff can help the fishermen of this country, or the fruit-growers, or the gold miners, the silver or the lead miners. He does not agree with the hon. member for New Westminster. And, a little further on he says he accepts it as a tentative measure, and only for the present, when we find it difficult to keep our population at home and find it necessary in order to keep some of our manufactures going. He is honest. He says that it is necessary to keep the manufactures going in order to keep our people at home. Then I believe, we have an hon. gentleman in the House who has stated that the government could not change its policy faster than he could. We have not heard from that hon. gentleman, the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). I am afraid we shall not see our hon. friend, the minister who will have the making of these fit-reform suits next year. I believe that that duty is to be delegated to the Minister of Public Works (Hon.

Mr. Tarte). He is not here, we are not to have an opportunity of seeing him vote tonight. He probably would have voted with the opposition if he had been present. Outside of these I have mentioned, there are three types left on the other side of the House. In the opinion of the public, the fit-reform suits of some of the ministers are getting very baggy with the rake-off. I would not like to say they are, but it is easy to see, when you read the papers that there are suggestions coming from all quarters, even from good Liberal newspapers, that these trousers are getting very baggy with the rake-off. Then there is the class represented by the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Maclaren). He does not want to do any thinking for himself, but is willing to let Sir Richard Cartwright and Mr. Fielding think for him. There are quite a number who will vote on the opinions of others. Then, you have a much larger class typified by the hon. memeer for Stanstead (Mr. Lovell) who is wearing a fifty-three-thou-sand-dollar fit-reform suit. And this is the kind of mixture you have to run a government that is supposed to be in the best interests of the country. I would suggest that the right hon. gentleman put a sign up over the door ' Great Fit-Reform Government.' It is a shame to disgrace the' Reform party any longer. Let you people take your proper title. And I am sure that when the respected leader of the government-for I am sure that we have all respect and regard for him-we hope when he goes to the other side of the water, as he is to do in the near future, he will take back the Oobden medal, and also that some of his good friends will furnish him with a banner bearing a legend to the effect that he is the leader of the greatest aggregation ever known in the world-the leader of the only fit-reform party the world has ever known. I think, that under these conditions, it is high time that some party had a-declared policy, and so I shall be very glad indeed to support the resolution of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Borden, Halifax) :
Alcorn,
Avery,
Barker,
Bennett,
Birkett,
Blain,
Borden (Halitax), Boyd,	.
Brock,
Broder,
Bruce,
Carscallen,
Casgrain,
Clancy,
Clare,

Messieurs
Kendrey,
Kidd,
Lancaster,
LaRividre,
La veil,
Lefurgey,
Lennox,
Leonard,
MacLaren (Perth),
McGowan,
McIntosh,
McLeod,
Monk,
Morin,
Osier,
Clarke,	Pope,
Cochrane,	Porter,
Culbert,	Pringle,
Earle,	Roche (Marquette),
Fowler,	Rosamond,
Ganong,	feherritt,
Gilmour,	Simmons,
Hackett,	Sproule,
Haggart,	Taylor,
Halliday,	Tisdale,
Henderson,	Tolton,
Hughes (Victoria),	Vrooman,
Ingram,	Ward,
Johnston (Cardwell),	Wilmot,
Kaulbach,	Wilson-61.
Kemp,	
NAYS :	
Messieurs	
Ai gers,	LeBlanc,
Arehambault,	Legris,
Baiinet,	Lemieux,
Beith,	Lewis, Logan,
BdJand,	
Belcourt,	Lovell,
Bernier,	Macdonald,
Blair,	Mackie,
Borden (King's, N.S.),	MacKinnon,
Bourassa,	MacLaren (Hunt'n),
Bourbonnais,	McColl,
Brown,	McCreary,
Bruneau,	Mc.Ewen,
Brunet,	McGugan,
Bureau,	Mclsaac,
Calvert,	McLennan,
Calvin,	Madore,
Campbell,	Marcil (Bagot),
Carbonneau, .	Marcil (Bonaventure)
Carroll,	Martineau,
Champagne,	Matheson,
Ccpp,	Meigs,
Costigan,	Mignault,
Davis,	Monet,
Delisle,	Morrison,
Demers (LSvis),	Mulock,
Demers (St. John),	Murray,
Douglas,	Oliver,
Dugas,	Parmeles,
Edwards,	Paterson,
Emmerson,	Power,
Erb,	Prefontaine,
Ethier,	Proulx,
Farquharson,	Puttee,
Fielding,	Reid (Restigouche),
Fisher,	Riley,
Fitzpatrick,	Roche (Halifax),
Flint,	Ross (Ontario),
Fortier,	Ross (Rimouski),
Gallery,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
GaMiher,	Rousseau,
Gauvreau,	Russell,
Geoffrion,	Schell,
German,	Scott,
Gibson,	S if ton,
Girard,	Smith (Vancouver),
Guthrie,	Stephens,
Harwood,	Stewart,
Heyd,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Horsey,	Talbot,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.)	Thompson,
Hyman,	Tobin,
Johnston (Cape Breton),Tolmie,	
Johnston (Lambton),	Tucker,
Kendall,	Turcot,
Larg,	Turgeon,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Wade,
Laurier (L'Assonrn), Lavergne,	Wright.-117.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I do not imagine that at this hour the committee will desire to proceed with any business, I therefore move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 3.15 a.m. Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 9, 1902.