Mr. T. B. FLINT (Yarmouth).: I give notice of motion that the rules of this House be suspended in relation to the Bill entitled ' The Klondike Mines Railway Company,' in accordance with the recommendation contained in the 8th report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 62) respecting the Klondike Mines Railway Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. G3) to incorporate the Medicine Hat and Northern Alberta Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill (No. 64) to incorporate the Cosmos Cotton Company.-Mr. Flint.
Bill (No. 65) to incorporate the Yukon Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. McCreary.
Bill (No. 66) respecting La Compaguie du chemin de fer de Colonisation du Nord.- Mr. Lemieux.
Bill (No. 67) to incorporate the Coast Yukon Railway Company.-Mr. Maxwell.

The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) moved :: That when this House adjourns on Wednesday next it stand adjourned to Tuesday, the first of April next.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[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 te granted to His Majesty ; and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
['']
Mr. RALPH SMITH (Vancouver).: Mr. Speaker, in the discussion of the question before the House I have noticed a desire on the part of several interests for higher protection. The business interests, the mine owners, the manufacturers, the lumbermen and other interests have approached the government in favour of the principle of higher protection.


Mr. EDWARDS.: Did they do that ?


Ralph Smith: Yes, I happened to be with the deputation last session that met the government on this question.
I 'will say that I agree with the principle of protection to the extent that it prevents tbe coming into this country of manufactured articles produced under conditions of labour which are servile and impoverishing and which come into competition with the products of the labourers of this country.
I agree also with the measure of protection which prevents the labourers of this country having to compete against the importation of servile labourers into the country. An important part of the question before the House is the consideration of the quality of the people that are brought into this country. The question of how to protect the labouring interests of this country is a very important one. It is supposed and believed by those who advocate the principle of high industrial protection that the principle of protection to the manufacturing interests of this country means in every case protection to the labourers who work in these industries. I do not think that always follows. As I have said, I believe in protection to the extent of keeping out of this country manufactured articles produced by servile labour in other countries and coming into competition with the product of the free labour of this country. 1 also believe in protection to the extent of protecting the labourers of this country who are British subjects, who are Canadians, and who are desirable settlers, against the importation of servile labour into the country. To that extent I am certainly a protectionist, but, on the question of protection as it is represented by the industrial interests of this country, it is very clear that there is a great diversity of opinion. If you take the question of protection in the province of Ontario, for instance, where, I suppose, the largest number of manufacturers exist in this country, taking the single question of protection itself, I am certain that you will not get anything like a unanimous opinion as to the necessity of having high protection even in that province. There is no question that has been discussed, or that has been presented in this debate, in regard to which you would be at all likely to get a very one-sided opinion from the people who are directly interested in it. Now, I have the good fortune to be in a position to discuss a question, which, in my opinion, means direct protection to the labouring interests of this country ; in fact, it involves the application of the principle of protection to every citizen of this country. In discussing that question, I have the privilege, or the benefit, of being supported almost unanimously by the people who are affected by the existence of a class of undesirable residents in this country. 1 do not think there is any other question that can be discussed in this House, I do not think there is any single demand that



lias been made or is being made upon tlie government by people who have a direct interest in having a grievance removed, that has behind it the unanimous feeling and desire that is behind the question of Chinese immigration into this country. Furthermore, I desire to say that the government considered it wise, although it increased the head tax on these people in 1000, to form a royal commission to look into that question.
The first part of the report of the Royal Commission to inquire into Chinese and Japanese immigration into British Columbia dealing with the Chinese has been presented to the House, and to any one reading the same it must be a perfect mine of information concerning every aspect of this question. The commissioners have spared no pains in gathering the facts, then in sifting, arranging and working up into intelligible readable shape. The evidence comprises eight volumes, in addition to the report proper. The care and impartiality with which the work has been done is manifested in the manner in which the views of all concerned have been recorded and every fact whether in favour of or hostile to the Chinese has been set forth fully. The commissioners have arrived at a unanimous decision that the Chinese ought to be prohibited from coming into British Columbia. The bad effects of this immigration has been traced step by step in every industry, trade and calling and must be a tremendous revelation to our friends in the east, who for the most part considered the agitation the work of a few, and have consequently not paid any real attention to the question. This report brings this question to its climax, as the commission have proven every particle of agitation in the shape of legislation by the province, resolutions passed by the provincial House and repeated petitions by tlie people for many years, praying the federal authorities to increase the tax at least to .$500 and if possible to pass a law to prohibit them from coining into the country entirely. This the government, or at least parliament must do if they have any regard for the unanimous opinion of the people of the province suffering under the grievance.
Mr. Speaker, although the reports referred to have been placed on the Table of the House, I feel it my duty as a member from the province suffering under the presence of these people to discuss the question from the floor of the House. I desire to refer to the demands of British Columbia, as seen by the Acts and resolutions passed by the British Columbia legislature and forwarded to the government at Ottawa. For many years the legislature of British Columbia has been trying to protect the interests of their people by legislation, the most of which of course has been disallowed by the federal authority, sometimes on the ground that such legislation was ultra vires the pro-


Ralph Smith: (a)	The fisheries.
(b)	The mines.
(e) The lumber business.
(d)	Manufactures.
(e)	Farming and market gardening.
(f)	Domestic service.
(g)	Other callings.
6.	What is the difference in wages paid to Chinese and Japanese, and to the wages of white men in the same trade or calling '
7.	Has any industry been called into existence by reason of their presence ; and, if so, what industry, and how ?
8.	Is there any industry dependent upon their labour for its continuance ; and, if so, what industry, and why V
9.	How do they ccme, and under what terms?
10.	What proportion bring their wives, or marry here, or attend school or churches, or become Christians V
11.	What is their standard of living, compared with that of the white population-clothing, food, rent, &e. ?
12.	What is their moral and physical condition, their habits of cleanliness, and attention to sanitary regulations ?
13.	Do they live in different parts of the city, or in aggregations ?
14.	What eff;ct has their residence in any place on the price of property in that locality ?
15.	What proportion live in separate houses and have families ?
16.	How many Chinese and Japanese women are there in this province ; and for what pur. pose and under what terms were ihey 'brcught
here ?
17.	Are men and women brought here under seivile or other contracts ? Wh.it is their form and effect ?
18.	How many Clines.? companies or other associations are there ; what is their object.? Hew do they affect immigration ? Have the 'Six Companies' branches in British Columbia ?
19.	Do Chinese or Japanese immigrants take any interest in our laws and institutions ? What proportion build up homes and become permanent citizens or residents ?
20.	Do they learn our language, customs, habits of living, and show signs that they will eventually assimilate and become an integral part of our race and nation, as Europeans do ?
21.	How have workmen be ?n affected by Chinese and Japanese immigrants respectively ?
22.	How has Chinese and Japanese immigration affected white immigration ?
23.	What proportion of Chinese and Japanese return to their own country, and what proportion of their earnings do they take with them 1 Do (hey enrich or impoverish this country ?
24.	Are the Chinese and Japanese 'a menace to health ?' And, if so, in what way ?
25.	Has trade and commerce between Canada and China and Japan been affected by Chinese and Japanese immigration ? And how would restrictive or prohibitive measures affect, it ?
26.	The effect of unlimited Chinese and Japanese immigration upon the country ?
27.	As to the sufficiency of white labour to supply the demands of the country ?
28.	The criminal class amongst Chinese and Japanese as compared with the white population ; the nature of the offences ; the number of convictions, &c.?
29.	The relative amount of taxes paid, compared with their earning power ?
SO. With whom do the Chinese and Japanese trade ; and to what extent does the country

benefit thereby V And what proportion of their earnings do they send or take out of this country ?
31.	What proportion speak English, and read and write English ?
32.	Do you make any distinction between Chinese and Japanese immigrants ?
33.	Do you favour restriction or prohibition of this class of immigrants ?
34.	How do you propose to prohibit with the existing treaties in force ?
In preparation for the meeting of the commission there was forwarded the following circular letters
1st. To every government agent and mining recorder at British Columbia, the following was presented:-
Royal Commission.-Chinese and Japanese Immigration.
Kamloops, B.C., Oct. 27, 1900.
Sir,-I beg leave to request that you favour me with any information in your possession, or obtainable by you, regarding Chinese and Japanese resident in your district. This information is required for the use of the Royal Commission to inquire into the subject of Chinese and Japanese immigration into British Columbia, and should, so far as possible, cover the following points :
I.	Revenue deprived from Chinese and Japanese during the 12 months ended September 30th ult.
II.	Nature of said revenue.
III.	Number of miners' licenses issued to Chinese and Japanese during the 12 months ended September 30th, ult.
IV.	Number of hydraulic leases issued to Chinese and Japanese during said period.
V.	Number of placer claims recorded during said period by Chinese and Japanese, and Ioca-tion of said claims.
VI.	Number of quartz or any other mineral claims recorded by Chinese and Japanese, and location of said claims.
VII.	Assessed value of property, real and personal, held by Chinese and Japanese in your district.
VIII.	Any other information in your possession. or obtainable by you, which in your opinion will in any way serve to assist the commissioners in their investigation.
I am in receipt of a communication from the hon. the provincial secretary, informing me that a circular letter has been forwarded to each government agent, gold commissioner and mining recorder in the province, with instructions that they afford me all the information available which they consider will he of service to the Royal Commission. You will therefore kindly see that any questions asked in the foregoing in reference to matters not coming within the scope of your office are referred to the proper officials in your district.
Trusting you will give this matter your earliest attention.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,



[Stage Direction]
Secretary to the Commission.
The following circular letter was sent to every city council in British Columbia Mr. SMITH (Vancouver).
Royal Commissi on.- Chin :se anl Japanese Immigration.
Kamloops, B.C., Oct. 24, 1900. Sir,-I beg leave to request of your city council, for the use of the Royal Commission to inquire into the subject of Chinese and Japanese immigration into British Columbia, information as follows :
I.	The number of Chinese and Japanese now resident within the city limits.
II.	Increase, if any, within the past twelve months of this class of residents.
III.	Revenue obtained by the city from Chinese and Japanese, sources of said revenue, and amount thereof up to September 30th, ult.
IV.	Occupations of Chinese and Japanese resident within the city limits.
V.	Special reports from the city medical health officer and city sanitary inspector regarding conditions of Chinese and Japanese within the city limits.
VI.	Such other information as in the opinion of the city council may be of service to the Royal Commission.
Trusting you will give this matter your earliest attention.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary to the Commission.
The following circular letter was sent to every board of trade in British Columbia :-
Royal Commission.-Chinese and Japanese Immigration.
Kamloops, B.C., Oct. 24, 1900. Sir,-I beg leave to request of your board of trade any information in your possession, or obtainable by you, that will be of service to the Royal Commission to inquire into the subject of Chinese and Japanese immigration into British Columbia.
This information, if possible, should cover :
I.	Number of Chinese and Japanese engaged in any mercantile or manufacturing pursuit in the district represented by your board.
II.	Effects of their competition.
III.	Conditions under which the Chinese and Japanese conduct their business.
IV.	Any other information that in the opinion of your board would be of service to the commissioners in their investigation.
Trusting you will give this matter your earliest attention.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary to the Commission.
The following circular letter was sent to every health officer in British Columbia:-
Royal Commission.-Chinese and Japanese Immigration.
Kamloops, B.C., Oct. 24, 1900.
Sir,-I beg leave to request of you, for the use of tho Royal Commission to inquire into the subject of Chinese and Japanese immigration into British Columbia, a report covering the health and sanitary conditions of the Chinese and Japanese resident in your district.
Any other information or suggestions you may have to offer bearing upon the question of

Chinese and Japanese immigration will be greatly appreciated.
Trusting you will give this matter your earliest attention.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary to the Commission.
The following circular letter was sent to the principal of every school in British Columbia
Royal Commission.-Chinese and Japanese Immigration.
Kamloops, B.C.,* Oct. 24, 1900. Sir,-Will you kindly forward me at your earliest convenience a statement of the number of Chinese and Japanese who have been in attendance at your school during the twelve months ended September 30th, ult., and who are now in attendance. This information is for the use of the Royal Commission to inquire into the subject of Chinese and Japanese immigration into British Columbia.
Trusting you will give this matter your earliest attention.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary to the Commission. The following circular letter was sent to the secretaries of all the farmers' institutes in British Columbia.
Royal Commission.-Chinese and Japanese Immigration.
Kamloops, B.C., Oct. 24, 1900. Sir,-I beg leave to request of your farmers' institute, for the use of the Royal Commission to inquire into the question of Chinese and Japanese immigration into British Columbia, any information in your possession, or obtainable by you bearing upon the subject.
This information, if possible, should cover :
I.	Number of Chinese and Japanese engaged, either as employers or labourers, in, any agricultural pursuit in the district represented by your institute.
II.	Effects of their competition.
III.	Rates of pay of Chinese and Japanese farm labourers.
IV.	Special report as to number of Chinese and Japanese market gardeners in your district.
V.	And the effects of their competition in this particular branch of the industry.
VI.	Any other information which in the opinion of your institute will be of service to the commission in this investigation.
Trusting you will give this matter your earliest attention.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary to the Commission.
The following circular letter was sent to every trades and labour council and union of British Columbia
Royal Commission.-Chinese and Japanese Immigration.
Kamloops, B.C., Oct. 24, 1900.
Sir,-I beg leave to request of you, for the use of the Royal Commission to inquire into the
subject of Chinese and Japanese immigration into British Columbia, a statement of the number of Chinese and Japanese employed in or about the mines in the district represented by your union ; also a statement of the wages paid for this class of labour. Any further information you may have to offer regarding the effects of the employment of this class of labour in the mines, and the extent, if at all, to which white labour is affected by the competition of Chinese and Japanese labour, will be very acceptable.
Kindly add any other information, or suggestions bearing upon this subject, in your possession or obtainable by you.
Trusting you will give this matter your earliest attention
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary to the Commission.
# Tlie following circular letter was sent to 'every canner proprietor in British Columbia
Royal Commission.-Chinese and Japaneso
Immigration.
Kamloops, B.C., Oat. 29, 1900.
Sir, I beg leave to request that you forward me a statement of the number of Chinese and Japanese employed, in any capacity, at your cannery, during the twelve months ended September 30th ult., also statement of wages paid to Chinese and Japanese employed.
This information is required for the use of the Royal Commission to inquire into the subject of Chinese and Japanese immigration into British Columbia.
Tiusting you will give this matter your earliest attention
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary to the Commission.
The following circular letter was sent to every saw-mill owner in British Columbia
Royal Commission.-Chinese and Japanese
Immigration.
Kamloops, B.C., Oct. 24, 1900.
-I beg leave io request of vou a statement of the number of Chinese and Japanese employed at your mill, each and every month in the year ended September 30th ult., and the number of Chinese and Japanese now employed in your mill ; also a statement of the wages paid to Chinese and Japanese labourers employed at your mill.
This Information is required for the use of the Royal Commission to Inquire Into the subject of Chinese and Japanese immigration into British Columbia.
Trusting you will gi ve this matt >r your earliest attention
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary to the Commission.
The different interests were also represented by counsel-Charles Wilson. ICC., represented the province, G. M. Bradburn represented the Chinese, Mr. R. Cassidy. ICC., represented the Japanese, Mr. D. C. Mac-donell represented the Trades and Labour Council. These legal gentlemen were con-
[Stage Direction]
suited all the time in the choice of witnesses, and were even requested to produce witnesses who might be expected to give absolutely impartial evidence. I will give the House a short summary of the witnesses to show how every diversified interest of every kind was represented.
On Vancouver Island, in my own constituency, the head representatives of the three largest exporting companies in British Columbia gave evidence to which are the representatives of the coal companies of Vancouver Island, each of which employ thousands of men, the output of which mines is a million and a quarter tons of coal every year. Mr. Palmer also, superintendent of the largest exporting company in British Columbia, several of the principal members of the legislative assembly of British Columbia, several of the principal business men in every city, some of the principal ministers of different denominations all over the province, the bishop, head of the British Columbia Anglican Church, the leading ministers in the Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist Churches, the managers of all the leading industries of the province,- mining, lumbering and fishing were all represented and gave evidence. So that the common statement or opinion that Chinese immigration was the cry only of a number of demagogues was demonstrated to be untrue, as every place, city and town, every conceivable provincial interest, was fully represented and is on record for or against the question at issue.
The scope of the commission was also national and international in its importance. Information of a national and international nature was acquired, extending to the Australasian colonies and the United States; the latter, of course, was of great importance, as the facts of the question in the western States referred to conditions exactly similar to those in British Columbia where the inquiry was held, and had the advantage of judging of the effects of legislation on the question similar to that which the evidence calls upon the commissioners to consider proper for Canada. 1 intend, however, later on to make more reference to the application of legislation against the Chinese in other countries and the consideration of the international aspect of the question.
I propose now to deal with the findings of the commission. The history of the Chinese dates back to the gold excitement period in the early sixties in British Columbia. They came over from California, but also large numbers came to the province, many left after the principal placer mines in Cariboo were worked out, so that twenty years after we had only a little over four thousand Chinese in the province. A short time afterwards large numbers were brought in to assist in the construction of the British Columbia section of the Canadian Pacific Railway; so that in 1884 there were over Mr. SMITH (Vancouver).
nine thousand in the province, and over three thousand were engaged in railway construction. Large numbers left after the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway, so that in 1891 we had less than we had in 1884, still leaving, however, over nine thousand in 1891. In 1901, however, we find the number about 16,000 in British Columbia; in fact, we find that the growth of Chinese population increased in proportion to the white population of British Columbia, as seen by the census figures on page 19 of the report. In 1881, there were 49,000 whites and Indians, 4,350 Chinese; in 1891 there were 89,263 whites, exactly double, and 8,910 Chinamen, exactly double the number of Chinese ; in 1901 there was 157,815 whites and about 15,000 Chinese, a proportionate increase in Chinese to whites. The explanation of this increase shows that Chinese labour contractors of British Columbia are in touch with the emigration agents in China, and thus keep full to overflowing the supply of Chinese cheap labour. This is very important, and I will refer to the same point later, the point being contrary to the commonly accepted dictum that this matter of Chinese competition would right itself and that whi e lab ur will eventually take the place of Chinese labour. The contrary is the fact, as there is an inexhaustible supply of these labourers who can be manipulated at any minute by the methods perfected by many years of experience. As it was expressed by one of the important witnesses, and an employer of labour at that, the Chinese labour supply is like a reservoir with a tap; when you get all you want you can turn off when they are satisfied.
Then, there is the quality of this immigration, whose supply is exhaustless, as shown by the report of the commission. Nearly all these labourers come from the eight counties in the province of ICwang-tung, in the vicinity of Canton. In this province you have an area of 90,000 square miles and a population of over twenty million. The emigrants to Canada are mostly of the coolie class. Very extensive evidence of- the nature of the Chinese who c ine to British Columbia is given in the report of the commission by authorities who have had years of experience in China. One of the witnesses, Mr. McLean, had lived many years in China (and who assisted counsel for the Chinese, being present throughout the investigation, was entirely favourable to the Chinese) gave a description of the value of their property, their houses costing from $5 to $15, the furniture $5, their wages per month from $2 to $3 to support a wife and family, forty or fiftv of this class of people living together. ' Other witnesses of similar experience said that to their personal knowledge the large majority of Chinese who came to British Columbia are from the lowest coolie labour from China. The witness said this,

lie declared, because he had been in China himself, he had been there and seen these operations ; and they live here he said, in British Columbia, just as they lived there. An author, for many years interpreter and secretary of legation, acting minister of the United States, of Pekin, in his book said the word poverty does not convey at all the same idea in the two countries. In America a man is called poor who has a family to support on earnings of perhaps $2 a day. In China such a man would be regarded as living in the very lap of luxury. Here, when the labouring man cannot afford to have meat twice a day, said this author, he is supposed to be on the verge" of hardship and destitution. In China, the labourer receiving what he considers good wages cannot afford to eat a pound a month. Poverty in this country means a narrow and limited supply of luxury ; poverty in China means actual hunger and nakedness, if not starvation within sight. In China they earn from 10 to 30 cents in silver each day. As silver is worth only half of our money, this means that they earn the equivalent of from 5 to 15 cents. The average is less than 20 cents silver, or 10 cents of our money. Unskilled labour in China sell their strength for from 5 to 10 cents each day. This, it must be remembered, is not only to support the man himself, but from one to four or five other persons. In China failure to be at work one day carries with it the inevita-able consequence of want of any sort of food for the same period. It is difficult to realize, says the author, how they live at all. Their daily food, however, consists of steamed rice, boiled cabbage, bits of raw turnip pickled in strong brine, raw cucumbers, raw carrots or turnips. This is the description given by this author of the food consumption of the great masses of the Chinese people, not for the beggars or the poor, but the class of industrious working men and their families.
Rev.  A. H.@: Smith, another author, twenty-one years a missionary in China, in his book of Chinese characteristics, corroborates all the statements given by the former author. He states also that in the northern parts of China the horse, the mule, the ox and the donkey are in universal use, and the Chinese economy is carried into the general practice of eating all these animals as soon as they expire, whether the cause of death be accident, old age or disease. Dead dogs and cats are subject to the same processes of absorb-tion as dead horses. He says that he has personally seen several cases in which villagers cooked and ate dogs which had been purposely poisoned by strychnine to get rid of them. On one of these occasions some one was thoughtful enough to consult a foreign physician as to the probable results, but as the animal was already in the pot the survivors could not make up their minds to forego the luxury of a feast, and no harm appears to have come of their indulgence.
So important is the question of how these people live in China, what in short it costs to produce a competitor of white labour here, and what he can live upon in this country, that the above quotations from the report may not be out of place.
The evidence also proved that the Chinese labourers are sent here by companies, their passages were paid and head money coming into the country ; they have to serve their masters till the money is refunded.
Another witness, the Rev. Lewis W. Hall, Chinese missionary in British Columbia, had been in China two years, could speak the Chinese language, knew the district well where the Chinese labourers came from, said they lived on 2J cents a day, that their yearly earnings were $5.88. He asks the question, is it advisable that the labourer of this country shall be brought in competition with such conditions V In his experience these people continued in this condition of living in this country. Take the condition and position that they have made in the capital city of British Columbia, Victoria. In that city there is a total of 3,273 Chinamen, of whom 288 are merchants. There are only 92 women in a population of 3.273, there are only 03 native born male children and 82 native born females. There are 530 Chinese domestic servants employed by whites, 198 market gardeners, 84 tailors, 48 saw-mill hands, 880 workers in the canneries, 197 laundrymen, who operate 40 washhouses, 63S miscellaneous labourers, and 177 out of employment. Thus it is seen that out of a population of 3,273, there are 3,132 adult males. The disproportion of males to females is even greater in other places than it is in Victoria. Out of a Chinese population in Vancouver City of 2,080, there are only 27 females, and in many of the towns where there are hundreds of Chinamen there are no Chinese women at all. Out of a population of 16,000 in British Columbia there are only 122 Chinese children attending the public school. Now if we take the white population of British Columbia, there are 161,272. Out of this we have 54,500 adult males, 30,000 adult females, and 23,613 children attending the public schools. Thus it is seen, in connection with the white population of British Columbia, that, for every adult male, there are three inhabitants. If this proportion is applied to the Chinese there ought to be a Chinese population of 48,000, and at least 5,500 children. Supposing the entire Chinese population of Victoria were replaced by white adult males, under the present condition of the male white population this would represent a population of from 10,000 to 12,000, equal to one-half the present population of Victoria, with children attending the schools, the churches, building up homes, filling the conditions of citizenship, and giving that mutual support to all the avocations and trades necessary to the healthy growth of the community. Thus we can see clearly, as proven by the report,

that the number of Chinese in British Columbia does not convey any accurate idea of the extent to which the white population is being replaced by Chinese ; for if you replaced all the Chinese with whites you would not only have their families, as indicated by the present average white family, but you would have the increase occasioned by their presence to supply their wants in every sense.
The unsanitary condition of these people is proven by the evidence given by the sanitary inspectors and the health officers of British Columbia. The story is told, the dis-cription given, the evidence sworn to by responsible men, by the sanitary inspector of Victoria, James Wilson, by the health ' officers of the city of Vancouver, by the evidence of the several doctors of the province, by Dr. Roderick Fraser, medical health officer of Victoria. These doctors unanimously concur in the opinion that the Chinese are a menace to the health of the community.


Dr. Alfred T.: of whom about 400 are Chinese and .Taps. Almost every one of the witnesses, managers of the mills, and in some instances, owners of the mills, were in a large majority of cases strongly in favour of exclusion and considered that there was an abundance of Chinese for all purposes in the province. The wages paid to white labour in Washington state are higher than they are in British Columbia. The general evidence given by the managers of the lumber industry was that there was an abundance of Chinese, that if no more Chinese or Japs were allowed in the country the industry would suffer no loss or even inconvenience, but on the other hand it would be a great benefit to the country. All agreed that this class of immigrants was undesirable as citizens, and all expressed strong opinions favourable to higher restriction. On the Amerieau side Chinese labour is not employed in this industry, and the American mill owners are strongly in favour of their present exclusion law.
The canning industry of British Columbia is as important as any of the great industries in the province. The number of Japanese and Chinese engaged in it greatly exceeds the number of them employed in any other industry. According to the evidence, more than one half of the labour employed in the canneries is Chinese labour ; in fact the canning process is almost entirely in the hands of the Chinese, and although the canners' evidence in some cases was strongly in favour of Chinese labour in this industry, it was admitted that the present supply already in the province was quite sufficient to meet all requirements and supply all demands for years to come ; and it is considered that the change by the process of only prohibiting Chinese from coming into the province, while such large numbers are already here, will make the change so gradual as to be all but imperceptible.
On the Sound where the Exclusion Act is applied it has not retarded the development of this industry.
If the present condition of things continues in this industry in British Columbia, it will not be long before the whole business of the country will be in the hands of a dozen exploiters and gangs of Chinese and Japanese.
It has been well established that the general industries referred to will not be interfered with by any exclusion law, the present supply being abundant for all purposes and for years to come ; this fact being well established beyond doubt by the employers themselves, and I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that even the employers of the province, whose position generally is one of taking every advantage of cheap labour have stated beyond doubt that it is desirable to restrict the inflow of Chinese and Japanese labour. The permanent settlers of that province are face to face with a serious effect upon two important factors of citizen-Mr. SMITH (Vancouver).
ship, namely, the unskilled labourer and the youth of the' country. These are the people who ought to be encouraged to come to the country, but very many, both skilled and unskilled labourers, with women and children, already in the province and very many who have come to the province to seek employment have found the usual opportunities for it, especially in the lower grades of labour, already absorbed by Chinese and Japanese. Very many skilled workmen going to British Columbia find no opening in their trade. Being willing to take any position, these, with the larger class who have no special calling or trade, are debarred from almost every leading industry in the province, unless they are willing to compete at wages acceptable to Chinese and Japanese. In the city of Victoria alone there are 63S Chinese labourers, in Vancouvir City there are 220 Chinese labourers, and by the evidence given by men in a position to know it is clearly proven that whilst there are many unskilled workmen in the cities, almost every avenue of work of this kind is already filled by Chinese or Japs. This evidence is beyond question as proving also the serious position that we have to face with regard to the employment of boys, girls and women, the occupations of this class being all taken up-by the Chinese. This is especially important as it relates to the boys. I state on the floor of this parliament to-day that there are hundreds of boys, practically young men, who ought to be taking up the different kinds of labour in the province and thus assist their parents who are not in a position to keep them idle, who are completely shut out and wandering the streets without an aim or a purpose, because the Chinese are employed in the avocations rightly belonging to them. Thus the youth, the future hope of the country-are developing the character of idleness, and in every instance large numbers of them are going over into the United States. Very many have left British Columbia and have already gone there ; in fact I believe we are supplying that country on the other side, so far as* the west is concerned, with the very best of our youthful labour and thus depleting our own country. I insist that this aspect of the question, depleting as it does this country of its future citizens, is a most serious grievance which ought to be at once rectified. As a matter of fact the employment of Chinese in all these grades of manual labour deters the youth from seeking employment because of the Chinese being employed at this work.
The Chinese monopolize entirely the position of domestic servants. It is considered by those who employ them in their homes that this is one of the instances where the Chinese are a great benefit to the country, and where it is repeatedly stated that it is impossible to get white females. We forget, however, that by the constant use and appropriation of Chinese labour in this business

we are making the proper training of domestic servants of tlie female subjects of tlie country an impossibility. There are plenty of girls in British Columbia at liberty to work as domestic servants, but they have no encouragement, they have to compete against the regular, docile, slavish, condescending methods of the Chinese domestic. He is willing to be there at all times, to do all things, to meet all exactions, to answer every demand. He is not a servant, he is a slave. Thus, the daughters of citizens of the country, have to compete against this kind of thing. Many have tried to do it, but the people generally have got so well used to the Chinese domestic-the poor slave who answers every call, meets every demand-that it is an impossibility for the free, ambitious white female domestic to meet these demands. Thus we are closing up what ought to be a school of training for females of the country. We are shutting them out from their natural avocation and they wander the streets in idleness whilst the Chinaman occupies the home.
Look at the case of merchant tailors. The evidence given by the report of the commission proves conclusively that whilst the Chinese labour monopolizes the menial and unskilled employments, in some instances they have very dangerously encroached upon the different trades and callings where higher wages are paid. In the city of Victoria the tailoring business has almost entirely been handed over to the Chinese. In 1891 there were eighteen white tailor shops and 150 men and women employed, with a yearly wage of over $109,000, at an average weekly wage of from $18 for men and $10 for women. In 1900 there were only twenty-one white men and thirty women in the whole tailoring business of the city of Victoria, and the yearly wages were $22,000 as against $109,000 ten years previously. In the same decade the population of the city had doubled.
One witness who was a high class tailor and has carried on the business for many years says that the wages of the white tailor in that city have been reduced fifty per cent through Chinese competition, that he had been driven almost entirely out of the business.
The same thing is true of the Wholesale manufacture of clothing. This work of course is done principally by women and Chinese. This again has been taken almost entirely out of the hands of the whites by the Chinese. One firm who put in a plant costing $2,000 with the latest machinery, employed over forty hands, and the Chinese killed the business completely. Every one of the employers In this business agreed that the present supply of Chinese was ample and that no injury would follow if the Chinese were entirely excluded.
The same thing holds good with regard to other trades and callings-the boot and shoe manufacture, the cigar making, the brick
making, lime burning, eordwood cutting, railway construction, freighting ; all these have been taken charge of by the Chinese, and all these are avenues of labour which very properly belong to the white labour of the country, labour which means permanence and stability to the country itself. In this again, let me add, the operations of any of these industries, according to the evidence given by interested persons, will not be even inconvenienced by the exclusion of the Chinese. In every instance in connection with every trade and every business the one conclusion is proved that the present supply of Chinese and Japanese in the province of British Columbia is quite sufficient to meet the demands of the business. The one argument in the past-it has been put up by Chinese advocates, an argument of course which the government lias had to pay some regard to-has been that the industrial development of the province made Chinese immigration to the province absolutely necessary. If the truth of that position is admitted for the sake of argument, the time has come, as I have just said when all companies with large investments and interests, and all their managers responsible for the most economic results that their business can bring, the principal business men in all the cities, with their large investments, unitedly agree at the present time that there is a superabundauee^of Chinese and Japanese in the province. The argument then in favour of entire exclusion is absolutely conclusive.
The merchants and the traders in the province are unanimous in favour of Chinese exclusion, and I would recommend the House to read the Commission's Report from page 610 to page 624 ; every one of the witnesses, the leading business men in tile Coast cities, are unanimously in favour of entire exclusion. In Victoria, according to the figures of the Chinese Board of Trade itself, there are 238 Chinese merchants, comprising 109 firms, and doing a business amounting to over a million dollars. In 1 an-couver there are 143 merchants, comprising forty-seven firms, doing a business of over one half a million dollars. At Nanaimo there are fourteen merchants, doing a yearly business of $163,000. At New Westminster there are twenty-nine Chinese merchants, doing a business of $317,000. And amongst the whole of the whites, merchants and traders, according to the evidence, they are unanimously opposed to the Chinese.
The question then is:	Are the people
of British Columbia or is the public opinion of that province, favourable to further restriction or entire exclusion of the Chinese? The important question is : Do the persons representing all classes of business interests in the province, favour further restriction or exclusion ? For the present, I am shutting out of the argument bona fide employees, for the sake of avoiding commonly I accepted opinion that this agitation for

Chinese exclusion relates entirely to the trades unionists of the province. This class, I may say, whose evidence X consider is of as great an importance as others, 1 leave out of the present consideration for the reason that both skilled and unskilled labourers in the province are absolutely unanimous in favour of entire exclusion. But when I speak of the opinions of the others. I mean professional men, traders of . every description; the largest employers of labour-the most of whom employ already in some degree Chinese and Japanese labour. What is the general opinion of these people, as the whole of their interests are at stake with regard to this question. Now, Sir, I have looked over the whole of that evidence, and there we have the heads of the principal dry goods merchants, the heads of the principal grocery merchants the head of the legal firms, the superintendents of the large coal mines, the superintendents of the metalliferous mines, the principal ministers of the principal churches, the manar-gers of the lumber business, the representative men, and every conceivable interest in the province. Their evidence is there under oath, and almost unanimously they agree with the entire exclusion of the Chinese. If this request is not granted by this parliament, then the desire of the people of British Columbia is not answered. What good reason can any government give, what good reason can any parliament give, composed as it is, of the representatives of the people, for refusing to grant the people their desires ?
Similar agitations have been made on tli's self-same question in other countries, and what British Columbia is asking for and has been demanding for many years has been already accomplished and acquired 4n other countries. It is well known, and important for this House to consider, that in other countries where Chinese have efiii-grated to that their presence and exclusion has been agitated for very strongly. That is seen in the United States, Australia and Tasmania. As far back as 1876, a Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Representatives was appointed to investigate the question of Chinese emigration, and I think it important that quotations from the report of that commission might be given to show that exactly a similar experience with our own was proven. The testimony of lawyers and of doctors, merchants, divines, judges, in fact of all classes, went to prove that there was no real prosperity derived from the presence of the Chinese, that they were ruinous to the industrious labouring classes, that they promoted a caste, that they were dangerous to free institutions, that they reduced wages to starvation point, that they made unskilled employments impossible, that they compelled young men to grow up in idleness, that the whole tendency was to turn industrial classes into an almost entirely servile class.


Ralph Smith: They found that the Chinese could subsist where the Americans would starve; they dispensed entirely with what was a necessity in modern civilization; to compete with them, said the American commission, is to drive out every American subject. It was also proven that the very presence of Chinese retarded white immigration to the Pacific States. This arose from the Chinese monopoly of farm and mechanical work, and the low price of their labour, which made it impossible for the new immigrant to live. This commission declared that free institutions, founded on free schools and intelligence, could only be maintained when based on intelligent and adequately paid labour; that adequate wages are necessary to give self-respect to the labourer and the means of education to liis children; for family life is the great safeguard to political institutions. That Chinese immigration meant sordid wages, no public schools and the absence of the family; and they reported to Congress that this problem was too important to be treated with indifference, but that it was absolutely necessary to solve the difficulty unless their Pacific possessions were to be given over to an alien, race. And in their concluding statements to congress they said it was the part of wisdom to anticipate the day when patience might cease, and that wise legislation ought to avert this evil, that impending difficulties of this character should not in this advanced age be left to the chance arbitrament of force, that these questions ought to be solved by the statesman and philanthropist, and not by the soldier. And the committee concluded its report by stating that in view of the fact that the well-known policy of the Chinese government is adverse to the immigration of its citizens, and that Great Britain has already, without offence to China, absolutely prohibited immigration to several of her colonies, we believe that similar action-on our part will not destroy or disturb the friendly conditions now existing; but even if it were otherwise the harmony and perpetuity of our social and political institutions cannot be weighed in the same balance with mere material prosperity or commercial advancement. Your committee, therefore, unanimously recommend that immediate correspondence be opened up with the governments of China and Great Britain.
In 1879, a Restriction Act was passed in the United States, "being vetoed by the President in the same year. A treaty, however,,, was entered into in 18S0, ratified and proclaimed in 1881, between the United States and China, as to the exclusion of Chinese coming into the States. This, of course, especially provided for the immigration of Chinese labourers, and protecting as it did the Chinese already permen-ently residing in the States.
In 1882, an Act was passed giving effect to this treaty. In 1881 this Act was amended, suspending the immigration of Chinese

into tlie States for ten years, and imposing a penalty of $500, or a term of imprisonment for one year for every Chinese labourer brought in by the master of any vessel. In 1892 a further Act was passed, continuing the operation of all restrictive laws then in force for a period of ten years, and making provision at the same time for deportations for breach of law.
This treaty was the result of nearly twenty years of agitation. It is also to be noticed that by a Joint Resolution of the House, July 7, 1898, it was declared that there should be no further immigration of Chinese into the Hawaiian islands, except upon the conditions allowed by the law of the United States. These acts and treaties, with the regulations to enforce the same, constitute the present law of the United States with respect to Chinese immigration.
In the report of the Philippine commission in 1900, (volume 2, page 432), there is a memorandum of the Chinese in the Philippines, and coming from such a trustworthy source it is worthy of special notice. Their report was : That the principle of political economy is well known, which lays down the rule that in order for a country to obtain advantages from immigration the immigration should bring in capital, new industries or superior knowledge to perfect industries already in existence, or at least that such immigrants should apply their energies to pursuits productive of gain, not only to the immigrants themselves, but to society in general in the country in which they have established themselves, or that they finally become assimilated with the people of the country, thus giving, although indirectly, stimulus to certain professions and industries whose progress is a consequence of the increase of the numbth- of inhabitants of the town. Chinese said they, in going to the Philippines did not comply with any of the conditions of this well-known condition of political economy, which are desirable points to be looked for in immigrants. Why should they be allowed to emigrate to the Philippines when their presence was not a guarantee of prosperity and progress for the rest of the inhabitants. It is impossible, they said, on account of the competition in which they lived to attain a position in the middle class of society. It was the custom of the Chinese to consume, as far as the necessaries of life are concerned, food, clothing, and articles which they import from their own country for their own purpose.
The report of the Canadian Royal Commission has made extensive inquiry into the application of the exclusion principle in the United States, has taken most important evidence in Seattle, in Washington state, in Portland and in San Francisco, and there we have evidence of a most important kind, having had so many years' experience with this class of people in the western States, and also considerable experience with the application of an Exclusion Act, brought about by treaty between the governments of the United States and China. The general effect of this restrictive legislation in the United States has been to gradually decrease the number of Chinese on the west coast, the greatest reduction, of course, taking place in California, where they were reduced from 72,000 in 1890, to 45,000 in 1900. The population of the State of Washington has increased from 75,000 in 1880, to 518.000 in 1900, while the number of Chinese have only increased from 3,186 in 1880, to 3,629 in 1900; while the population of British Columbia has increased from 49.459 in 1880, to 177,272 in 1900; the Chinese population for that same period in British Columbia has increased from 4,550, to 10.000; so that whilst the increase in the general population of British Columbia has doubled, the Chinese population has more than trebled. In Seattle they have a population of 80,000, and they have less than 500 Chinamen; whilst in Victoria., the capital city of British Columbia, with a population of only 20,000, they have a Chinese population of 3,300.
The whole of the evidence taken in the western States was overwhelmingly in favour of the present operation of the exclusion Jaw in the United States. This opinion was given principally by employers of labour. They stated plainly that the exclusion caused no shock to the various industries; the change was gradual; the effect was unnoticed. And in the western States, as proven by the evidence given to our Royal Commission, it was clear that they regarded the question as being closed, and it could not be found that there was any class of the populace but were in favour of Chinese exclusion. The consideration of the continuation of that treaty between the United States and China is being dealt with at the present time. Special reference was made to the importance of the subject by President Roosevelt in his annual address, and when he declared emphatically his anxiety for a continuation of the exclusive measures, and there was every evidence that that would be carried out according to the present discussion on the question.
The Australian colonies prior to the formation of their present commonwealth, had passed restrictive legislation against the Chinese. The colony of Victoria as far back as 1855 imposed a tax of $50 and limited the number to one Chinaman to every ten tons of the ship's burthen, and imposed a penalty on the master of the vessel of $50 for every passenger carried in excess. They imposed a resident license tax on the Chinese of $20. In 1881 the same colony passed an Act limiting the number of Chinamen to one in every 100 tons of th >
ship's burthen, and imposing a penalty of $500 for breach of the law and a tax of $50 for every immigrant arriving in the vessel. Similar legislation to this has been passed

easy. One tiling is wanted and that is population, and not the quantity of immigrants, but in every case the suitability of them. I am not sure that the nature of the immigrant brought in under the present emigration policy of the government is at all desirable. One thing is sure, whether he is suitable cr otherwise, he is costly. If this parliament concludes in favour of Chinese and Japanese by refusing to exclude them, I do not see any reason that they can give for not throwing the gates wide open and admitting them as freely, not only as they would be willing to come, but making inducements for them to do so. If the decision of this parliament is in favour of Chinese immigration then the logical meaning of that ought to be that the enormous expense of the present immigration policy of the government in settling up the country is altogether unjustifiable when we have countless numbers of Chinese willing to come in without any expense at all to the country. That seems to me to be the logical position that this parliament ought to take, if it holds the view that entire exclusion against Chinamen is wrong. If we are to have a strong nation we must have a united people, thus the nature of the immigrant must be such as to make an affiliation possible with the present Canadians.
This does not exist at the present time in British Columbia. AVe are mixed up with large proportions of a servile race, and whatever permanently weakens British Columbia, weakens the Dominion, and weakens the empire, and any method of business operation which brings material gain to individual interests ought not to weigh for one moment against an injury to the nation.
Then as to the moral aspect of the question. I know it will be said by certain people that this question is opposed to the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. The morality of Chinese exclusion is not to be compared to the morality of international warfare. AVe do not propose to organize a system of slaughter agaiust the Chinamen ; we do not even propose to expel those from our country who are already in it ; we have been and are quite ready to bestow on them the benefits of British institutions ; we are content at least to adopt nature's method of lessening the evil effects of a class of people by the ordinary process of natural destruction. AVe do not propose to send our armies to China ; we simply request them to stop at home. Honourable gentlemen who would sanction and endorse considerations readily in favour of international material warfare I suppose would hold up their hands in holy horror against the proposed legislation that we advocate. It is beyond the possibility of proof by those who oppose such legislation that it is possible to raise the Chinaman up to the appreciation of the moral and Christian people of this country or even to make him a good citizen. If that were possible to any Mr. SMITH (Vancouver).
conceivable extent it might be urged perhaps from a humanitarian standpoint that it would be our duty to receive them ; but as I look over the evidence of the late commission I find that the prominent Christian teachers in the province of British Columbia clearly show that it is not possible to make go d citizens of the Chinese or in any perceptible degree to bring them under the influence of Christian teaching. I know In some cases where Christian teachers living in the east have held the contrary view, who have afterwards lived in the west and have changed their views. This is especially true to the politician of every grade. AVbilst it lias been difficult to have this legislation endorsed enthusiastically in this parliament, especially by the members of eastern Canada, it is not difficult and has never been difficult to get a favourable opinion from any cf them when they are out in the west. I desire, therefore, to read some of the evidence of the leading ministers of the Christian churches in British Columbia.
It will be seen, by looking over that evidence and admitted by Christian teachers, that missionary work amongst the Chinese on the coast has met with little success, in fact where any of the ministers gave evidence at all favourable to the Chinese it was put on the ground that they were a servile class and that such a class was necessary to the higher development of the Anglo-Saxon race.
The Rev. AA7. Leslie Clay minister of the principal Presbyterian church in Victoria, who has lived there for seven years, states as follows : That where any single Chinese gives evidence of Christian reformation he is looked upon by his fellow Chinamen with great antipathy ; he is east oft' by his friends because of having adopted Christian modes of thought and living. That he does not know of any of the educated classes of Chinese accepting Christianity. The presence of them in large numbers, he says, is not desirable, and states emphatically that he objects to more coming in. AA7e should have a strong robust nation, he said, and our vast resources ought to be developed by our own citizens. He was asked the question on what ground would he exclude any part of God's creatures from any part of the world, and he answered that self-preservation was the first law of nature, that he would exclude them on that principle and that the Imperial government ought to make a treaty with China to that effect. They were a servile race. Asked as to what he thought the founder of the Christian religion would advise under the circumstances, he answered and said that he had endeavoured to interpret Christ's mind in the matter, and thought that Christ would approve of selfprotection.


The Rev.  A. S.@: Rowe, minister of the Metropolitan church, of Victoria, formerly of Toronto, considered that the presence of Chinese had a detrimental effect on the pro-

vince and an injurious effect upon white labour and on the markets. Their presence is a decided injury to economic conditions, and altogether a disadvantage to the community. The Chinamen are driving the white men out of the country. The Chinaman can never be made a citizen, and that is what we want, people that will take an interest in our laws and institutions and be an integral part of our community and not a menace to the community. He said he believed entirely, not in restriction, but in prohibition, speaking from a national standpoint. He thought Canada would be much stronger by the exclusion of the Chinese race.
Bishop Perrin, head of the Anglican Church, says : They come without a cent and are under obligation to those who bring them here. I do not think, he says, that things ought to be allowed, to go on as in the past. They are allowed to come in and arrive with nothing. I think our mission is to go to China because our religion is the universal religion. He thought the Chinese ought not to be allowed to interfere with the dignity of labour in the mind of a true ideal workman. He was opposed to the present immigration. Encroachment of Chinese on the occupations of the people of the country was a dangerous and objectionable condition. I may state, he said,-and this is a very important point-that, while I was in England I was unwilling to recommend labouring people to come to British Columbia. I thiuk there is a great future for British Columbia when the population increases.


The Rev.   L@: Hall, Chinese missionary of the Presbyterian church, says : There are large numbers of Chinese employed in and about the Union Mines. When a Chinaman becomes a Christian he is ostracised, shut out from his family, cut off from all intercourse, is made an outcast of his own race. We have no converts from amongst the merchant class. I do not favour the formation of a coolie class at all.
The Rev. Mr. Scott, Methodist minister, the First Methodist church, Vancouver :-
I do not think it desirable to have the Chinese come. They do not assimilate. It would not he desirable if they did. I have no ill-will to those who are here, but I wouldn't permit any more to come. I think their presence unnecessary. I do not think we need them1 here in order to reach the Chinese nation as a whole, from the Christian standpoint. We can take Christianity to China without their presence heTe.
Tbe question was asked, ' Do you believe in the universal brotherhood of man ?' ' I do,' he said, ' and I believe in the common Fatherhood of God.' And would you deny the right of any man to any portion of this earth ? ' He answered :
We are not universal nations yet; universal nationality and universal brotherhood are two different things. We would like to see universal Christianity, but that is still in the distant 51
future. I don't expect to live to see any great approach towards the universal brotherhood of man. When the Chinese come to the province by the thousands affecting the industrial work of the labourer then the first duty is for the national government to protect its own people and send the aliens back to their own land.
The Rev. McBeth, Presbyterian minister, Vancouver : Any alien race which refuses to assimilate is a menace to the nation. ' I think,' he said, ' we have all the Chinese we can digest. Looking at this question we must have regard for the future of the country. Our children must have room for livelihood. Domestic servants are held in low esteem in British Columbia on account of the presence of Chinese.'
The Rev. John Reid, Presbyterian church, believes the Chinese ought to be excluded.
The Rev. Roland Grant, Baptist minister, ten years on the coast, was also in America for years-had had large experience with Chinese, said :-Assimilation with other nationalities is forbidden. In Portland, he said, with a population of 20,000, in 1880, Chinese population was 6,000. Since the application of exclusion of Chinese, Portland has a population of 100,000 and only 5,000 Chinese. I think we have the moral right to exclude. I think the operation of the Exclusion Act would be quiet and unobserved. The Chinese coming to. this country as they do have a deteriorating tendency. A tax of $100 will not keep them out. The Exclusion Act is the proper thing.
The Rev. Mr. Bowell, Methodist minister : I consider the immigration of Chinese and Japanese to be detrimental to the interests of the country. They control the work that ought to be in the hands of white people. Many people have left the province, large families, not being able to get work. I regard them as a menace to the future wellbeing of the nation, and very seriously interfere with the employment of the boys, which is a very serious matter for any country.
The Rev. Mr. Minchester, Toronto ; The presence of Chinese in British Columbia in some cases affect the white wage-earners favourably; in others prejudicially. If Chinese were coming into the country in large numbers I would favour restriction, not of Chinese alone, but I would restrict the large influx of foreigners from any quarter. I would base terms of restriction upon character and education. Foreign immigrants should be able to read some European language, should come into the country for some stated purpose should show some reasonable prospect of becoming permanent citizens.
The evidence then of a large majority of the witnesses under this head goes to prove that, the opinions of the leading Christian ministers in British Columbia who understand the question, who know its effects, who are in a position to know all the facts



relating to It, unite with those of others in the province in favour of the exclusion of Chinese. The opinion is practically unanimous that the work of Curistianizing the Chinamen in the country is not attended with as satisfactory results as similar work in their own country. The great majority of these witnesses were positively opposed to a servile class or to the introduction in any way of a class that would tend to degrade or affect the welfare of the white labouring class. It is therefore clearly proven and reported so by the commissioners that in no appreciable measure will the missionary work with the Chinese as a nation be affected, and that the morality of this question is supported even by the leading Christian teachers in the province where the evil exists.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am drawing to a conclusion on this subject, and I desire to make a recapitulation of my points in order that they may be thoroughly clear to the mind of the House. I gave first a description of the quality of the report of that commission, which must be admitted by the House as being extensive and conclusive. Second, I presented the demands of British Columbia on this question, showing that for fifteen years the agitation has been going on, the unanimous voice of the provincial parliament by the passing of. legislation of every description and resolutions and unanimous petitioning of the people. Third, I reviewed the work of the Dominion government on this question from 1884 up to the present time. Fourth, I described the scope of the inquiry and the finding of the commission, and proved conclusively that what the people of British Columbia had been demanding for many years had been demonstrated by the conclusion of the commissioners to be reasonable. Fifth, I showed how the Chinese affected the different industries: (a) how they affected the question of land clearing and land settlement, (b) how they affected the coal mining industry, (c) how they affected the lumber industry, (d) how they affected the fishing and canning industry. Sixth, I showed how the Chinese excluded unskilled labourers and displaced the boys, the great mass of British subjects, heads of families depending upon the operation of unskilled industries for a livelihood, but more especially the boys of the country, the future nation, driven to idleness, ought to be assisting the sustenance of their family, deprived of the ordinary employments of the province. Seventh, I showed how they affected the local industries; how local industries of many kinds had been entirely taken possession of by them, and how the whites had been driven out of the business altogether, as instanced by the merchant tailors, boot and shoe manufacturers, cigar makers, brickmaking, cordwood cutting, railway construction, freighting, and that in all the evidence given that the business would not


Ralph Smith: be inconvenienced by Chinese exclusion. Eighth, I showed the opinion of the people of British Columbia-public opinion on the question; I demonstrated clearly that the evidence of every interest in the country, dry goods merchants, grocery merchants, lawyers and barristers, superintendents of large coal mines, superintendents of metalliferous mines, ministers of Christian churches, managers of the lumber business, representative men of every interest, were agreed for greater restriction and even exclusion. Ninth, I showed the agitation of the question in other countries, as seen in the United States, in Australia and Tasmania for many years back, how they accomplished and operated what we are now demanding; then the findings of our own commissioners, the unanimous decision in favour of an immediate increased restriction. and failing a prohibitive treaty, the law of exclusion. Tenth, I made some reference to the trade relations with China, showed the experience of the United States, operation of the Exclusion Act in that country had not in any way interfered with the trade, but on the other hand their trade connections had increased enormously. Then I looked at the moral aspect of the question, and by the production of evidence given under oath, by the leading! ministers of the Christian churches of British Columbia, they were almost unanimous in favour of a prohibitive law, and very strongly in favour of an increased exclusion law.
I do not see how this parliament can refuse to at once comply with the wishes of the loyal and industrious subjects of British Columbia, and as the representative of that province, in complete accord with the opinion of the witnesses in the evidence given to the commission, and with the conclusion arrived at by the unanimous commissioners, I hope that this parliament at this session will take such immediate action as will comply with the requests of the people of British Columbia, and remove this grievance once and for all. I can assure this House that the feeling of British Columbia subjects on this question is intense, and whilst they have appreciated the increased head tax of 1900, and especially appreciated the appointment of the Royal Commission, , and now that they find that the decision of that commission is entirely in accord with their experience and with their desire, it would be a most serious matter if this parliament does not immediately comply with their unanimous request.


Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: I have listened attentively to the speech which the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) has just delivered upon the question of the exclusion of Chinese from British Columbia. I have tried to follow him closely, and I think I express the opinions of a

good many members on this side of the House when I say that we believe he has done his duty, and that he has made a very temperate as well as a very forcible presentation of the case from the standpoint of the province of which he is one of the representatives. I agree with him too, Sir, speaking for myself, and I concur in his opinion that he cannot see, in view of the report which the Royal Commission appointed by this government has made on that question, and in view of the unanimity of feeling which exists amongst the people of that province, how parliament can very much longer refuse to deal summarily and finally with this matter. I may remind my hon. friend that he has still another string to his bow. I think, if my memory serves me right, that immediately prior to the elections of 1896 the attention of the right hon. the First Minister was called to this question of Chinese immigration. His opinion on that matter was asked by some of his friends on the Pacific coast. I would not like to make any statement that was not in accordance with the facts, but I believe I am correct in saying that in response to the message which the right hon. gentleman received from his supporters in British Columbia on that occasion, he said that he would be guided by the opinions of Ills friends and supporters in that province .in the action which he would take on that question if the Liberal party "were returned to power. He has a number of able and loyal supporters from that province, and they have made a presentation of the case to him again and again. My hon. friend who has just taken his seat has made an exhaustive and elaborate presentation of the case, and I would invite him now at the earliest moment to test the sincerity of his leader upon the question of the exclusion of Chihese from the province, by giving notice of a resolution to that effect, and having a vote of this parliament taken upon it.
I was much gratified to notice that the Minister of Labour was present during the whole time that my hon. friend was addressing the House. He has taken a good deal of interest on this question of protecting the rights of labour. I am sure that my hon. friend from Vancouver must have convinced him" by the arguments which he has so temperately and so forcibly advanced to-day. I have no doubt that if the suggestion which I have taken the liberty of making to the hon. member for Vancouver is acted upon, and if he gives the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion on this matter, he may look for the cordial co-operation and support of the hon. Minister of Labour. At any rate, if the hon. member for Vancouver will do what I think he ought to do, implement his speech by action, if he will present to the House a resolution calling for the exclusion of the 51*
Chinese, he may be able to test the sincerity of hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House and ascertain where they stand upon that question.
The hon. gentleman also made reference to the quality of our immigration, which I think is worthy of the very best consideration of hon. members on both sides of the House. He did not confine his remarks to Oriental immigration, he referred to other classes of immigration coming to this country from the east. I agree with him that quality in our immigration should not be overlooked, that we should endeavour to get the very best class of immigrants to come to Canada, and that the presence of undesirable classes, not only in British Columbia but in other provinces of the Dominion, acts as a deterrent to prevent the better classes that we desire to come to the Dominion, from entering our doors. I took the liberty already, during this session, of drawing the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, and I think of the Minister of Finance, to the allegations which were made in the annual report of the Commissioner of Immigration of the United States, as to the difficulty which the authorities on the other side of the line experience in keeping undesirable immigrants out of that country. In view of the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver has referred to the quality of immigration, I take the liberty again of drawing the attention of the governnfent to the statements which the Commissioner General of Immigration for the United States has made in his report for the fiscal year ending June, 1901. After referring to the number of diseased immigrants who were returned by the officers of his department from United States ports to the countries whence they had come, he says :
These represent, however, only such as- applied for admission to the United States, and the bureau reiterates the opinion heretofore expressed that the vigilant Inspection at our ports has resulted, to some extent, in diverting diseased aliens to Canada, whence they surreptitiously effect an entrance across our northern boundary line.
Now, Sir, in view of this statement of the hon. member for Vancouver, concerning the desirability of having none but the best class of immigrants coming to Canada, I think the extract I have read is worthy of the attention of the government, and I think they should direct their efforts to keeping out of our country this objectionable class, that, according to the report of the commissioner, is seeking entrance to the United States by way of Canada. I hope that the speech which has been made by the hon. member for Vancouver will have some effect upon the government, that it will stir up the Minister of Labour, that" it will induce him to take some such steps as will meet with the reasonable demarids which have been presented to the House by the hon. member for Vancouver.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some passing reference to an incident which is not, probably, unparalleled in the history of this House, but which is unique in its character, nevertheless, which took place during the sitting of this House yesterday. I refer to the extraordinary opinion which hon. gentlemen who occupy seats in this House entertain respecting each other; I refer to the extraordinary spectacle, if I may use that strong language, presented to the House and to the country yesterday by the hon. gentleman who represents North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) in this House, and by his colleague who sits beside him, the hon. gentleman who represents the county of Russell (Mr. Edwards). The confession, if I may be permitted to use the term, which the hon. member for North Norfolk made, was certainly a most extraordinary one. I think it was well that even at this late date that confession should have been made, and I am glad that the hon. gentleman had the courage to make it. It is a most extraordinary one in its character. The hon. gentleman stated briefly to the House yesterday that he was a protectionist-a protectionist to the hilt-while his colleague at his right (Mr. Edwards) says he is a free trader to the hilt. The hon. member for North Norfolk declared that not only is he a protectionist now, but that he has been a protectionist steadily for the past twenty-five years and that he believes in moderate protection : that in 1875, 1876, and in 1877, he advised his leaders that the country required moderate protection and that the great bulk of the people of Canada were looking for legislation of that character. That statement was made by the hon. member for North Norfolk, if I understood what he said correctly in the House yesterday. He said that he had advised the government of the late Hon. Alexander Mackenzie that additional duties should be imposed in order that the interests of the country might be protected, and having made this statement, he made the still further and most extraordinary statement that the late Mr. Mackenzie and his colleagues were prepared to give the industries of this country an additional measure of protection and that the reason why they did not give that protection was because they met with so much opposition from their supporters from the maritime provinces. That, I believe, was, in brief, the statement which the hon. member made. Lest I should have misinterpreted what he said, with the permission of the House, I will read the ' Hansard ' report of that particular part of his speech :
I suspect, however, and I think I have good reason'; for the suspicion-that the Mackenzie government were willing to advance the duties to 20 per cent or even to 221 per cent. But, the Minister of Finance of that day-
I think the Minister of Finance of that day is the veteran parliamentarian who occu-


Edward Frederick Clarke: pies the position of Minister of Trade and Commerce to-day.

But the E'inance Ministrr of that day was
waited upon by a delegation of the members from the maritime provinces headed by the Hon. A. G. Jones, then member for Halifax, and was informed by that delegation that if any advance in the duties was made it simply meant that there would be a bolt of the supporters of the government from the maritime provinces.
So that, the honest convictions of the hon. member for North Norfolk and of the Liberal government of that day were set aside. The interests of the country were set aside. Patriotism on their part was set aside also in order that by acceding to the demands [DOT] of the gentlemen who then represented the maritime provinces in this House, the Liberal party might secure a renewal of power from the electorate when the appeal was made in the summer of 1878. That seems to be the position in which the hon. member for North Norfolk has left his colleagues respecting their action in refusing the moderate demands of the country as far back as 1878 for a reasonable measure of protection to the industries of Canada. The hon. member for North Norfolk goes a little further and says :
I wrote, as I say, to the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie in June 1878	I advised him
to postpone the date of the elections and to take measures to have this question thoroughly discussed in every riding in the Dominion and to have this protective policy combated by good speakers 'everywhere.
The hon. gentleman, who was in favour of the principle of moderate protection for the industries of Canada, this gentleman who thought that the interests of the country would be promoted by the adoption of a reasonable measure of protection, this gentleman who asked his leader, the late Mr. Mackenzie, to give that measure of protection, this gentleman who says that he believes that Mr. Mackenzie and his colleagues were in favour of giving a measure of protection to the industries of Canada and that the request was refused because the Liberal representatives from the maritime provinces figuratively put a pistol to the head of the government, says that he wrote to the late Hon. Mr. Mackenzie asking him to postpone the elections in order that a competent band of speakers might be sent out to convince the electors of Canada that the protection that he believed to be in their interest should not be granted them. I think this is a most extraordinary statement for an hon. gentleman to make. We are bound under the rules of parliament, and we unhesitatingly acquiesce in them, to accept that statement ; but, I say that coming from an hon. gentleman occupying such an honourable and distinguished position as that hon. gentleman occupies in this House and in this country, it is one of the most extraordinary character for him to make. But, fortunately, or unfortunately,
the hon. gentleman's statement can be buttressed by a statement made by an even more distinguished member of this House than himself, the statement of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who leads this House. He practically endorses the statement made by the hon. member for North Norfolk in sentiments which fell from his lips at the banquet which was given in the restaurant of the Senate to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce . (Sir Richard Cartwright) in May, 1900. If I have copied correctly from the Toronto ' Globe ' of May 10th of that year, the utterances which are credited to the right hon. gentleman, he said on that occasion that :
When the policy of the party was agreed upon Sir Richard Cartwright never wavered in his support of it .	. In the days of Mr. Mackenzie,
when the country was much depressed, there were many who believed that if the tariff was increased that policy would be justified by the necessities of the revenue, and that it would be a valuable policy for the iountry .at large	 but if the advice of Sir Richard had prevailed at that time this policy would have been adopted. If it was not accepted it was on account of other influences, which prevailed with the government of the day, and for 16 or 20 years Sir Richard bore the brunt of the obloquy of not having responded to public sentiment, whereas the truth was he was ready to respond to public sentiment.
That statement, it seems to me, confirms the statement which the hon. member for North Norfolk made respecting the action of the government of the late Mr. Mackenzie in dealing with the trade issues of this country. 1 say it with the greatest possible respect, it is a most extraordinary statement to have been made by the hon. gentleman who represents North Norfolk, but it seems to be confirmed by the statement which the right hon. leader of the government made at the banquet to which I have made reference. Patriotism and the interests of the country, so far as one may judge, were sacrificed on that occasion by hon. gentlemen opposite in the hope-the vain hope-that they might secure a renewal of office from the electors of this country. The hon. member for North Norfolk says that he was fully aware of the strength of the public opinion which existed in the country at that time, that he himself took time by the forelock, that he addressed many meetings in his own constituency against this very principle of protection in order that he might retain his seat in this House. We have the spectacle presented to us of an hon. gentleman who believed in the policy of protection from 1878 down to 1896, denouncing that policy and declaring against the legislation, brought in by the late Sir John Macdonald and the Conservative party, known as the national policy, which, he asserted, yesterday, in this House, was moderate in its character, was moderate protection, was
protection in the 'interests of the people of this country. Is not that a most extraordinary spectacle for an hon. gentleman to present ? Is it not an extraordinary position for one to take who occupies the position that the hon. member for North Norfolk occupies in the House aud in this country ? What an inspiration it will be to the young men of Canada to be told by the hon. member for North Norfolk that while he believed in moderate protection-and he tells us now that the legislation passed by the Conservative party was of this class, that it was moderate protection-that while he believed in that policy, that while he believed that a moderate measure of protection was necessary to promote the interests of the country, yet from 1878 down to 1896 he did not hesitate to condemn the policy of Sir John Macdonald, he did not hesitate to fulminate against protection and use his great power and influence throughout the Dominion to induce the people of Canada to desert the standard of Sir John Macdonald and give their support to himself and his colleagues.
Sir, the memory of Alexander Mackenzie is revered by the people of this country. There is a well known maxim which tells us : Speak nothing but good of the dead. I regret that the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) who was associated for years with Mr. Mackenzie in public life, who on many occasions expressed himself as favourable to the Mackenzie government, should be one of the first in this House to asperse the memory of Mr. Mackenzie. Colleagues of the late Alexander Mackenzie, who are equally responsible with that gentleman for the legislation of 1876, have now seats on the floor of this House, and some of them seats in the present administration. The hon. Alexander Mackenzie has passed over to the majority; he has entered into rest; he has gone to his reward, but bis colleagues are here in the House to face the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) and, if he has vials of wrath to pour, it is on their heads he should pour them, and not on the head of the deceased statesman who cannot defend himself. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) before attacking the motives which prompted Mr. Mackenzie to decline to give that reasonable measure of protection to the industries of Canada, which he (Mr. Charlton) thought they should receive, used these words :
I had a great deal of pleasure a short time ago in listening to the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), and I can endorse most fully his encomiums as to the good character of the administration of the Mackenzie government, and as to his speculations as to what would probably have been the outcome of that policy had they continued in power.
These remarks seem to be quite iuconsisteut with these other quotations from the speech of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) which

I have read to the House. How can he eulogize and endorse the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Kichard Cartwright) for the good acts of the Mackenzie government, when that gentleman held the portfolio of finance in that government; when he agreed with the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) that protection was necessary for the welfare of this country, but who, feeling that the interests of his party might be sacrificed if they gave that reasonable measure of protection which he believed in, denied his principles, stood beside his leader and refused to give the people what they desired and what was necessary for their welfare ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Surely if Mr. Mackenzie is to be condemned, equally deserving of condemnation, is the Minister of Trade and Commerce for the laches of the government in that great crisis in the history of our country ? If I am rightly informed, the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Ross) who sits on the left of the hon. member for Norfolk was a member of the Mackenzie government at that time, and he too is responsible for the action of that minister.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) No.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Then I have been misinformed.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) My last session was in 1874.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Then the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Ross) got out before the threat was made against the Mackenzie government by the members from the maritime provinces ? However, there are some living representatives of the Mackenzie cabinet in the cabinet of the present day. There is the right hon. the Prime Minister.


Thei PRIME MINISTER.: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I shall withdraw the accusation. I am glad that the right hon. Prime Minister is not responsible for the acts of the government of 1876; he has enough responsibility to assume for the acts of the present government. However, if the hon. member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Ross) and if the right hon. the Prime Minister were not members of the Mackenzie cabinet of that date, we have at all events the noblest Roman of them all; we have the Minister of Trade and Commerce who was certainly a member of the Mackenzie administration in 1876.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Yes, and the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) must be held responsible for the acts of that government. But, instead of condemning that hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), we find the member for North Nor-Mr. CLARKE.
folk endorsing him and praising him, and congratulating* him on the speech he made in this House which he characterized as being a most ingenious deliverance. Well, It was an ingenious deliverance, and considering it from the standpoint of ingenuity alone, I join the member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) in congratulating the Minister of Trade and Commerce on that speech. But, Sir, between 1878 and 1896, let ns remember that these two hon. gentlemen (Sir Richard Cartwright and Mr. Charlton) went throughout this country declaring that the policy of the Liberal party was a policy of free trade; that the policy of the Liberal party was opposed to protection; and in face of that we have the admission to-day from the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) that they both favoured a substantial addition to the tariff of 1878, and that the reason they were not able to accomplish a change in the fiscal policy of the Mackenzie government, was because of the threat made by the Liberal representatives from the maritime provinces that if it were done they would withdraw their support.
I do not think, Sir, that the statement made by the hon. member (Mr. Charlton), is calculated to reflect credit on the character of the gentlemen who were concerned in the transaction, nor do I think it will add lustre to the achievements of the Liberal party of Canada. In what position is the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) 7 Let us consider for a moment his position. The hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) declares that he is a protectionist to the hilt, while his desk mate from Russell, a gentleman who has represented that constituency for many years in this House, declares himself to be a free trader to the hilt. From 1878 to 1896, the hon. member for North Norfolk sat in his place in this House, and he consistently voted against the principle of protection during all that time. He never neglected an opportunity of condemning that policy, and of condemning those who framed it and put it into operation. His colleague from Russell who was a free trader then and says he is a free trader now, was consistent up to 1896 in voting against the protective policy, but he now plays a role almost as inconsistent as that of his hon. friend (Mr. Charlton), for since 1896-ignoring the pledges of the Liberal party, ignoring their promise of retrenchment, ignoring their declaration that they would destroy the policy of protection-he has since that time been one of the most faithful and steadfast supporters of the Liberal party who certainly have not adopted anything remotely approaching a free trade policy. Let us see what changes the Liberals have made in the Conservative protective tariff since they came into power. The Finance Minister told us in his budget speech that while in 1896 the duty collected on all importa-

tions into Canada was equal to 18-28 per cent ; the duty collected in 1901 amounted 16-06 per cent. This statement shows us that a reduction of 2-22 per cent has been made by the Liberals on the tariff which was in existence in 1890, and under which tariff the Liberals out of office, said, the consumers and producers of this country were being robbed and crushed. A reduction was made in the Conservative tariff, therefore, only to the extent of 2-22 per cent, and the hon. member for Russell who still claims to be a free trader to the hilt, has no hesitation in supporting this government, and declaring by his vote that they have redeemed then- pledges, when on their own statement they have only made this miserable reduction of 2-22 per cent on the duties imposed by the tariff of 1896. And, Sir, this miserable pittance of 2-22 per cent, includes the so-called British preference; includes the so-called preference which was given to the motherland as a proof of fidelity and attachment to British institutions. At least, so the ministers of the day say. Well, Sir, if that so-called preference had not been given, the reduction which the Liberal government has made in the tariff would be much smaller even than 2-22 per cent.
The hon. member for North Norfolk, while professing for 18 years to be a free trader, has now practically admitted that he was a protectionist, and we are bound to accept his statement. But, surely, if he is sincere, he must take one more step ; he must dissociate himself from hon. gentlemen opposite, because he has given to us and the country the strongest possible evidence of their insincerity on this question of tariff reform. If the hon. gentleman believes in the principles he has enunciated, he certainly ought not longer to continue to support gentlemen who have no fixed principles respecting the tariff. We ought not to be surprised at the divergence of opinion that exists among the unofficial members of the Liberal party who occupy seats in this House, when we find so much divergence of opinion among the leaders of the party. We have had exhibitions of this'divergence of opinion among them again and again. At the great banquet of the Manufacturer's Association of Canada, held in Montreal a few months ago, the Premier took to himself the credit of having a tariff that was almost perfect He said :
I do not know, you know better than I do because you have to deal with it more than I do-it may be that there are blemishes in it ; but whether there are blemishes in it or not, I suppose on the whole the manufacturers are pretty well satisfied.
Upon several voices saying ' No, no,' the right hon. gentleman added :
That only shows that there is room for improvement.
Naturally exception was taken to the statement that the tariff was almost perfect,
and when the right hon. gentleman heard the cries of ' No, no,' he at once turned round and said, ' That only shows that there is room for improvement in it.' There is certainly a great deal of room for improvement in the tariff ; and if the resolution presented by the hon. leader of the opposition met with the approval of the members of this House, a decided improvement would be made in the tariff, and substantial benefit done to the interests of the country thereby. The Minister of Finance was also present at that banquet in Montreal, and he said :
A friend whom I met here to-night, an honoured member of your association, said ; I want the tariff to be out of politics.' So do I ; nay, more, I venture to say, and I hope I can say it without going beyond the line which no man should pass beyond at this non-political union, but I hope I can say that the tariff is largely out of politics to-day, and that if you will take the trouble to read the discussions at Ottawa you will come to the conclusion that-there is not much difference of opinion between the two great political parties in Canada upon this great question.
Sir, the resolution which has been submitted by the leader of the opposition proves that there is a substantial difference between the two parties on this question of tariff reform. If that difference is not greater at the present time, it is due to the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite have largely abandoned the position they held up to 1896, and have adopted the view of this side of the House, that a substantial measure of protection is necessary to the existence of the industries of the country. But there was another minister present at that banquet, and he gave no uncertain sound as to where he stood on this question of tariff reform. He said :
The United States takes us by the threat every time in trade matters. I cannot see why our Canadian customs should not be as self-protecting as theirs. (Cheers.)
I care not about words nor theories. The first principle is to defend ourselves. Do not think I belong to a government which thinks alike.
If we ever thought so, our minds have been disabused of that idea long ago. He went on :
You have no idea what a cabinet meeting is. They fight like blazes sometimes. (Loud laughter.) I have been brought up in a protectionist school and I have not renounced my faith.
That is the attitude of a gentleman who occupies a very prominent position in the government of this country to-day ; and I think I may say that that minister has no stauncher supporter in this House than the hon. member who represents the county of Russell (Mr. Edwards). We have thus the right hon. gentleman who occupies the position of premier claiming to be a free trader, and having associated with him in his cabi-

net men who are avowed out-and-out protectionists. This method of conducting the affairs of the country may he in accord with constitutional practice, but I think it is unique in the history of Canada.
The hon. member for North Norfolk referred to the Anglo American Commission. The important position that hon. gentleman occupies in the ranks of the Liberal party-or probably it would be fairer to say the important position he occupied in the ranks of the Liberal party two or three years ago-was seen in the fact that of all the able men in the party who are not members of the cabinet he was selected as the gentleman best qualified to deal with matters of such vital importance as those affecting the relations of Canada with the United States. He was selected from amongst all the followers of the government to become associated with two or three members of the cabinet in dealing with these perplexing questions. That hon. gentleman knows in his heart of hearts that if he were as frank on this subject as he was yesterday in declaring his protectionist principles he would tell this House that when that commission went to Washington, they were utterly at sea as to the wants and requirements of this country, and that he himself had very largely to prepare the statistics on which the commission depended for information as to the trade and trade interests of this country. These gentlemen were as indefatigable as their predecessors in endeavouring to bring about a settlement of the questions at issue between Canada and the United States ; but what was the result of all their meetings ? Practically nothing, and yet the hon. gentleman said in his speech yesterday :
The condition of trade between these two countries at the present time warrants us in saying to the United States : Give us reciprocity in natural products. Not that we will promise you any mitigation of our tariff system. We will not agree to put a single article more on the free list. We will not agree to reduce our duties unless we choose to do so, we are entitled on the basis of the conditions as they are to-day to reciprocity in natural products.
Although that commission met again and again and failed to accomplish anything, and although the right hon. premier said it was not going to Washington any more, yet the hon. member for North Norfolk thinks that they ought to go once more. For what purpose ? To try to negotiate a reciprocity treaty in natural products alone. He says :
But I am anxious to see that Joint High Commission meet once more. I am anxious to ascertain, as a result of that meeting, whether these questions can be satisfactorily adjusted or not. When we have definitely ascertained one way or the other, we shall know what course we ought to pursue ; and if we cannot get fair play, we can at least place ourselves in a position where we shall not receive the


Edward Frederick Clarke: to make a like repeal of its duties upon merchandise, the products of the United States.
That statement is made by Mr. Osborne Howe. He declares that Mr. Dingley agreed to make a recommendation to congress to give us free access to the American markets provided we gave the Americans free access to our markets. Mr. Howe said further :
The present needs of revenue from the customs, and the discrimination which a practical carrying out of this plan would have made against imports coming from England, were considered by the Canadian commissioners to be sufficient justification for their refusal to favourably entertain this proposition. In effect it would have involved the adoption by Canada of the tariff system of the United States with a sensible loss of legislative independence. The sessions of the Joint High Commission apparently came to an end in consequence of an insuperable disagreement over the question of the Alaska boundary line ; but it is inherently probable that a method would have been found of compromising this difference if satisfactory headway had been made towards coming together for the formation of a reciprocal trade treaty. In the absence of this centripetal influence, it seemed, when a contention arose over the boundary question, that there was nothing to be gained by prolonged and inconclusive discussions, hence the sessions came to an end.
That is the statement made in this journal, the ' Expansionist,' by Mr. Osborne ITowe, as to the real reason why the commission, appointed at the instance of hon. gentlemen opposite, came to naught. And in 1899, under date March 24th, I find in the London ' Times ' this paragraph :
That Canada alone has much to gain from a satisfactory settlement of the trade and boundary questions in dispute is an entirely fallacious presentment of the case. The interests of the United States are quite as deeply involved as those of her continental neighbours, and many of the well informed advisors of .the Canadian government perceiving this to be the case are exerting pressure rather to bring about a rupture of the negotiations than to contribute a settlement.
The hon. member for North Norfolk knows whether these statements are justified or not, but I would not be at all surprised, when the secret history of these negotiations comes to be known, to learn that there were other matters besides the Alaskan boundary question, upon which a very substantial disagreement took place between the commissioners of both countries.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


GRAND VALLEY TRACTION COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 21) respecting the Port Dover, Brantford, Berlin Mr. CLARKE.
and Goderich Railway Company and to change its name to ' The Grand Valley Traction Company.'-Mr. Heyd.
On section 1.
Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: Will the chairman of the committee (Mr. Hyman) kindly explain the changes made in this Bill.


Mr. C. S. HYMAN (Loudon).: The original Bill included a section, numbered four, to which some objection was taken by the committee on the ground that it allowed different bonding privileges in regard to different sections of the road. The committee felt that that was not in accordance with the usual custom ; and, after consideration it was withdrawn by the promoters. Then, under the last clause of the Bill, the company were asking for an extension of seven years, and the committee decided to give them an extension of two years to commence and five years to complete.


John Graham Haggart: The bonding privileges, I understand, extend to the whole road ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes. just as they were originally.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


WINDSOR AND DETROIT UNION BRIDGE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 24) respecting the Windsor and Detroit Union Bridge Company.-Mr. Cowan.
On section 1.
John Graham Haggart: Will the chairman of the committee please explain the changes in this Bill ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The original Bill proposed an extension of five and seven years. The committee, in accordance with the precedent that they have established in other bills of a like character, gave the committee five years to complete.


John Graham Haggart: And how many to commence ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I may say that there were two other Bills practically of the same character considered by the committee, and as they were bridge Bills it was thought by the committee that the companies would be entitled to five years from the passing of the act. In the case of this particular company, it is really only four years, bcause they have come here almost a year before the expiration of their powers under their original charter.


John Graham Haggart: There is no time fixed for commencement.


Charles Smith Hyman: No, but-


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: How then, is the time for commencement fixed ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. James Sutherland).: May I be allowed to explain ? The company have to commence within two years from the time they receive powers-this being an international work-from the congress of the United States. And, to limit them, so that the charter may not be held if the conditions change, or the mind of this House should change regarding the granting of these powers, they have to complete the work within five years of that time. They have to commence within two years, which is our rule. They really have no existence and canaot do anything until they have acquired joint legislation from the United States.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is nothing about when they are to commence.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: What is provided for in the charter is that they must commence within two years, and they cannot commence until they acquire legislation from the United States Congress. After they acquire that power, at any rate, they must complete the work within five years or return to this parliament for a renewal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister says that our rule is that they commence within two years, but our rule has no force after this statute passes. We are amending the whole statute. Some of the other Acts which we passed provide that within two years after they got their charter from the American authorities they must commence work, and they must finish it within five years. This specifies it must be finished within five years, but says nothing with regard to when it shall commence after they get their authority from the United States.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think that is provided for in the original charter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are amending that clause of the charter which relates to the beginning and finishing of the road, and after that is passed, it is the only law which will govern, I assume.


John Graham Haggart: ' Perhaps the bridge is commenced.


Charles Smith Hyman: No, the bridge is not commenced. The committee most carefully considered this whole matter, looking upon the undertaking as somewhat different from a railway company; and it being an international measure and dependent upon legislation from the United States, it was felt that five years ought to be put in instead of two. It might be impossible to get legislation within one year, and probably they are getting no more than they are entitled to in that sense.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have not taken that view with regard to these Bills heretofore. We have always made their commencement contingent upon legislation in the United States, because that Act might be passed early or late, but it commenced to count from the time of passing.	.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am inclined to think, and I thought when I spoke before, that the charter was not amended, and had the ori- . ginal clause providing that they must commence two years after they receive their authority from the United States Congress. But the clause as drawn by the promoters of the Bill, I think, would meet the views of the hon. gentleman for this reason, that the work has to be built within five years from the granting of this charter, otherwise it becomes null and void. So they have only five years to procure legislation and finish the work. That is stricter than other Bills.


Mr. INGRAM.: There are two other Bills on the same line.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: A charter of that kind might be held for a good many years, and it does not expire unless they receive legislation fromi the United States Congress. In this particular case, as the clause is drawn, the charter becomes null and void unless they commence the work within five years.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


QUEBEC AND LAKE HURON RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 26) respecting the Quebec and Lake Huron Railway Company.-Mr. Malouin.
On section 1.
Charles Smith Hyman: I will mention to the committee that the only amendments made to this Bill are one or two verbal changes. The promoters have asked for four and seven years for the extension, and the committee decided they should be given two and five years, which is the ordinary clause. The other change is in the wording of clause 2, by which the committee strike out the words ' in addition to,' and put in the words ' as well as,' giving the company power, if they desire hereafter, to make a gauge of six feet; but they must have at least a standard gauge.


John Graham Haggart: What is the object of a six foot gauge ?


Charles Smith Hyman: That is explained by the promoters of the Bill. In certain contingencies they might require to carry very heavy loads over their road, therefore they

simply ask for the privilege of laying another rail if they iso desire. But they can only do that providing they have a standard gauge.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


BUFFALO AND INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANIES.
[Stage Direction]
On section 1.
House in Committee on Bill (No. 31) respecting the Buffalo Railway Company and the International Railway Company.-Mr. Osier.
On section 1.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think we should have some explanation in regard to this Bill.


Charles Smith Hyman: This Bill simply provides for the substitution of another name, but a couple of amendments have been made as an addition, in the following terms :
But such substitution shall not :n any way impair, alter or affect the liabilities of the Buffalo Railway Company, uor in any wise affect any suit or proceeding now pending, or judgment existing either by, or in favour of, or against the company, which notwithstanding such substitution may be prosecuted, continued, completed and enforced as if this Act had not been passed.
It was felt by the committee that there should be a clause of that kind inserted simply as a protection to any creditor that there might be of the road. In addition there is a second clause which is practically to the same effect as the provision of the Ontario statute :
2. The vesting in the said company of the business, profits, rights and incidents appurtenant thereto and all other things belonging to the Niagara Falls Park'and River Railway Co., by any agreement made between it and the said company by the said statute of Canada does not deprive or assume to deprive the legislature of Ontario of its powers and rights in respect to the Niagara Falls Park and River Railway Co., or the jurisdiction and control of the commissioners for the Queen Victoria Niagara Falls Park as by the said statute provided.
I am inclined to think that is fully covered by the preceding clause, but there was a desire that this second clause should be inserted as an additional protection.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do you make provision against an action against one company and leave it out in the other case ?
Mr. HYS1AN. I think that is precisely all covered by the original clause. I think the first clause covers the second one. The second clause I read is part of the original Ontario Act. I may say that it was the desire of the Ontario government that this should be inserted.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.	,


Charles Smith Hyman: 


SECOND READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 54) to incorporate the Essex Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Cowan.
Bill (Nor 55) respecting the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway Company.-Mr. Sutherland (Essex).

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 14) to incorporate the Indian River Railway Company.-Mr. Beland.

[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 io be granted to His Majesty and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
['BELL (Pictou) moved the adjournment of the debate.']
Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Speaker, when you left the Chair at six o'clock, I had been drawing the attention of the House to the position occupied by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and to the statement which he made respecting his relations to the adoption of a moderate policy of protection. He declared that he bad favoured in 1876 a moderate policy of protection, a policy such as had been introduced by the Conservative party and carried in 1878 or 1879, while at the same time he steadily offered opposition to that policy from its adoption down to 1896. I was also drawing attention to the fact that, from the statement made by the hon. member for North Norfolk, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) was practically in the same position, and I quoted an extract from a speech delivered by the right bon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) on the occasion of a banquet tendered to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce in 1900, to the effect that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce had also favoured a moderate measure of protection, but, that he had been overruled, or coerced, by his colleagues in the House who then occupied seats and represented constituencies in the maritime provinces ; that from the adoption of that policy of protection down to 1896 he had been denouncing it, notwithstanding the allegation that prior to 1878 he had favoured it. I also referred to the statement made, and repeated again and again, that the Liberal party had declared that Canada could enjoy no general or real measure of prosperity unless and until we had obtained access to the markets of the great republic to the south of us for our surplus agricultural products; that the Liberal party had charged that the Conservative delegates, who went to Washington again and

again to try to secure a treaty that would enlarge trade between the two countries, did not go with the desire or the intention of being successful, because they had confined their efforts to offers of restricted reciprocity when the Liberal party, had declared that it was impossible to make any agreement with the statesmen of the United States except on the basis of unrestricted reciprocity. I quoted also from a statement of the ' Expansionist ' newspaper to the effect that Mr. Dingley had favoured the passage of a measure through the congress of the United States that would provide for the free admission of Canadian products to the markets of that country on condition of our granting them a like privilege by the admission of American products free into the markets of Canada, but that the proposition had been declined. I may say here, Mr. Speaker, that, speaking for myself, and I believe, speaking for every lion, gentleman on this side of the House, if the Canadian commissioners who visited Washington in 1898, or 1899, were offered unrestricted reciprocity and refused fo accept it, upon the conditions that I have named, they acted well and wisely in the interests of the country, because, I think it was better that in that case, as in many other cases that might be cited, that party should abandon its position rather than that the interests of the country should be sacrificed. I attribute their change of policy to the fact that having come into office, they realized the responsibility attaching to their position, they realized to a greater extent than previously that Canada has as much to lose as to gain by the adoption of the policy of unrestricted reciprocity, that Canada has as much to give as to obtain from that policy ; and that having committed themselves to this policy of a so-called British preference they could not meet the views or wishes of their American colleagues on that Joint High Commission.
There are no two opinions to-day as to the fact that the country is prosperous. We rejoice in that fact and we can congratulate the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) in being able to make the statement he made the other day as to the prosperity of the country. We hope that prosperity will continue for many years to come, but, we challenge the accuracy of the statements which have been made from time to time by hon. gentlemen opposite as to their part in bringing about that prosperity. We have invited them to make a statement as to what they have done to promote the prosperity of the country. Have they lowered the taxation of the people of this country ? On the contrary, taxation has been very much larger than it was before they assumed office. They have not provided any new markets for the surplus products of the farmers of this country. Our farmers still find their market in the old land. They are not selling as much of their products in the United
States ; they certainly are not selling more in the United States than they did prior to 1896, while larger quantities of American food products are brought into Canada now than then. I invite hon. gentlemen on the other side, to point us to a single item of their policy by which they have provided any markets in addition to those in existence in 1896. I defy them to point to any such policy. Our Canadian farmers have been steadily cultivating the British market-a market which the Liberals out of power declared to be a second hand and second rate market. And, Sir, it was because the farmers of Canada turned a deaf ear to the representations made to them by the Liberals prior to 1896, and accepted the advice given by the leaders of the Conservative party, that they should cultivate the British market because it was the best and safest and likely to be the most abiding ; it is due to that fact that we have such a development of trade with the English market to-day. The substantial increase which has taken place in the sale of Canadian agricultural products on the British market, has amply justified the predictions made by the Conservative party and has confounded the pessimistic prophecies made by the Liberals before they attained power.
And, Sir, to what is the present prosperity of Canada to be attributed ? What have the Liberal government done to contribute to that prosperity ? What policy have they put into force which would tend to make us prosper ? Sir, the prosperity which has obtained on the American continent during these past five or six years, is due to other causes, and is not due to any policy propounded by the Canadian government. Let me quote the opinion of an American author on this point. He says :
Prosperity must always begin with the producer. Something must be obtained _ from the soil which can be sold for money.
Canada has prospered since 1896 because of a succession of abundant harvests, because of the cultivation of a larger area of her fertile lands in the North-west, and because of other things which I shall take occasion to enumerate. The figures prepared by the Bureau of Statistics at Toronto reveal a wonderful condition. If you take the value of Ontario field crops, and of animals and j their products, in 1896, and compare it with the value of the same products from 1897 to 1901, the gratifying fact is shown that while these products in 1896 were valued at $125,813,000, the average yearly value from 1897 to 1901 has been not less than $156,570,000, or, in other words, the agricultural products of Ontario have been worth $30,000,000 a year more from 1897 to the present date, than they were in 1896. That is a very substantial reason why this country has been blessed with great prosperity during the later period. If we take into consideration the further fact, that larger areas

of land have been placed under cultivation in Manitoba and the North-west territories, we can realize why the volume of business has been steadily increasing from that part of our Dominion. There have been valuable discoveries and exploitations of mineral lands since 1896 ; the wonderful riches of the Klondike have been developed, and all these causes combined have brought about our prosperity. Is it not strange that hon. gentlemen opposite do not hesitate to take to themselves practically all the credit for this improved condition of things ? I fancy that if they compared the improvement which has taken place in the United States with the improvement which has taken place in Canada, these gentlemen would not be so ready to congratulate themselves as they are. What has been the cause of the prosperity in the United States during the same period ? You will recollect that as late as 1894 the condition of things in that great country was such as to cause general alarm-trade was prostrated ; banks were failing every day, large industrial institutions were being closed. This unsatisfactory condition was due to a general depression, to the lack of a ready and profitable sale for the surplus food products of the country, and because of the failure of crops in certain sections. Let me quote to you the opinion of Mr. R. S. Baker, who has written very fully on the development of the trade of the United States, and on the causes which have led to the prosperity there since 1896. He says :
Ifc is curious and wonderful to see iiow exactly the industries of the world tread in lock-step, and how the man of the soil, the farmer, towers huge and powerful at the head of the line. When his tread is slow and heavy, the iron master, the transporter, the miner, the manufacturer, must also tread slowly-and depression and hard times are abroad in the land. But when the man of the soil increases his speed, those behind him move more rapi'dly ; for he represents the worlds primary ne;d-food.
In the fall of 1897 there was an enormous crop of wheat in the United States, the largest by all odds in many years. At the same time the wheat crops in Russia and India were short, to the verge of famine in the last named country, and the great consumsrs of Europe, England especially, were compelled to turn to America for food to a much greater extent than usual.
Then in the fall of 1898 came another amazing wheat crop, more than 075,000,000 bushels, the largest wheat crop in the history of America.
There were also large and richly profitable ci rn and oat crops, and the south raised the greatest crop of cotton in its history, rising from 8,700,000 bales In 1837 to upwards of 11,000,000 bales in 1898.
The author of this work on the prosperity of the United States goes on to show what followed:
In less than three years time, between 1897 and 1900, so great were the trade balances in our favour that over a billion dollars of American indebtedness was wiped from the ledgers of Europe. Wages for laDour increased rapidly in every part of the country, and never was


Edward Frederick Clarke: there such a sudden and yet substantial expansion in the various manufacturing industries.
In the single state of Kansas, the farm ,mortgages which in 1890 amounted to the vast sum of $240,000,030, much of it bearing the exorbitant interest of 12 per cent, had been reduced in 1899 to less than $41,000,000.
On June 30, 1899, there were over 5,200,000 depositors in savings banks in the United States compared with 4,800,000 in 1894 and 3,500,000 in 1889, a gain of 1,400,000 in ten years. And each of these depositors had more money to his account than ever before, the average amount on deiosit rising from $339 for each person in 1894 to $419 in 1899.
The deposits in all the banks, national and state, as well as savings, repr.e-j snting upwards of 13,000,000 individual depositors, actually doubled in ten years, amounting in 1899 to the enormous sum of $7,514,000,000.
In 1893 no fewer than 74 railroad companies, representing the vast sum of $1,781,000,300 in stocks and. bonds, went to the wall, and there were large numbers of failures in 1894, 1895 and 1896. In 1899, there were failures of only 10 roads with a little more than $50,000,000 in stocks and bonds, the best record by all odds since 1882.
A glance at the number of commercial failures will show how they decreased, from over 15.000 in 1893, with an enormous total of liabilities of nearly $347,000,000, to only 9,337 failures in 1899 with liabilities of less than $91,000.000.
If time permitted I might quote further reasons for that great prosperity in the United States, which has been brought about because of the redundant harvests which have blessed that country, because of the shortage of the crops in other parts of the world. The same reasons for our prosperity have obtained in this country. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not give credit for the prosperity to these causes, but they exultantly exclaim that Canada has made more progress during the last five years tiiari during the previous twenty years, if they made a comparison of the trade of Canada with I he trade of the United States durine (lie same period we might not have so much reason to complain of their attitude in this respect.
But Canada has been prosperous and would have been prosperous without the assistance of hon. gentlemen opposite. The splendid harvests we have had would have caused the measure of prosperity we have enjoyed. The test of the soundness of the fiscal policy of this country is to be found rather in the condition which obtained in Canada from 1891 to 1896, when a period of universal depression prevailed throughout this continent. If hon. gentlemen will examine the record of the trade of Canada from 1891 to 1896, and compare it with the record of the trade of the United States for the same period, they will find that, slow as was the growth of this country, it was more satisfactory and substantial in proportion to our population than was the growth of the great republic to the south of us. In 1891 the total imports and exports of Canada amounted to $218,385,000, and for the

next five years-that period of universal depression from 1892 to 1896-the average annual trade of Canada amounted to $238,690,000, an increase of $20,000,000 per annum during each year of that period of depression.
Now, let us turn to the trade statistics of the United States for the same period. In 1891 the imports and exports of the Republic amounted to $1,729,397,000, and for the next five years-1892, 1893, 1891, 1895 and 1896-there was no increase in the trade of the country. On the contrary, there was a decline of $65,000,000 per annum, the average annual imports and exports for the period being $1,664,144,000.
But hon. gentlemen say that Canada has made more progress in the last five years than she made in the preceding twenty years. Let us examine the recorcT of Canada's trade for the fifteen years from 1881 to 1896. In 1881 the imports and exports of Canada amounted to $189,902,427, and for the succeeding fifteen years that trade averaged $211,537,804 per annum ; in other words, it showed during that period an annual increase of nearly $22,000,000 over the total trade of the year 1881.
Now, we have heard a good deal about the prosperity of the United States. Let us make a comparison between the prosperity which obtained in Canada from 1881 to 1896 and the prosperity which obtained in the United States during the same period. In 1881 the total value of the United States imports and exports of merchandise was $1,545,041,974, while for the succeeding fifteen years up to 1896, the average trade of the Republic was $1,538,553,125. In other words, while the trade of Canada during that period of fifteen years showed an average annual increase of $22,000,00, the trade of the United States showed an average annual decline of no less than $6,500,000. If the policy which prevailed in Canada from 1891 to *1896, when depression was universal, enabled this country not only to hold its own, but to make reasonable progress, that fact affords the strongest possible evidence we can have as to the wisdom and the patriotism of those who framed the fiscal policy which then existed in this country.
But we have heard a great deal of the progress which has obtained in Canada since 1896. When hon. gentlemen opposite make a statement of that kind, they take good care not to tell us of the progress made in other countries during the same period. They used to be very fond of quoting statistics to show the progress of the United States. Let us look at the statistics of the trade of that country since 1896. We have seen that for the fifteen years prior to that year the average annual imports and exports of merchandise in the United States amounted to $1,538,553,125. The annual average during the five years since then has been no less a sum than $2,028,557,833, or an average annual increase of no less than
$490,004,708. This is the strongest possible proof we can give of the enormous expansion which has taken place in the trade of that country during that period. The im-irorts and exports of merchandise in the United States were $190,000,000 less in 1895 than they were in 1891, while they were $771,429,026 greater in 1901 than they were in 1895, an expansion equal to double the total value of the imports and exports of Canada in the past year.
But, Sir, this marvellous expansion was not confined to Canada or the United States. Let me quote a few figures to show how the trade of the United Kingdom expanded during the same period. I shall have to take the statistics from 1891 to 1900, because these are the latest I could get in the library. In 1891 the exports and imports of the United Kingdom amounted to $3,618,537,000 ; in 1893 they dropped down to $3,313,676,000, and in 1894 to $3,315,154,000 ; in 1896 they climbed up to $3,587,253,000; while in 1900 they amounted to the enormous sum of $4,207,974,000. The trade of the United Kingdom for 1900 exceeded that for 1894 by the enormous sum of $950,000,000, while the trade for 1900 exceeded the trade for 1896 by the sum of $680,000,000.
It is a singular fact that during the year 1891 Lord Salisbury was in office ; it was the last full year in which he was premier prior to the advent of Mr. Gladstone. He was succeeded by Mr. Gladstone in 1892. The first full year of Mr. Gladstone was 1893. He was followed by Lord Rosebery in 1894, and Lord Rosebery was in turn succeeded by Lord Salisbury in 1895. In 1891, as I have pointed out, the total imports and exports of the United Kingdom amounted to $3,618,537,000.
During the first year of Mr. Gladstone's administration they decreased more than $300,000,000. The same story was told during the administration of Lord Rosebery. But after Lord Salisbury attained office, succeeding both Liberal premiers, the trade of the United Kingdom went up again by leaps and bounds. Yet we have never heard, either in Canada or Hie old land, that anybody attached any blame to Mr. Gladstone because of the shrinkage of trade after he assumed office or gave any particular credit to Lord Salisbury because of the enormous expansion of trade which took place since he assumed the premiership in the latter' end of 1895. But hon. gentlemen opposite would like to make us believe that, by some political sleight of hand, they have been able to increase the trade of this country in the gratifying proportions in which it has increased from 1896 up to the present.
Let me point out that the wonderful expansion of trade which has taken place in the United States during the past five years has been rendered possible by the attention the Americans have given to the all important question of transportation. Mr. Baker, whose work on the prosperity of the United States I have already quoted, declares that a bushel of wheat, or an equivalent quantity of flour, can be shipped from Minneapolis to almost any point in western Europe for about 20 cents. This includes no fewer than three transhipments-at Duluth, Buffalo and New York ; and that it costs almost as much to ship the same wheat from Liverpool to Manchester, in England.
The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) claims to be seized with the importance of this question of transportation. Might I ask him what scheme he has devised and perfected for the improvement of our transportation facilities ? It is true that we have had the Intercolonial Railway brought into Montreal. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said that when the Liberal party came into office in 1896, they found the western terminus of the Intercolonial Railway in a ploughed field. Well, what special advantage has come to the taxpayers of Canada by reason of its having been extended to Montreal? Are the taxpayers, are the producers of the country, getting any benefit from the extension of the Intercolonial Railway into that city ? If we examine the returns of the past year, I do not think we will find there any matter for congratulation. It seems to me it would have been better had these hon. gentlemen left the western terminus of the Intercolonial Railway in a ploughed field rather than incur the enormous expense and reap the meagre returns from that expenditure, which are shown in the Public Accounts.
We have heard a great deal about making Montreal the national port. For two or three years past we have been listening to schemes for the construction of additional wharfage and the erection of additional elevators and the equipment of that port generally. Well, I would like to know what has become of the Conners syndicate elevator scheme ? We ha(1 tllat on t]ie boards two or three years ago, but there seems to be nothing left of it now. We also had another proposition some time ago for the construction of elevators, which also seems to have fallen through; and the present condition of things in our so-called national port cannot be at all satisfactory, if we are to pay any attention to the statements made by those well qualified to judge. I take the liberty of reading to the House an extract from the address of the retiring President of the Board of Trade oi Montreal, Mr. Henry Miles, delivered a few weeks ago. Wliat does lie say with regard to the equipment of the Montreal harbour :
In regard to the equipment of our harbour the position is unsatisfactory. The attitude pre-yafling in the direction of these affairs is such that I fear the alienation of the sympathies of parliament from our national port. Nothing has actually been accomplished towards this Mr. CLARKE.
equipment, and the idea of a * free port ' is submerged for the time being. Differences of opinion and contention, I would like to see put to one side ; let us have the work proceed.
There is a great common interest involved, the welfare of the commerce of the country and of the welfare of our city. We have a right to demand the setting aside of everything that appears to delay the accomplishment of success in this great national undertaking.
The position of affairs in the port of Montreal must be a serious one or the retiring President of the Board of Trade would never have given utterance to the words I have just read. It is time something definite was done, some scheme of transportation laid out and completed. We have silent hundreds of thousands of dollars pottering here and there throughout the country, but no plan has yet been adopted which has given the producers of the west the slightest relief or assistance.
Does the management of our government railways during the past few years give any cause for rejoicing to those who advocate the nationalization of our railways, telegraphs and telephone lines ? From 1892 to 1896, we spent on capital account on the Intercolonial Railway $1,643,074.65, and on the Prince Edward Island Railway $8,300.49, making a total expenditure from 1892 to 1896 on capital account of $1,651,375.14, and during those five years we lost in the operation of those two roads $943,552. Since hon. gentlemen opposite came into office what do the figures show ? They show that the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway from 1897 to 1901 on capital account amounted to the enormous sum of $8,414,441.21, and on the Prince Edward Island Railway $373,201.83. Or, in the past five years, we have spent on capital account on both these lines, $8,787,703.04, and during those years we lost no less than $901,424 in the operation of those roads. In other words, in round figures, in the last ten years, we have spent over $10,000,000 on capital account on these two railways, and the receipts have fallen almost $2,000,000 short of the actual expenses in connection with their operation.
I would like to know how much longer this condition is going to last ? Are we to go on spending, on an average $1,000,000 a year on capital account, more than one-half of which should be charged to operating expenses, and lose besides from $300,000 to $600,000 per year in the operation of these roads ? It might be some consolation to us if we knew that our brothers down by the sea were getting some advantage in the shape of cheap freight and passenger rates, but I am told that the schedules of the Intercolonial Railway show that while the people of the maritime provinces have to stand, in common with the other provinces, an annual loss in the operation of the government roads, they are charged at least as much for freight and passenger service as are those served by

roads not under tlie control or management of the government.
I wish now to refer briefly to the so-called British preference which is mentioned in the amendment presented by the hon. the leader of the opposition. I may say that the idea of giving a preference to the workingmen and the manufacturers of the old land was a rather popular idea. It seemed to be appreciated and accepted as a good policy by the great majority of Canadians, when that policy was inaugurated. But it was hoped that when the Liberal party came into office-accepting- the statement of the right hon. gentleman who is now premier as being made in good faith-an effort would be made to secure for the products of Canada some preference in the markets of the old land. But, unfortunately, in that matter, as in many others, we were doomed to be disappointed. We know, that, in 1896, the premier declared in London that it would be a good thing to obtain a mutual preference, and that when the Liberal party should get into power they would send commissioners to try to obtain that mutual preference. Well, twelve months after, when the Prime Minister was on his way to attend the Jubilee in London, in 1897, he practically declined to accept any preference. He said :
I claim for the present government of Canada that they have passed a resolution by which the products of Great Britain are admitted on the rate of their tariff, at 12J per cent, and next year at 25 per cent reduction. This we have done, not asking any compensation.
There is a class of our fellow citizens who ask that all such concessions should be made for ' quid pro quo.'
The Canadian government has ignored all such sentiments.
We have done it because we owe a debt of gratitude to Great Britain. We have done it because it is no intention of ours to disturb in any way the system of free trade which has done so much for England.
What we give you by our tariff we give you in gratitude for the splendid freedom under which we have prospered. It is a free gift. We ask no compensation. Protection has been the curse of Canada. We would not see you come under its baneful influence-for what weakens you must weaken us.
That is the statement made by the right hon. gentleman at Liverpool, in June, 1897. On the 6th of October following, speaking in the city of Toronto, he declared
If I had thought I could have obtained for the products of Canada preferential treatment in the markets of Great Britain, not only would I have been wanting in patriotism, but I would have been wanting in reason. I would have been simply an idiot if I had not obtained such preference for the products of Canada.
Sir, it is a difficult thing to reconcile these two statements. But we were disappointed, to say the least of it, when the distinguished Canadian who represented Canada on the occasion of the Jubilee did not make more 52
strenuous efforts to obtain for the farmers and other producers In Canada some advantage in return for the advantages which, he claimed, the Canadian government had given to the manufacturers and workmen of the mother country. He entertained the view that he was giving something to Great Britain. But the Minister of Finance (Hon. W. S. Fielding) who, probably, knew better the effect of what was being done, said that they were giving nothing. He said
We do not by our resolutions offer anything to Great Britain alone. We recognize the fact that Great Britain by her liberal policy is in a position to avail herself of this offer immediately, but we make our offer not to Great Britain only, but to every nation which is prepared to accept it. We make it to every country which is willing to establish fair and reasonable trade relations with Canada.
And the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said :-
I say with respect to the offer we now make, that it is not a preferential offer at all in the true legal sense of the word. That offer is open to all the world. The Americans may avail themselves of it and so may the Germans and the Belgians.
And from all the statistics I have seen, the Germans and the Belgians are availing themselves of It.
The whole world are welcome to avail themselves of it on the same terms and the same conditions on which England may take advantage of it. Where is the pref jrence there ?
Where is the preference there ? In 1901, according to the statement made by an hon. gentleman since this debate began, the average rate of duty on all imports coming in from the United States was 12-05. while the percentage on all goods from Great Britain was 18-23, notwithstanding this wonderful preference. The British imports paid half as much more duty as the imports from the United States. And, if you take the dutiable imports entered for consumption in 1901, you find that, while the average rate from the United States was 24 83, the average rate on goods from Great Britain was 24-74. So nicely had the tariff been arranged before this so-called British preference came into force, that it was found and is found to-day that the average rate on dutiable goods from Great Britain is practically the same as that on dutiable goods from the United States, notwithstanding the so-called preference.
But we have testimony as to the effect of this preference, from a gentleman whose qualification to express an opinion will not be challenged in this House. We have the statement of the gentleman who' was, and, I believe still is, the secretary of that great free trade organization, the Cobden Club, from which the right hon. premier deigned to accept a medal because of his services to the empire in giving this so-called British preference.



Writing to the ' London Times ' on September 30th, 1898, this gentleman said
The two great competitors for the Canadian market are the United Kingdom and the United States. In spite of the so-called British preferential tariff, the proportion of the total trade secured by the United States continues to increase and the proportion secured by the United Kingdom continues to decline. The explanation of this fact is that the bulk of the goods exported from the United States to Canada are admitted free, whereas the bulk of the goods exported from the United Kingdom are heavily taxed. The Canadian financial policy is to encourage the trade of the United States and not that of the United King iom.
That is the deliberate statement of the secretary of the Cobden Club. And we are asked to continue to endorse and sustain that which, according to this statement, contributes to increase the volume of trade with the United States and to decrease proportionately that from the mother country. In 1901, the free goods from the United States were valued at $56,884,730, while for the same year the free goods from Great Britain amounted to $11,316,510. The free imports from the United States were fivefold greater than those from the United Kingdom. In 1896 thirty per cent of our imports were from Great Britain and fifty-tliree per cent were from the United States. In 1901, under the operation of the preference, our imports from Great Britain were twenty-four per cent, while our imports from the United States had increased to sixty-one per cent. This indicates that Mr. Harold Cox knew what he was writing about when he indited the epistle to the ' London Times ' from which I have taken the liberty of making an extract. But what made the preference popular in Canada was the fact that it was declared that twenty-five per cent at least, of British labour must be put into the goods imported into Great Britain to be completed and exported to Canada before they could obtain the preference. I obtained a copy of the circular issued by the commissioner of customs to explain to the officers of the department what goods should be entitled to the preference. Here is part of what he says
In estimating the labour of the United Kingdom entering into the production of articles manufactured therein partly from imported material, the extent of such labour may be reckoned by the value of the manufactured article ready for shipment at the place of production after deducting therefrom the value on entering within the limits of the United Kingdom, represented by the component parts of such articles which are the produce of countries not entitled to the benefits of the preferential tariff. That is a rather involved sentence, and it is difficult for a layman to interpret what it really means. But I believe, and I think mv opinion will "be sustained, that the clause when properly interpreted will mean-and it has been interpreted in that way by those who have taken advantage of the prefer-


Edward Frederick Clarke: ence-that in estimating the proportion of value of British labour that must enter into the production, the person exporting may count his profit as part of the labour entering into the goods. If that is the ease, British labour to the extent of even five per cent need not be employed in finishing or completing these goods, which may then be brought in under the preference. Goods have been brought in to the extent of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars from the continent to England, assembled there, put into new packages and sent out here as the finished products of factories and workshops of Great Britain, to the great injury of many important industries of this country.
Sir, I think that in the matter of protection, the workingmen and manufacturers of Canada have a greater claim upon us than the workingmen and manufacturers of Germany, or of Belgium, or of Holland ; and if the preference is to be in name even a British preference, a much more substantial evidence of the value put upon it in the United Kingdom must be procured than that which is provided under the regulations adopted and in force in the Customs Department at the present time. But let me quote the opinion of one of the leading and most influential journals of the United Kingdom concerning the methods adopted to take advantage of this preference by the manufacturers of the continent. This is from the Belfast ' News ' of January 23 last:-
How Foreigners Rob Canada.
Since C taada granted a preference tariff to Britain, tons upon tons of German and other ft reign textiles have been brought over to England and reshipped to Canada, after a so-called process of 'finishing,' in ordjr that they may be classed as goods partly of British manufacture. In some cases this 'finish'ng' in England consists simply in taking 'iff the German, French, or Austrian labels, doing the goods up again, and then giving them a British name or label. There is no branch of trade in which this style of smuggling is carried on to the extent that it is in the textile trade.-(Belfast 'News,' January 23, 1902.
I will read a cable despatch which appeared in the Toronto ' Globe ' of January 9, 1902. as to the condition of things which existed iu England at that time :-
What is expected in England as a result of the prolongation of the period of economic disturbance in Germany is a conversion of the market here into a dumping ground for the surplus manufactures with which the fatherland is now heavily overstocked.
If the manufacturers of Britain, having the constituency to serve that they have, having the facilities to manufacture that they have, if they fear as a result of the prolongation of hard times in Germany that Britain would be made a slaughter market, have not the manufacturers of Canada a right to complain that advantage is being taken of this British preference, so-called, to make this country a slaughter market for

the surplus products of Germany, that are doing such damage to the textile trade even of the old land Itself ? In its review of the conditions of trade in 1901, the London * Times ' says :-
The crisis in Germany was also :iot without its effect on the woollen industry, the Bradford trade especially suffering.
And, Sir, when our woollen manufacturers appealed to the government of the day and asked them for relief and assistance because of the unfair competition to which they are being subjected by the abuse of this so-called British preference, they are told that if a duty of 23 per cent is not sufficient to enable them to carry on their business, it had better be wiped out. Sir, it is said that this preference, so-called, has given Canada an advantage in the markets, of Britain ; that to all intents and purposes Canada has a real preference in the British market. That assertion has been repeated again and again by hon. gentlemen. Our so-called British preference was introduced and came into force in Canada on April 23, 1897. For the year ending June 30, 1898, that is the year following the adoption of this British preference, the United States farmers sold $63,000,000 worth more to Britain than in 1897. The so-called preference was increased from 25 per cent to 33 per cent in July, 1900 ; and for the year ending June 30, 1901, the sales of Canadian farmers to Britain decreased $5,000,000 as compared with 1900, while the American farmers increased their sales to Britain by no less than $36,500,000. The American farmers sold Britain over $75,000,000 worth in 1901 more than they did in 1897. The increase in the sales of American farmers to Britain in 1901, as compared with 1897, when this tariff first came into force, exceeded by many millions our total sales of farm and animal products to Britain in any year since 1897. In all these calculations I have not taken into account one dollar of the sales of cotton or of tobacco leaf by the United States to Britain. The preference has not very seriously, so far. affected the farming interests of the United States. It is said that the preference would induce the British people to buy more largely from Canada than from any other country. That statement has been made on the authority of the First Minister. Speaking at Bowman-ville in October, 1899, he made use of these words, as reported in the Toronto ' Globe -
The merchants of England, the men who have to buy articles in the markets of the world no longer go to the United States to make their purchases. They come to Canada and this is the direct result of our preferential tariff.
Now, let us see how that works out. In 1901 the United States bought $27,000,000 worth less from Britain than in 1896, and they sold her $226,000,000 worth more, that increase for one year amounting to more than our total sales to Britain in any twh 52*
years. That is how this British preference works out. Australia gives no preference to British goods. In 1900, the latest available return, Australia sold $10,000,000 worth more products to Britain than in 1895, and purchased almost $50,000,000 worth more. These figures show that the preference had very little if any effect in increasing our trade, only in so far as it has allowed continental and foreign goods to be shipped through Britain to Canada, and so reap the benefit of the lower duty to the detriment of our own manufacturers and workingmen.
We are being punished, Mr. Speaker, because of the adoption by Canada of this so-called preference. We have been and are being punished by the German Empire because of our desire to show our fealty and attachment, by means of this preference, to the United Kingdom. I find in a despatch to the Montreal ' Witness ' February 12, 1902, that American commission merchants will in future have to give a certificate of the place where grain is grown before it will be admitted under the most favoured treaty into German ports. It has been asserted that an American commission merchant bought Canadian grain and shipped it from New York to German ports. The German authorities were advised that such was the fact, and the result has been that they now compel the commission merchant in New York to send a certificate or affidavit to show that the grain going into. Germany has not been grown in Canada. Sir, it seems to me that such an insult to the people of this country should not be permitted any longer ; that we should treat Germany as Germany treated us, and is treating us ; that if Germany discriminates against our surplus products that are available for use in the fatherland, the Dominion of Canada should discriminate against the surplus products of Germany that might be imported into this country.
Sir, I do not know that I should say any more with regard to this question of the British preference. But before I sit down there are one or two more figures that I would like to quote. Notwithstanding this so-called preference, we did not buy a dollar's worth more from Britain in the last five years than we did in the five years preceding, when there was no preference. The figures are as follows : The imports from Great Britain, from 1892 to 1896, amounted to $187,325,594 ; from 1897 to 1902, they amounted to $186,781,122. Now, let us see how our purchases from the United States for the past five years increased. We have purchased $176,088,990 worth more from the United States during the past five years than we did in the five years preceding. The figures are:	Imports from the United
States, from 1892 to 1896. $277,602,193 ; from 1897 to 1901, they were $453,691,183. The increase in our imports from the United States during the past five years lacks only about $10,000,000 of being equal to our total
lOo'J

imports from Britain during the same period.
In 1896 the balance of trade against Canada in favour of the United States was $14,125,014, while in 1901 it had increased to $2S,102,778, or within a fraction of 100 per cent. In the past five years our exports to Great Britain amounted to $494,383,499 and our imports from Great Britain amounted to $186,781,122. The balance of trade in our favour jmd against Great Britain was $207,602,377, while, in the same period, that is 1897 to 1901, our exports to the United States amounted to $281,213,582, and our imports from the United States to $453,691,183. The balance of trade in favour of the United States as against this country in five years, amounted to $172,477,601. In the last five years we sold $213,169,917 worth less to the United States than to Great Britain, and we bought $266,910,061 worth more from the United States than we did from Great Britain. That is the record which the past five years shows as to the trade between Canada and the United Kingdom on the one hand and the trade between Canada and the United States on the other. Yet, the government, through its mouthpiece, the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Lnurier), says that we have nothing to reform, and the Finance Minister declares that the tariff has been practically taken out of politics. Well, Sir, I claim that there is a great deal to be reformed in the fisaal system of this country and that the resolution presented by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is on the right line, that the time has come when a declaration of a definite policy of protection should be announced by the parliament of Canada, a policy under which we would not be meeting with appeals from year to year from manufacturers and workingmen asking for the reasonable measure of protection to which they are entitled to enable them to carry on their business against the fierce competition which exists in the United States and elsewhere throughout the world.
In making his Budget speech, the hon. Minister of Finance declared that the one disappointing feature of the year's affairs has been the census returns. I am sure that there can be no difference of opinion as to the sense of disappointment that we all experienced when the announcement was made as to the total population of Canada. We had been led to expect by the statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite and by the statements put in the mouth of Ilis Excellency several years ago that we might look for a substantial increase during this decade in the population of the country. The increase from 1881 to 1891 was 508.429. and during the last decade from 1891 to 1901 it was only 505.644. I see that when the announcement of the figures in 1891 was made the right hon. gentleman who is now the premier, in his place in this House, said :


Mr CLARXE.: of population in Cape Breton county ? What kept that population there ; what caused it to increase so rapidly ? Let me quote to you a few words spoken by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) in 1897, which are to be found at page 1128 of * Hansard ' of that year :
Hon. gentlemen opposite felt they were justified in entering on a policy for the special development of the iron industry, and in doing so they granted bonuses on iron and steel billets	We know that large sums have been
invested in this industry. We know that large iron industries exist in the country, and while we may not approve of the policy under which they are established, we have no desire to see them snuffed out.
And the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) continued the bounty to promote the iron and steel industry in Cape Breton.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was no iron or steel industry in Cape Breton at that time. It all grew up under the present government.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It was to develop that industry that the Conservative government initiated a policy which the Liberals of the day said was a bad policy, and the Conservatives gave a bonus to promote this iron and steel industry, which the Liberals very fortunately continued, with the satisfactory result that the population of that county has increased by 14,000.
Sir, we on this side believe in a policy that will foster and develop industries not only in Cape Breton but in every other county in Canada where such industries can be developed. That is what the resolution of the leader of the opposition means, and notwithstanding the gratifying results which have been obtained from that policy in the past, I have no doubt that the Minister of Finance will vote against the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. Borden).


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Certainly.


Alexander Johnston: Does the hon. gentleman know what reason the president of the Dominion Iron and Steel* industry gave as the chief cause that led to the establishment of the iron and steel industry in'Cape Breton ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I presume the primary reason was the advantageous situation of Cape Breton to the raw material which enters into that industry and to its shipping facilities. But added to that primary reason were the bounty and the protection which was accorded to that industry by the Conservative government of Canada.*


Alexander Johnston: I would like to add that that is not in accordance


Mr CLARKE.: with the statement made by the president of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, who ought to know.


John Graham Haggart: Yes ; it was exactly what he said.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 1S97	$1,175,000
1898		 964,000
1899		 1,037,000
1900		 1,144,620
1901		 1,042,237
These are the facts with regard to the exodus, and I am sorry to say they do not justify the roseate statements which hon. gentlemen opposite have made again and again to the effect that the exodus from Canada to the United States has entirely ceased. We all desire, Mr. Speaker, to see that exodus stopped, and stopped for ever. We desire to see a condition of things existing in Canada under which we can at least retain our own population. The great bulk of the people who leave Canada to go to the United States go there to engage, not in agriculture, but in industrial pursuits- in the factories, the mills, the foundries, the workshops and the mines of that country. They are a great loss to Canada, and our policy should be, by giving sufficient protection to our various industries, not only to retain in the country our own people, who are after the best class of settlers, but to see to it that those who come from the old world to make a home in the new world shall seek Canada rather than the great Republic to the south of us. That country's industries and interests have been built up very largely by the adoption of a policy of sufficient protection, and if the same policy were adopted in Canada- a policy such as that recommended in the resolution presented by the leader of the opposition-I believe that in a very short time the exodus would become a thing of the past and that every Canadian, able and willing to work, would find plenty to do in our own broad Dominion, and our population instead of, as in the past, creeping along at a rate of increase of from eight to ten per cent in ten years, would keep pace in growth with the population of the most virile countries in the world, and increase by at least 2 per cent per year. There is something wrong in the condition of affairs or our population would not continue to leave us as it has been doing. We should endeavor to retain that population in our own country, and that we can only do by so amending our tariff as to give that additional protection to our working people and farmers which will enable them to live on this side of the line in peace, prosperity and contentment.


Mr.   J.@: ,1. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.) I listened, Mr. Speaker, with much attention to the very able speech delivered by my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarkel. That hon. gentleman is not only among the ablest debaters upon the opposition side, but is one of the best informed men on that side, and distinguished as an astute and cunning parliamentarian, who can use to the best advantage the material at his ser-Mr CLARKE.
vice. And as I listened, I could not help thinking what an unanswerable argument . could have made had he only a good case.
During the course of his remarks he took occasion to have a tilt at the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charltonl for the inconsistencies displayed by that hon. gentleman in his political career, and he also gave some attenti n to the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards), but I have no doubt that these gentlemen will be able to answer for themselves. He also made some reference to what he was pleased to describe as the political inconsistencies of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, but he was very careful not to make any reference to the speech which that hon/ gentleman delivered the other evening. He made not the slightest attempt to reply to the unanswerable argument made by that hon. gentleman with regard to the census of 1891, in which he proved how effectively that census had been stuffed by the enumerators employed by the late Conservative administration. But we have no need for reference to statistics, in order to know that our young men are no longer leaving in the numbers they did previous to 1896. We know, as a matter of fact, that although the exodus has not been entirely stopped, it has been considerably cheeked. We know that the waste lands of our North-west are being rapidly filled up. We know that the young men of the maritime provinces, and particularly Prince Edward Island, are remaining in greater numbers in Canada today than during former years. Many of those from Prince Edward Island have settled in Cape Breton, and many others are going to the North-west.
But the 'Chief fault found by the opposition, so far as I have been able to gather from the present debate, with the present administration is that the taxation of the country has not been reduced. They claim that this government is taking from the people a very much larger sum than they ought. But these hon. gentlemen must not forget that it is this government which has reduced the taxation of the country. The hon. gentleman who last addressed the House has admitted that the customs duties have been reduced some 10 or 12 per cent.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Two per cent.


Mr. HUGHES (King's).: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. The rate of duty has been reduced by 2'03, which would make a total reduction in taxation of 10 or 12 per cent. And we must bear this fact in mind, that every reduction which this government has made in the rate of taxation has been opposed by the opposition. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how then, with any show of consistency, can these hon. gentlemen claim that the taxation of the country ought to be reduced ? In the one breath they oppose any reduction, and in the next

they blame this government for not reducing the taxes still further. If these hon. gentlemen are sincere, let them bring in if resolution declaring that the duties are too high on certain articles and ought to be reduced. For it must not be forgotten that the customs and excise duties of this country are spread over a great number of articles ; and if these hon. gentlemen desire that any further reductions should be made they should mention on what class of goods they wish to have the rates of duty lowered. But so.long as they decline to do this, they cannot be credited with any sincerity in the statements they make.
What does the resolution submitted by the hon. the leader of the opposition mean ? If it means anything, it means that if he and his party should be returned to power they will introduce higher taxation. What then becomes of their plea that our taxation is already too high? If anything were needed to show the political insincerity of these hon. gentlemen, if anything were required to show how utterly dishonest and inconsistent they are in their public policy, it is this plea on the one hand that the taxation of the country is too high and on the other hand that the present administration is to blame for not making it higher.
Then these hon. gentlemen complain that our expenditure is enormous. Well, Mr. Speaker, what is the amount of the expenditure of the present administration, over and above that of the previous one, on consolidated account. Taking service for service, it is just about $3,000,000. When hon. gentlemen opposite complain that our expenditure is enormous, they forget that the present government has had to undertake a great many services which the previous government was not burdened with at all. For instance, it has to expend $1,-
500,000	per annum on the administration of the Yukon, and it has placed to the credit of our sinking fund $500,000 more per year than did its predecessor. Our Post Office Department also costs $300,000 a year more than it did under the previous administration. Our railways are also Costing more, but for all these expenditures returns are coming in which counter-balance them to some extent, and besides these expenditures are occasioned by the extra services which this government has to undertake, and I contend that for the extra $3,000,000 expended on consolidated account, ample returns have been given thq country. Does not everybody know that as the country developes, as it increases in population, our expenditure must necessarily increase ?
This resolution, submitted by the hon. leader of the opposition, declares in favour of an adequate protection for the agricultural industry as *well as the manufacture, but everybody knows that there is no possibility of protecting the agricultural industry by a custom tariff. If we are going to have protection for the agricultural industries. we must have it by a system of bounties. And, speaking on behalf of the province from which I come, which is exclusively devoted to agriculture and fishing, I claim our fair share of protection. If protection is to be given to other industries, we want a bounty of five or six cents a bushel on our potatoes, 10 cents a bushel on our oats, 15 or 25 cents a bushel on our wheat, a bounty on our horses, which are of excellent quality, a bounty on our horned cattle, on our cheese, butter, eggs and wool, and all the other products of the farm. And, I presume the same will be claimed by the farmers throughout the Dominion. The hon. leader of the opposition will find, if he has to face the question of giving the farmers and fishermen cf this country adequate protection, that he will have to raise millions and millions of dollars over and above what is raised now. And, I suppose when everybody is taxed to make everybody else rich times will be very prosperous indeed.
Now, a word with regard to what has been said about outside manufacturers making this country a slaughter market. I suppose. if hon. gentlemen opposite were returned to power they would not and could not increase the taxation to any enormous extent, they probably would not increase it more than 10 or 15 per cent. And, if what they say is true, that the manufacturers of the United States and Great Britain are making a slaughter market of this country for the excess of their products, do .t on suppose, Mr. Speaker, that a slight increase in the duty would prevent them from continuing that course ? On the other hand, if protection has the effect of enabling the manufacturers of a couhtry to increase the prices of their products at home to such an extent that they can afford to sell in other countries at slaughter prices, the excess of their products, that, to my mind, is the strongest argument possible against this system of protection.
The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) spoke of the large expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway. Since these railways have come under the present management-I know, because I have travelled over them many times-.they have been greatly improved. The equipment of the Intercolonial Railway, and even more on the Prince Edward Island Railway, had been allowed to fall into a deporable condition by the late administration. Under the present management, the rolling stock is improved the road-bed is improved, the service is improved in every respect, and these railways are now in a much more efficient condition than they were for many years before. All this costs money, of course. But the deficit on these railways is less than it was in previous years.
Hon. gentlemen opposite, comparing Canada with the United States in respect to

manufactures, seem to think that we are in a very much worse position than the United States. But if we compare our population with that of the United States, we find that we are not very far behind them in the proportion of manufacturing carried on. There is this to say-the exports of our manufactures are increasing year after year, and they are increasing faster under the present administration than under the previous one. The whole country has prospered in a way unknown for years before. Our waste places are filling up, the granaries and elevators in the North-west are bursting with plenty ; the banks of our country are filling up with the savings of the people; our manufacturers are extending their exports, while occupying the home market; and the home market is increasing with the growth of our population and the greater purchasing power of our people. Is not this state of things good enough ? Is it possible to improve upon it ? Why should hon. gentlemen opposite seek to disturb such a state of affairs ? I consider the time national policy of this country is to give the manufacturers, so far as it is possible, their raw material free of duty, and then give to the farmers and fishermen the best possible transportation facilities that is in the power of the government to give them, so as to enable them to move their products to the seaboard and the markets of the world, and to give the farmers also the best facilities for placing their products in the markets of the world in the best possible condition. Having done that, the government can safely leave the rest to the brain and brawn of the people. I have no fear of the result. That is the policy that has been pursued for the last few years, and that will be pursued, no doubt, by this government while making such changes in the tariff as may be necessary when that subject comes up for consideration next year. Witii a continuance of that policy the prosperity of the country will continue. And when the appeal is made to the great jury, the electors, a few years hence, they will endorse the administration of this government as they have endorsed it in the past. For the reasons I have given, Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition.


Mr. ROBERT JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: cities and produce tlie articles that they require, at the same time consuming the commodities that the farmers produce, thus affording a home market, the better it will be for them. The more prosperous the cities are the more prosperous will the farmers be and if we can establish cities with manufacturing industries as large and important as those of the city of Toronto, for instance, we will benefit from the homo market which will be afforded us. We know that we would be able to get better goods from those industries than we could get abroad, while, at the same time, we would have the advantage of the home market. Is there an hon. member in this House who can say that the reduction of the tariff has enabled the farmers to get their machinery cheaper Y Have binders been reduced in price Y They have not. Has barbed wire been any cheaper Y Every man in this House knows that it is dearer, that it is now manufactured in the United States and that the factories here are closed up. Is that an advantage to the Dominion of Canada Y Every industry that we can secure for Canada, the better it will be for the country because it will afford employment for an increased population. And instead of spending millions of money in bringing foreigners into Canada who, I am afraid, will not do much good in this country, we should make an effort to keep our young men, by increasing the opportunities for work. I notice that the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has for twenty-five years declared himself against his own will, against his own judgment; yet, I look upon him as a man of good judgment. There is no better debater in the House and there is no broader-minded man than he. But, lie is only now where I have been since I have been a boy. I claim that I have been honest since I was a boy up to this time in holding the views that I think are in the interest of the country to which I belong. I am afraid, I am sorry to have to say it, that if this is a sample of the feeling of the Liberal party which aspired to be at the head of public affairs during all these twenty-five years, the country could not expect much from that party. That hon. gentleman said that the preference was given to Great Britain to show good will. Who ever showed bad will to Great Britain Y If there was bad will who caused that bad will 7 If there were any utterances by public men in the Dominion of Canada to cause bad will, they were the utterances of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) when he said that a customer in the United States was worth three in Great Britain. That statement can be found in the ' Hansard ' of the House. More than that he said that we owed Great Britain nothing, except for bungling the affairs of the Dominion of Canada. If there was auy-


Robert Johnston: thing to create bad feeling instead of good will, this is the man who created it. such men as the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce and the hon. member for North Norfolk, who were serving their party instead of their country, are the men who are responsible for that if there is any responsibility for it at all. I come now to one hon. member of this House who is au ardent supporter of the government. I have watched him since he came into the House. He gets up, shakes his finger at the government and says that they can go so far and no farther. He is a free trader up to the hilt, and he dares the Prime Minister, points his finger at him and says : I will leave you. but he does not say how far he will go. He says that he does not believe in stealing, but that if he steals he will go out on the highway and do it like a man. He says that the millionaries of the United States have stolen the millions they possess; yet he proposes to let down the fence, admit these millionaries to a larger territory so that they can accumulate more millions in the Dominion of Canada. What do hon. gentlemen think of such a policy as that 7 I cannot see any reason why that hon. gentleman is such an ardent free trader, or why this government should admit corn free of duty, because, in our section of the country they do not want it. We do not understand why this course should be pursued, unless it be that the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) had influence enough with the government to let corn in free, so that he could feed the high-bred cattle that he was able to purchase in Chicago at $6,000 a head. It may be that he wants cheap corn to feed these cattle upon. Is this policy fair towards the men who produce and sell cattle where they can and who feed them on grain raised in the Dominion of Canada Y It is not fair to the ordinary farther. Was it the influence of the same hon. gentleman which secured so many positions for the veterinary surgeons, or is it the intention of the government to do something for every candidate who was defeated in the last election Y I can remember a short time ago when a rich man who sold pure bred cattle in this country was at the expense of getting these animals examined. Who should pay for the examination of an animal when it is sold Y A breeder may sell an animal for $1,000 or $2,000, or $1,700 or $1,800, and if he does who should pay for the examination of that beast Y Certainly, the man who sold the beast. There is not an hon. member who dares to stand up in this House and state that the country should pay for the examination of that beast. Yet, the government must provide places for these defunct and defeated candidates and heelers and we are now paying a large amount every year to ve-terinaries to examine rich men's cattle ; men, who do not pay as much to the coun-
1657 MARCH 21, 1902 L 105S	
try as I do. The hon. Minister of Agriculture may think it was a good thing when he put this large burden on the people. His ladyship is not in the House at present. You will excuse me, Mr. Speaker. He being small of statute, and having his hair parted in the centre, I could hardly help it. We are told, continuously that the people ought to be everlastingly obliged to the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Mu-lock) for giving us penny postage. I will ask a fair question. There are farmers in this House. How many letters a year does the ordinary farmer post ? Every man who has a farm, or was raised on a farm, knows how many letters a farmer posts. Will the number average twenty-five, or thirty, or forty, or one hundred ? There is a dollar a farmer has made out of postage. How much will the monopolies, the millionaries, the trusts, the loan companies, the bankers, the lawyers, the merchants gain V Who gains by penny postage ? Is it not the merchant, the banker, the lawyer, and the departmental store in the city ? Do not they gain enormously by the penny postage ? Therefore, we see that the poor farmer is protected to the extent of $1 a year, while the merchants in the cities are protected to the extent of thousands of dollars. And this is done by the Liberal government, who tell us that monopolies and rich corporations should not be encouraged. The Minister of Finance told us that he would not tinker with the tariff. I agree with him that it is a bad thing to do so, but I am afraid that my faith in his statement will be shaken, for I believe that he is going to tinker with the tariff in the interest of the tobacco manufacturers who waited upon him to-day, and who represent the same ends as the great tobacco monopoly which has been introduced into England. The more you tinker with tariffs the more you will have to tinker with them. I believe the tariff policy of a government should be on a solid foundation, because if you change the tariff from time to time it creates unrest in the country and leads to very injurious results to our general trade. The amendment of the leader of the opposition speaks of a ' declared policy,' and when the Conservative party in Canada makes the announcement that they are going to do such and such a thing, and when they declare that they will carry out a certain policy when they get into power, the people of Canada may rest assured that the Conservatives will carry out their pledges. The Conservatives differ from the Liberals in that respect it will bo noticed. I have often been asked why it is that wages are higher now than they were when Sir John Macdonald was in power. That 1 can answer easily. Sir John Macdonald built the Canadian Pacific Railway, and he opened the rich lands of Manitoba and the North-west to which our young men and \	young women in the older provinces are going, thus creating in the older provinces a scarcity of labour. That is one reason why wages are high now. Another reason is that the war in South Africa has taken away a number of our young men, and that money is being circulated in this country for the purposes of war supplies, giving increased employment, and so this war, unfortunate in many respects, has been to that extent a benefit to us. Not one of these gentlemen opposite has been honest enough to acknowledge the part that the war in South Africa has played in contributing to our present prosperity. Now, Sir, I cannot see for the life of me why politicians should not be as honest as clergymen. I believe that every man should be honest. Was not Sir John Macdonald an example of honesty in public life ? For years and years he devoted his life to the conduct of the affairs of this country, and he died in harness, a poor man without a dollar in the bank. There was a man to be looked up to by the people of Canada. Where will you find a clergyman of any denomination more honest than he V But what do you see going on to-day. Why, we see gentlemen on the other side of the House dodging and shifting from one position to the other. We see some members of the government holding different views from the other ministers. We see one Liberal getting up in the House to announce a policy utterly at variance with the policy announced by his leader. That is not honest, and I venture to think that the leader of the government does not believe that it is honest. When he sees one of his supporters rising in the House and shaking his hand at him as much as to say : I will not follow you, but when the vote comes voting blindly for whatever the Liberal party announces, what opinion can the right hon. gentleman have of such a man. I hope, Sir, that the time will come when the Conservative party will be in power with a declared policy, such as is announced in the resolution of the hon. leader of the opposition, for which I shall have much pleasure in "voting. Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta). Mr. Speaker, this debate has taken a strange turn and a wide range. It has become the occasion of the profession of political faith as regards trade and tariff matters. I The House has had some surprises in that connection. We have found that certain geutlemen, who we supposed held fixed views in regard to tariff questions for many years, not only do not holu these .views now, but that they never held them. The House was surprised to hear that statement from one gentleman of prominence, and for my part I must refuse to that hon. gentleman the merit of inconsistency which he claimed for himself. He was not inconsistent, on his own showing. He was not inconsistent in his belief; he

dustries which really are the foundation of the greatness of our country.
1 was struck very much by the powerful arguments brought to bear on this as well as on the other side of the House, in favour of an increased tariff on imported manufactures. 1 was struck by the argument which went to prove the tremendous preponderance of wealth and manufacturing enterprise in the United States. It was held out to us that we must increase our protection or our country would be made a slaughter market by the manufacturers of the United States. That was the argument, but really, reading between the lines, following that argument out in detail, it struck me that the trouble was not at all with the manufacturers of the United States but with the manufacturers of Britain, under the British preference which prevails to-day. And that while our hon. friends were proclaiming themselves in favour of Britain, and possibly to some extent of British preference, they were really trying to get public sentiment worked up in favour of a high tariff, so that the British preference would be put an end to. They were using arguments against the United States for the purpose of raising an additional tariff in all against England. Did any of these gentlemen who held out to us so strongly the danger of our makets being slaughtered by the products of the United States advocate the desirability of a retaliatory tariff against the United States which would not apply to the rest of the world ? They did not. The idea was that we should retaliate against the United States by protecting ourselves against Britain.
Now, a word as to the extent to which the manufacturers of the United States are slaughtering their goods in Canada. Let us take, first, the case of agricultural implements. The sales in Canada of agricultural implements made in tiie United States are increasing greatly, they are increasing greatly in the North-west. In the town in which I live, there are four implement agencies, two representing Canadian manufacturers and two representing American manufacturers. All four are doing a good business. And to-day the American harvester, the McCormick or the Deering, is worth just ten dollars more than the Massey or the Frost and Wood implement in that town. Do you call that slaughtering the American product in the Canadian market I do not. To-day, I am credibly informed, our friends of the Imperial-otherwise the Standard-Oil Company are peddling oil throughout the towns of Ontario in doublebarrelled tank wagons. In one barrel is Canadian oil. and in the other is Amer-can oil. And the American oil costs the consumer just five cents 'a gallon more than the Canadian oil-jukt the amount of the duty. Mr. Speaker. Is American oil being slaughtered in the Canadian market to the detriment of Canadian oil ? We have


Mr. OLIVER.: heard a good deal in previous sessions of the necessity of protecting the shirt and collar manufacturers in Montreal. There was some inequality in the tariff-I do not know what it was-that had to be adjusted in favour of these people, otherwise, they would be driven out of business because the Canadian market was being slaughtered by the foreign manufacturers. I happened in to a store on Sparks Street the other day to make a purchase. I was anxious to patronize Canadian industry, but the merchant who kept the store said he did not keep Canadian goods; that he kept only German and English goods. I found, on further inquiry, that I could buy a Canadian-made shirt for seventy-five cents; and my friend who did not keep Canadian goods, and who was doing business right along was selling English and Austrian-made goods for $1.25 to $1.50. Were these goods being slaughtered on the Canadian market V Now, let us have a word with our friends the manufacturers- just a word-with regard to this matter. These three lines of goods that I have mentioned-and I take it that they are only sample cases of the whole line of manufactures-are sold in Canada at higher prices than the Canadian products. Why V Simply because the Canadian product is inferior. There is no getting away from that conclusion. Why is the Canadian product inferior V Is it because the Canadian is not equal in skill to the Austrian, or the Britisher, or the American ? Is it because there is not sufficient capital in Canada to carry out these enterprises ? The Bank of Montreal lends money by the million in the city of Chicago and the city of New York, and is not the only Canadian bank that does so. Then, why are not the Canadian manufactures as good as the foreign ? There is no cause but that the Canadian manufacturer went into business, in many cases, with the intention of making his profit out of the tariff and not out of his business, and because he was able to come back year after year to this House and get the protection he saw fit to claim. He did not consider that he had to manufacture in competition with the outside, and he did not do it, nor is he doing it to-day. And, until the manufacturer of Canada rises to the occasion and uses the mechanical skill that is here, uses the capital that is here, uses the opportunity that is here to give the Canadian customer as good an article as tlwft customer can buy from the outside, lie is not entitled to protective consideration by this" House. I said a minute ago that I was a protectionist. I am a protectionist , and when Canada becomes a slaughter market for another country I shall be prepared to consider measures to prevent that from taking place. But that is not taking place to-day ; we are not even in danger of it taking place to-day. It is Britain that is selling us cheap goods

and not the United States. And when these men come to us and ask an increase of tariff in favour of their manufactures, they are using false arguments, as I have shown, and are asking us to do what was done for them during the time Of the so-called and mis-called national policy, which I hope this government will never consent to. I should be proud as u Canadian to know that the label ' made in Canada ' was a guarantee of a good article. But I am ashamed, as a Canadian, that it is not so. And, if Canadian goods are not of good enough quality to sell in Canada in competition with outside manufactured goods, how are we to expect our Canadian trade in manufactured articles with the outside world to increase ? We are to put up the duties on manufactured articles and squeeze the limit out of $174,000,000 worth of trade of our mines, fisheries, animals and agriculture. And for what ? Will it increase by one cent the wages of the operatives in the mills and factories 7 It never did before. No; the object is to increase the dividends of the capitalists engaged in these industries- capital which is so fully represented in this House and so strongly represented on the other side particularly.
It seems, there has been a special attack made upon the government by our friends who are in the woollen industry. The woollen industry it appears, is hard hit by the British preference, and it cannot survive


Mr. HOLMES.: Pretends to be hard hit.


Frank Oliver: I am giving it credit for honesty. It is hard hit and cannot survive, if the preference is continued. Our woollen mills are being shut up, and the operatives thrown out of employment and compelled to seek employment in the United States. We are called upon to give adequate protection to the woollen industry. I took the trouble to look up the customs tariff and to make some little inquiry with regard to this woollen industry, and I would like to know what the woollen manufacturers want. Remember that Canada is a country with a long winter. Canada is a country where cheap woollens is of the highest importance to the people. Where a very trifling difference in the cost means a tremendous tax, particularly upon the labouring and poorer classes of this country. Woollen goods are a prime necessity, an absolute necessity, a universal necessity. Lower the cost of woollens and you benefit everybody, aud particularly you benefit these great producing industries that I have mentioned. Increase the cost of woollens, and you injure everybody, and you especially injure these great producing industries that I have mentioned. You injure the labouring people; the poorer classes above all others. I say that when men come to this House and demand an increase in the duties 53
on woollens, it is for them to show good cause why those duties should be increased.
Now, what are the duties on woollens today ? In the customs tariff there is a duty in favour of the woollen manufacturers, if I read it right, of 35 per cent; 35 per cent against the world, 35 per cent against the danger of this country being used as a slaughter market by the woollen manufactures of the United States, a danger which, I may say, does not exist, as woollens are much dearer in the United States than they are in Canada. However, we have a tariff of 35 per cent in favour of woollens against the world, and with the British preference taken off we have a duty of 23 per cent against Great Britain, on woollen manufactures at large. I find that where other articles are required to enter into the manufactures of wool, such as alpaca, camel's wool, &c., these are admitted free for the benefit of our friends the woollen manufacturers-very properly so, too, I think. I do not know how many of our woollen manufacturers make shoddy, I hope none of them do. But 1-notice that probably in response to their request woollen rags were put on the free list. So they get a considerable part of their raw material free; they get protection of more than one-third against the world, and 23 per cent against Great Britain, 3 per cent more than the manufacturers of agricultural implements get to-day, 3 per cent more than the horse-raisers of the North-west, or of Canada generally get to-day, 3 per cent more, I may mention, than the raw wool, the product of the farm, receives to-day. That is to say, raw wool gets a protection of 3 cents a pound, and giving an estimated price of 15 cents a pound for wool, that leaves 20 per cent in favour of the farmer, while the manufacturer gets 23 per cent under the preferential tariff. I notice also that woollen yarn is protected to the extent of 30 per cent, while yarn which comes in for the purpose of manufacture pays only 20 per cent.
Now, I ask in all conscience, if these woollen manufacturers are not satisfied at present, what do they want ? They are protected against the slaughter market of the United States by more than one-third of the cost of the imported article; they have cheap food, cheaper than it is in Great Britain; they have water power such as does not exist in Great Britain; they have capital in this country ample for all needs; they have protection more than many other industries have. Now, what more do they want ? Do they want these great producing industries of the mine, the forest, the sea and the farm, to pay such extra price on the goods which they manufacture as will enable them to carry on their business by antiquated methods and antiquated means ? If their demand means anything it means that, and I am here to say that in my humble estimation that demand should be refused in the interest of the-whole of the people of this country. .



1 will carry the argument further. I am quite aware that you cannot eat your cake and have it. I want to be understood as saying that if this woollen manufacturing industry cannot exist in Canada under all the favourable conditions which it has at present, better that it should pass out of existence, that the capital employed in It should find other fields of employment, that the labour employed in it should find other fields, than that the people of this country at large should have to pay an unreasonable amount for one of the greatest necessities of their lives, and particularly that the poorer classes should be taxed unduly for the benefit of a few capitalists. I do not think that any such conclusion is in prospect, I do not think that we stand in any such danger. But I certainly say that if the choice has to be made, let these gentlemen understand distinctly that there are men in this House pre-pard to make it. They themselves are to be the judges. When we in the Northwest find that a certain article of our production cannot find a market, we are told to change our production, and we do. We have to; and if we do not, I do not know any tariff on earth that would save us. We did not find that our friends, the opposition, when they were in power, ever took the trouble to try to shape the tariff so as to save us when we were badly off in regard to markets. Neither have they a right to demand that we should do unreasonable things simply because they are incompetent in the management of their own business.
I notice that one of our friends alluded to protection on buggies. He claimed that the buggy industry was in danger of serious damage because of a lack of protection. I find that buggies have per cent protection. That if you buy a buggy in the United States and bring it over to Canada, you have to pay one-third of the original cost to our hon. friend the Minister of Customs, before you can bring that buggy in. Now, if that is not a sufficient protection to Canadian buggy manufacturers, X want to know what they desire. For I find that the wood, even, though in a partly manufactured state, that is required for the making of that buggy, is allowed to come in free. I heard one of our friends speak on the subject of cutlery, our cutlery trade was going to be ruined. I find that cutlery has a protection of 30 per cent, very nearly one-third. I find further that if our friends the manufacturers of cutlery only desire to do a finishing business and do not really desire to go into the business of actually manufacturing the article which they sell as of Canadian make, they have the privilege of importing those parts of cutlery which go to make up the finished article, under a duty of 10 per cent.
I won't trouble the House by going through the whole tariff list But I will


Frank Oliver: say that my study of the present tariff has led me to the belief that it has been a subject of more careful adjustment than 1 ever thought it was, and that there has been more done to relieve the tax on the consumer and at the same time help the manufacturer-which we all wish to do- than a careless glance at the tariff pages would give anybody to understand. In regard to the reductions in duties that have taken place, and in regard to the effect of these reductions it has been said that the reductions only amounted to such and sucli a per cent. I do not know whether that calculation is correct or not, and I do not care, but I do know that the reductions of the protective duties on iron and steel, which had done no good to this country and had simply been a tax upon it, were' a benefit to our manufacturers which they certainly availed themselves of and which we are all very glad of. There was, an advantage, a distinct advantage to the country In the readjustment of these iron duties, the story of which is not told by the mere amount of the reduction.
I am no enemy of the manufacturers. I am anxious to see the manufacturing interests of this country prosper, as I am anxious to see every other industry prosper, but, I cannot agree to a declaration of policy whereby that industry is to be singled out to be benefited at the expense of all others. You say that it is not, in terms. Well, it does not need to be in terms. There is a difference between an industry which is chiefly an exporting industry and an industry which chiefly finds a home market. The one is capable of being affected by a protective tariff, and the other is not correspondingly capable of being affected by a protective tariff. If , you put a duty on woollen goods, you enable the price of woollen goods to be raised, but if you put a duty on wheat you do not raise the price of the wheat of the farmer as long as he has to export the millions and millions of bushels that he raises. I was struck by the argument of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) where he said that the population of Canada consumes 22,000,000 bushels of wheat a year, and that it should be possible to ensure a home market to our people to that extent. Possibly it would, but what about the balance of the crop ? What is he going to do about that ? Is he going to protect the farmer on 20,000,000 bushels of his crop, enable the farmer to bleed every other industry in the country and still compel him to sell the balance of his product in the world's market at the world's price ? That is the best he can do for the farmer, but it is not the best he can do for the woollen manufacturer who makes only for the home market. Every cent which is added to the duty is a cent in the pocket of the capitalist who owns the woollen mill. That is

the difference between protection as applied to the manufacturers and protection as applied to a great producing industry.
I said that I was a protectionist Mr. Speaker, I am a protectionist. I believe in the policy of protection. I believe it is the first business of a government to do what lies in its power by legislation, administration or otherwise to protect and advance the interest of the people of the country of which it has charge. I want to see a protectionist policy on behalf of labour in this country. I want to see a policy that will protect labour against the degradation of unfair competition. We have heard a great deal on the subject of Chinese labour in British Columbia. Let me say that if there are 16,000 adult working Chinamen in British Columbia that displaces, possibly, not 16,000, but, certainly
8,000	adult white labourers, taking one white man to be as good as two Chinamen. Sixteen thousand Chinamen displace 8,000 white men, but, the 8,000 white men would probably lie 8,000 heads of families and would mean not 8,000 people, but 40,000 people in that province-40,000 added to the strength of our nation; instead of 16,000 towards the weakness of our nation. For the labour of the country is the vitality of the country. It is on the strength and force of the labour of the world that the industrial machine depends just as much as it is on the pressure of steam in the boiler that we depend for the running of our machinery. If we have plenty of the right kind of people we can do business, and if we have not, we cannot. If we allow the right kind of people to be displaced by the wrong kind of people we do ourselves an injury. I say that I am in favour of a policy of protection to labour, protecting labour from the degradation of low wages and unfair competition in so far as that can be done. It is all a mistake for us to consider that it is merely the capitalist and his capital that has to be considered in the successful running of the affairs of the country.
The foundation of everything is the labourer and his labour and any system of taxation which takes an unfair proportion of the public revenue from the labourer is an injury to the country as much as it is to the labourers themselves. Last night, or the night before, the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) asked :	How is it
that there is only one free trade country in the world, that all the other countries of Europe and America are protectionist V How can it be that these are all wrong and that Great Britain alone is right ? On the other hand, let me ask him in what other country has there been, under paralleled circumstances, any such industrial or commercial development as there has been in Great Britain under the system which has prevailed there. There is no comparison between the progress of Great Bri-
53 i
tain and the progress of any other country, and the one thing in which Great Britain is placed above any other protective country is that the British workingman is the man who pays the least taxes of any one in the British islands. He is the man, who by the British system is relieved of taxation practically, and there you have the secret of Britain's 'industrial supremacy so far as that supremacy has been achieved, and so far as it has been maintained. I say that in this country, our system of tariff and our system of taxation ought above all things be framed so as to lay the least burden upon the labouring man and upon the results of his labour to himself and his family.
I am a protectionist in this : That I wish to see our country grow, and grow great I submit that there is nothing in which our country has lost so much, and has fallen so far short of achieving greatness, as in the stupendous loss of population which has taken place within the last thirty years. During that period Canada has lost over a million of her native born children. Canada has been losing them decade after decade, and if she is not losing them to-day then we have reason to be pleased. But we have more than reason to fear that she is still losing them in larger numbers than is good for the country. I am in favour of a policy which will actively endeavour to retain our own population in our own country for its advancement and its building up. I heard my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) say that he was in favour of that idea, and he proposed to attain it by providing protection to manufacturing industries. Well, my hon. friend's friends were in power for nearly twenty years. They had a policy which they called the national policy and one of the great purposes of that policy was to do that very thing. They had time enough to work it out to a successful conclusion if success was possible under it. The result of the census has shown that success was not achieved, and therefore I believe that success under that policy was not possible. It is impossible to herd the surplus people of this country in manufacturing centres, which manufacturing centres depend on the balance of the people for their support and their prosperity. The thing is an impossibility. Let me place this fact before hon. gentlemen: Canada offers to-day the greatest field for the employment of intelligent labour that is offered by any country in the world. Canada has opportunity for every one of her children and will have such an opportunity for decades and decades to come. That opportunity lies in the country west of Lake Superior-in Manitoba, in British Columbia, in the North-west Territories and in the Yukon. It is by attracting the overflow of the people of our eastern provinces to our western provinces that we will retain their nationality and retain their labour

and their enterprise for the benefit of our own country. That is the way in which we can do it, and that is the only way in which we can do it. You may say : Why is it not being done ; why has it not been done; or perhaps you may say : Is it not being done. Well, I am sorry to say Mr. Speaker, that it is not being done, that it has not been done, and that it has been the declared policy of the government of Canada for many years-the declared policy of the present government and of the preceding government-not to use means to induce the removal of population from one part of the Dominion to the other. I stand here to-night to say that that declared policy has been the greatest curse from which our Dominion has suffered; that that policy of knowing nothing and doing nothing in regard to the removal of our population from one part of the country where they had not opportunity to the other part of the country where they had boundless opportunity, has been the reason why so many of our people have gone to that other country where they had opportunity as well. In view of the census returns, in view of the facts which are now before us, I say that it is time for our country to drop its know nothing and do nothing policy in regard to retaining our own people for our own country, and to recognize the fact that of all the countries in the known world, this Canada of ours is the country which sends out the greatest proportion of its people as emigrants to other countries. If we realize that, and if we realize as I believe-and as I think we all believe-that our own people are the best people we can have for the settlement and development of our country ; surely here is a policy that is worthy of the best attention of our best minds and the best efforts that our government can puf forth. There is only one means by which the exodus can be checked, can be stopped, and that is by turning our overflow of population into the field which we acquired for that very purpose thirty or forty years ago. If we did not acquire the North-west for that purpose we did not acquire it for any reasonable purpose ; because, if you settle that country with an alien people it has such a preponderance of resources and of opportunities that the question presents itself : What becomes of your Dominion ; what becomes of the country that you are supposed to be building up ? How long can you hold it as a part of this Dominion when that country is filled with an alien people and outnumbers the population of Eastern Canada by ten or twenty to one. It is of the first necessity towards the building up of a Canadian nation that you must use every endeavour to put every son of Canadian soil into that western country where, and where only within your borders there is room and opportunity suited to his intellect and ability. You must do that if you are


Frank Oliver: 
Mr. A. C.: BELL (Pictou) moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 24, 1902.