FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 52) respecting the St. Clair and Erie Ship Canal Company-Hon. Mr. Tisdale.
Bill (No. 53) respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Davis.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That the Order of the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means and any motion in reference thereto be made the first order of the day after Questions on Wednesday, March 19th, and all subsequent days until the Debate is completed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER.: I would move, seconded by Mr. Borden (Halifax) :
That the name of Mr. Robinson' (Elgin) be added to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	*

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 43) respecting the Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company.-Mr. Maxwell.
Bill (No. 44) respecting the Tilsonburg, Lake Erie and Pacific Railway Company.- Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 47) to incorporate the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 48) to incorporate the Montreal and St. Lawrence Bridge Company.-Mr. Madore.
Bill (No. 49) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of John Westren.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 50) respecting the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company.- Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 51) to incorporate the Dyment Banking Loan and Savings Company.-Mr. McCarthy.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 13) respecting the Canada and Michigan Bridge and Tunnel Company.-Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 15) respecting the River St. Clair Railway Bridge and Tunnel Company.-Mr. Ingram.
Bill (No. 18) to incorporate the Velvet (Rossland) Mine Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 20) to incorporate the Battleford and Lake Lenore Railway Company.-Mr. Calvert.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 7) An Act respecting the Canada Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Ingram.
On section 1.
Mr. SPROULE.: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the points for the commencement and termination of these branches should be more definitely set forth in the Bill. Is there not an additional clause to be proposed covering this point ?


Mr. INGRAM.: I may explain that the Bill was laid over for a time in order to allow opportunity for full consideration. It was taken up at a time, when, I believe, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) was absent, and passed in its present form by the unanimous vote of the committee.


Mr. CHARLTON.: It was explained that the Canada Southern Railway Company were unable to fix definitely the terminal points of their proposed branches on the Niagara river, because bridges which it was designed to use had not yet been located. One is expected to cross at Grand Island, and another to be built in the neighbourhood of Queenston. The branches will not be constructed until the bridges are located, and, in the meantime, they cannot define the point exactly to which the lines are intended to run. The description is as definite as it can be made at the present time.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

['It has not yet been received, so far as I know.']
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved :: That the House res five Itself Into Committee to consider the Ways and Means 'or raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.
He said :	Mr. Speaker, it is my happy
privilege to present to the House to-day another chapter in the continued story of
Canada's prosperity. A year ago, when speaking on an occasion similar to this, and congratulating the House on the then happy state of affairs, I expressed the opinion that the country had about reached the crest of the wave of business activity. I did not anticipate any immediate depression or any severe depression at all. What I suggested was that we might look forward to a period of check, a period during which we would not continue the rapid advance of the past-a period of rest after which the Dominion would again go forward by leaps and bounds. Some hon. gentlemen opposite thought that my view was too hopeful. Their observation of the signs of the times led them to believe that we had already entered upon a period of depression. In view of the operations of the year which has since passed and of the present outlook for the future we are able to see that my own anticipations and those of my hon. friends opposite have both been agreeably disappointed. The business condition of the country has proved very satisfactory, better than my own expectations, much better than the less hopeful views of my hon. friends on the other side. In a country so vast as ours, with such varied conditions, it would be too much to expect that every section and every industry would be able to make the same gratifying report of prosperity. But I think I can truly say that during the past few years we have approached as near to that happy condition as could reasonably be hoped for. In nearly all the great branches of industry, the past year has been one of activity and prosperity. In the paramount industry of agriculture, which must long continue to lie the very foundation of our prosperity, the results of the year have been most gratifying, especially in Manitoba and the North-west Territories, where increased acreage under cultivation and a most bountiful harvest gave us vast stores of grain which have taxed our facilities of transportation to the utmost, and warned us that larger provision must be made for the handling of the treasures of the great west.
The one disappointing feature of the year's affairs has been the census returns, which show a growth of population somewhat less than many had hoped for. But while these returns are for the moment disappointing, they are by no means discouraging. It is well known that during the first part of the ten years term there was comparatively little development of our country. But for the last five years Canada has been making very rapid advance. If it were possible to discriminate in the census between the two periods, it would probably be seen that practically the whole increase of population has taken place within the last five years, and viewed in that light the returns are encouraging. Fortunately, the condition of Canada in receut


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 


Excise .   . .@: 9,808,075 35	10,318*200 02	450,190 08


Post Office ..: 3,205,535 10	3,441,504 93	235,909 77^Railways...	4,774,102 02	5,213,381 24	439,219 22I) o m i n i on	Lands	1,388,023 78	1,517,319 52	129,295 74Miscellaneous	3,420,050 07	3,598,945 10	178,895 0951,029,994 02	52,514,70113	1,484,707 11
**Tiiis includes * railways only '-canals revenue is included in ' Miscellaneous.'
These increases are all interesting, but some of them are worthy of special note. The excise duties are always interesting, not only because of the amount of duty involved in them, but becausel they show the consumption of certain articles which enlist
a good deal of attention in the country. Whether or not it will be gratifying to make the statement, the fact must be stated that there has been an increase during the year in the receipts in all branches of the excise duties, as appears from this table :
Excise Duties, 1900-1901.
Quantity.	Duty.	Increase.1899 1900.	1900-1901.	1899-1900.	1900-1901.	Spirits	Galls. Malt	Lbs. Cigars	
No. Cigarettes	
[DOT]* Tobacco and snuff	
Lbs. Raw leaf, foreign	
n	2,059,038 00,284,004 138,041,707 110,061,522 10,810,854 9,352,535	2,803,950 64,723,016 141.090,889 121,383,584 11,330,345 9,848,803	8 4,818,842 904,202 811,012 347,252 2,300,861 971,977	S 5,178,275 970,855 822,738 302,626 2,308,460 1,020,265	$ 359,433 60,59.3 11,120 15,374 1,599 54,288
I give these figures because, as I have stated, the growth of trade in these articles is always a matter of interest, whether or not it meets with general approval. There are one or two other items in the revenue which are worthy of special note. I think my hon. friend the Postmaster General has reason to congratulate himself on the state of the post office revenue. There was an increase of $235,969.77 in the revenue of that department. The post office receipts as shown in the books of the Finance Department amounted to $3,441,504.93. The expenditure, by the same account, was $3,939,446.01, showing a deficit of $489,941.08, according to the books of the Finance Department. My hon. friend the Postmaster General has in his own report drawn attention to the different services performed as compared with the services of former 41
years, and in that light has made out a more favourable statement. But I give the figures as they appear in the books of the Finance Department, and they represent a deficit for the year of $489,941.08. It is of course quite a large sum; but wheu we remember that only a few years ago the deficits of the Post Office Department were $700,000 and $800,000 per annum, if there was nothing else to explain the matter, this reduction down to $489,000 would be a remarkable reduction on which my hon. friend the Postmaster General might well congratulate himself. But when we are able to go further and show that in the meantime my hon. friend has more than cut the English postage in two, and that he has reduced the Canadian postage one-third, that he has practically cut off what somebody else has described as a mil-



lion dollars In the charges upon the people, and still has reduced the deficit from $700,000 and $800,000 to $489,000, I think it will be agreed that this is a very gratifying
statement, and in the highest degree creditable to the government, and especially to the minister in charge of that department.
I am glad to be able to say that the post office returns for the present year indicate that we shall have at the next Budget a still more gratifying statement to make concerning that department. I find that for the eight months of the present fiscal year the sales of stamps, which of course is the chief source of revenue, have amounted to $3,172,931. Last year for the corresponding period they were $2,909,128. In 1898, before the reduction of postage, the receipts for eight months were $2,946,513. So that to-day, with a three cent rate reduced to two cents, and with the English rate reduced from five cents to two cents, we are able to show receipts in the eight mouths of $3,172,000, against $2,946,000 when the higher rate prevailed. Looking at the operations of the present eight months in another form, the increased expenditure ot the Post Office Department during these eight months amounts to $45,000; but the increased revenue for these eight months amounts to $260,000 ; so that in the operations of these eight months the Post Office Department shows a betterment of $215,000. I have every reason to anticipate that when the Postmaster General prepares his next report he will have a very gratifying statement to present indeed.
Then, Sir, I think the receipts from railways are worthy of special notice. We hear very much about the expenditures on railways, because our outlay has been large. We hear very much of a deficit on railways when one occurs; but we are sometimes apt to overlook the large increase which has taken place in the receipts of those roads. I find that in 1896 the receipts for railways were $3,140,678.47; last year, the receipts were $5,213,381.24, an increase in five years of $2,072,702.77. So that if my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals makes large demands upon us, he is at all events able to show that we receive very large returns for them. In connection with the statement of last year, I would invite attention also to the operations of the railways for a period of seven months, as we have only returns to the end of January. I find that for the seven months of last year there was a loss on the operation of the Intercolonial Railway of $537,479.40. But in the corresponding period of seven months in this year the loss orr the Intercolonial Railway operation is only $89,787.17, which would seem to indicate that at the close of the present fiscal year my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals will have a fairly Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
satisfactory statement to present as against the one for the past yeary which showed a deficit of $488,000.
Our expenditure on consolidated fund for the year past was $46,866,367.84, as against, in the previous year, $42,975,279.51, showing an increase in expenditure on consolidated fund for the year of $3,891,088.33.
There have been some increases in many of the departments. In legislation there was an increase of $342,424 an item due to circumstances which are probably generally understood. In arts, agriculture and statistics, which includes the census, there was an increase of $235,645. In militia there was an increase of $215,495 ; in railways and canals, collection-that is the working expenses of the Intercolonial Railway-there was an increase of $1,133,660 but, as I have shown before, that outlay comes back by way of increased receipts. In public works there was a large increase of $1,096, 743 ; in the government of the North-west Territories $150,177 and in the the post office department $173,431, which, however, comes back to us, as I have already shown, very handsomely.
I have prepared a statement of comparison for the two years showing the expenditure on the consolidated fund account and several items which make up what are called capital and special charges. The word ' capital ' is used in the books of the department in a technical sense. It refers to a certain class of works. There are certain others which are nominally not capital charges but which are really special charges, as railway subsidies, for example. They do not appear as capital charges, but special charges. But for the purpose of our discussion these may all be called capital charges inasmuch as they are not charges to income. This comparison shows that on consolidated fund as I have already stated, there was an increase of $3,891,088.33. For railways, on capital account, there was an expenditure in 1901, of $3,914,010.50, an increase of $605,116.19 ; for canals, $2,360,569.89 ; a decrease of $278,995.04 ; public works, $1,006,983.39 ; a decrease of $82,843.90 ; Dominion lands, $269,060.90, an increase of $69,590,81 ; militia, $135,884,79, a decrease of $94,965.72 ; and Canadian Pacific Railway, a small item of $8,978.87, an increase of $8,742.76. The total expenditure for the year 1900-1 was $7,695,488.34, showing an increase of $226,645.10. Then there are the special expenditures that I have described, as follows :	Railway subsidies, $2,512,328.86
as against $725,720.35 for 1899-1900, an increase in that item alone of $1,780,608.51. For the South African war and Halifax garrison we spent $908,681.42, which shows a decrease of $638,942.32. If we take the total capital and special expenditures, which, practically we treat as capital in our discussions, we find that the



[Stage Direction]
expenditure was in 1901,	$11,116,498.62
against $9,742,187.33, an increase under these heads of $1,374,311.29. If we take the aggregate expenditures, that is consolidated fund, capital, special and all classes, the total expenditure for the year 1900-1 was $57,982,866.46, an increase in the total expenditures of all classes of $5,265,399.62.

[Stage Direction]
1899-1900.	1900-1.	Increase.	Decrease.Consolidated Fund	
Capital - Railways	
Canals	$ cts. 42,975,279 51	$ cts. 46,806,367 84	$ cts. 3,891,088 33	$ cts.3,308,894 31 2,639,564 93 1,089,827 29 199,470 09 230,850 51 236 11	3,914,010 50 2,360,569 89 1,006,983 39 269,060 90 135,884 79 8,978 87	605,116 19	278,995 04 82,843 90 94,965 72Public Works	Dominion Lands	
Militia	69,590 81	Canadian Pacific Railway	
Total Capital	
Special- J Railway Subsidies	
South Africa and Halifax Garrison	
Total Special	
Total Capital and Special	
Total Expenditure of all kinds ....	8,742 76	7,408,843 24	7,695,488 34	22G,645 10	725,720 35 1,547,623 74	2,512,328 86 908,681 42	1,786,608 51	638,942 322,273,344 09	3,421,010 28	1,147,666 19	9,742,187 33	11,116,498 62	1,374,311 29	52,717,4G6 84	57,982,866 46	5,265,399 62	
It will be noticed that the largest item of increase in this statement is on account of railway subsidies. As I have pointed out we spent last year $2,512,328.86 on railway subsidies as against $725,720.35 in the previous year. It may be interesting that I should place in the budget a statement of these various railways which received this large amount of money. It is as follows :
Atlantic and North-western Railway.? 186,600 00
Massawippi Valley. Railway	
5,376	00Great Northern Railway	
345,323	11South Shore Railway	
88,400	00
Iverness and Richmond Railway_____ 132,800 00
Canadian Northern Railway	
537,600	00Grand Trunk Railway	
228,371	75Central Ontario Railway	
67,200	00Midland Railway	
170^264	00Canadian Pacific Railway	
92,800	00Ottawa and New York Railway	90,000	00Quebec Bridge	
74'570	00St. Mary's River Railway	
75,000	00Crows Nest Pass Railway	
205,524	00Pontiac and Pacific Junction Railway . and Gatineau Valley Railway	
212,500 00
[Stage Direction]
I come now to the question of the public debt. The net debt on the 30th of June, 1901, was $268,480,003.69, while the corresponding debt of the preceding year was $265,493,806.89, making an increase in the net debt of $2,986,196.80. I have here a statement of the increase in the net debt for several years and I find in going over the items of the net debt, the increases for each year and the decrease which occurred in one year, we have this result, that in five years the net increase of the debt has been $9,982,570.92, being an average of $1,996,514.18 as against an average for the previous eighteen years of $6,563,075. The increase in the net debt is accounted for in the following manner :	Capital expenditure on railways
and canals, public works, including Canadian Pacific Railway, $7,290,542.65 ; Dominion lands, $269,060.90 ; militia, $135,884.79 ; railway subsidies, $2,512,328.86 ; South African contingent and Halifax garrison, $908,681.42, making a total of $11,116,498.62. Deduct from this the surplus of $5,64S,-333.29, sinking fund $2,480,336.90 and a small refund in connection with the Northwest Territory Rebellion of $1,631.63, or a deduction altogether of $8,130,301.82. and there is an increase in the net debt of $2,986,196.80.
41i

[Stage Direction]
Net debt 30th June, 1901... .8208,480,003 69 „	1900.... 265,493,800 89
Increase in debt in 1900-1...	2.986,196 80
-	Net Debt.	Increase in Debt.	Decrease in Debt.S cts.	§ cts.	$ cts.1897	
1898	
1S99. ...	261,538,596 46 263,956,398 91 266,273,446 60 265.493,806 89 208,480,003 69	3,041,163 69 2,417,802 45 2.317,047 69	I960	
1901	779,639 712,986,196 80	Total fox-	five years ....	10,762,210 63 779,639 71	779,639 71Net increase 5 years. ... Average increase 5 years Average of 18 years from 1878 to 1896.	t,982,570 92 1,996,514 18 6,563,075 00	
The increase in the net debt in 1900-1901 is accounted for as follows :-
		$ cts.	
Capital expenditure on Railways and			
Canals, Public Works,	including C.		
P. Railway 	7,290,542	65Dr *m. lands	269,060	90„	Militia ...	135,884	79Railway subsidies 	2,512,328	86South African Contingent and Hah-	908,681	42fax garrison	11,116,498	62Less: Surplus	5,648,333 29	Sinking Fund...	2,480,336 90
Refunds N.VV.T.: rebel-			
lion		1,631 63		
		8,130,301	82
Increase net debt			2,986,196	80
I have spoken in this statement of the surplus received during the past year amounting to $5,648,333.29. I am sure it will be gratifying to know that we are able from year to year to present these statements of satisfactory surpluses. I am aware that there is some criticism on this subject from year to year as to whether or not we do present a surplus. There was a tendency to represent that there was some change in the methods of keeping the accounts, and that the surplus that we represented was somewhat different from the surpluses of former years. That contention has now been abandoned because we have shown from time to time that there has been no change in the method of keeping the accounts. The methods are the same, the officials who keep the accounts are the same, Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
and when we show a surplus in the public accounts we reach it in precisely the same manner as in former years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about the iron bounties which are now charged to capital ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That cannot affect the question of the debt in
any way at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are talking about a surplus 7


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The iron bounties have hitherto amounted each year to a comparatively small sum. I presented to the House last year, the reasons why we are now proposing to charge the iron bounties to capital. Let me tell my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) that as respects the operations of the past year which I am speaking of, we had not begun to charge these bounties to capital, but the old method continued. I think, however, that this old method was a very mistaken one. I impute nothing but the best of motives to the gentlemen who preceded me in charge of the department. What they did was to treat these iron bounties as a drawback, and to be paid as such by the Customs Department. I do not see how you can pay a drawback when no money has been paid into the revenue, and I think the idea of treating this as a drawback and simply deducting it from the customs duty, and making the customs duty appear a good deal less than it really was, was a mistake. From the 1st of July last, we have changed that method. But up to that date and covering the period of which I am now speaking, as regards the surpluses, we continued the old method, and therefore the suggestion of my hon. friend is not important.
As I have said, some hon. gentlemen have made the criticism that these surpluses were brought about by some peculiar method of bookkeeping, but more recently1 I have noticed in some of the papers, a tendency to argue that even if the method was an old one, it was a bad one, and we had better get rid of it altogether. I entirely dissent from that. I think, in a country like Canada, we shall always, certainly for a long time, require for the construction of public works and things of that kind, special sums of money which cannot be obtained from the ordinary revenue, and there is every reason in the world why these should be charged to capital account. There is just the same reason that would obtain with a man in his private affairs. If a man were paying rent he would charge the rent against the income for the year, but if he bought a house he would not expect to charge it against iu-come, but would open a special account | and make some provision for paying for


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friends say ' Hear, hear.' Well, we are lucky people when we can make the two go hand in hand. We have received for the current year to the 10th of March, this present month as revenue $38,047,685.82. Having regard to the receipts of the corresponding period a year ago ; to the amount which was received from this date to the end of that fiscal year, and to the anticipation in which I indulge that there will be some increase ; I am of opinion that we shall have at the close of this current year a revenue of $56,800,000 (in round numbers) as against an actual revenue last year of $52,514,701. There will thus be a probable increase in our revenue this year to the amount of $4,285,298.
Now with regard to the expenditure. We have expended this year up to the 10th of March, $30,133,502.76; and taking into account the amount which we expended last year from this date to the 30th of June, and making allowances for a probable increase during the present year-because there will be some increase-I am of opinion that at the close of the year we shall have an expenditure in all, probably of nearly $51,000,000 in round numbers. I make it a shade below that, but for convenience we may call it $51,000,000. That will be an increase in the expenditure, over the expenditure on consolidated account for the past year, of $4,133,632. It will be observed that I estimate an increase of revenue of $4,285,298, and an increase of expenditure of $4,133,632. The two sums would nearly balance one another. If they exactly balanced one another they would leave us with the same surplus as last year, namely, $5,648,333; but as the increase of revenue is a little more than the increase of expenditure, I think I am warranted in saying that the surplus for the current year will be a little larger than that of last year and will amount to $5,800,000.
As to the capital expenditure of the present year, it is exceptionally large; the largest we have had for some years. I anticipate that at the close of the year, we shall have a charge for capital and special expenditure of $14,250,000, as against $11,116,000 last year.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I got the estimated expenditure as $51,000,000 in round numbers; is that right ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is correct. We have this year very special charges to swell the capital account. Our railway subsidies will be considerable, as they were last year. The House is aware that railway operations have been going on throughout the Dominion pretty largely. We shall have to pay for bounties this year,

chargeable for the first time to capital account, about $700,000. There are large sums chargeable to capital for the equipment of the Intercolonial Railway with rolling stock and with new rails. There are large sums for transportation in the Public Works Department. There is a very considerable sum amounting to $950,000, representing the awards to two provinces on certain questions which were dealt with last session. For these and other expenditures we shall have, as I have already stated, a total of about $14,000,000 on capital account; and the result will be that we shall be obliged to make this year a larger addition to our public debt than we have done in any previous year in the history of this government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Notwithstanding the surpluses.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Notwithstanding the surpluses. On that point I am going to endeavour to satisfy my hon. friend that we have a most admirable record; and if, by and by, in the dim and distant future, he is to stand in my place, and shall be as lucky as I am, and I should be on the other side of the House, I will congratulate him from the bottom of my heart.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: A gross expenditure of $65,250,000 ?	.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: About that. The amount which I anticipate we shall have to add to the debt of the Dominion for the current year will be close upon $6,000,000. This will be, as I have stated, the largest addition to the public debt under the present administration, and will be almost in line with, though a shade above, the addition made to the public debt in the last year of the late government, when the addition was $5,422,000. You see it has taken us five years to catch up to them in that one matter. Rut even with this large increase to the public debt for the current year, we shall still be able to present a very gratifying statement, as to the average annual increase to the public debt-and hon. gentlemen opposite are much fonder of averages than we are.


Mr. WILSON.: Will you average the income ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: stated the amount of the temporary loan. Perhaps it would be convenient if I were to state also the amount of the loans which are likely to mature in a short time. For
the sake of convenience I have made a statement-which, of course, can be obtained from the Public Accounts in more detail-of the loans maturing within the next three years :


LOANS IN LONDON FALLING DUB BETWEEN 1902 AND 1906.
[Stage Direction]
Date of Maturity.	Name of Loan.	Amount in £	Equivalent in Currency.	Year.Oct. 1,1903.... „ 1,1903.... Apl. 1, 1904 . . May 1, 1904	
it 1,1905.... Nov. 1,1906....	I C. R. Guaranteed 4 per cent Loan	
I C. R. Unguaranteed 5 per cent Loan ,..	£ 1.500.000 500.000 300.000 4.000.	000 1.000.	000 2.500.000	$ 7.300.000 2,433,333 1.460.000 19.466.666 4.866,660 12.166.666	1903 1903 1904 1904 1905 1906Rupert's Land Guaranteed 4 i>er cent . ..	Loan of 1874, 4 percent	
.	Loan of 1875, 4 per cent	
Loan of 1876, 4 per cent	
There will then be no maturing loan until April, 1908.

[Stage Direction]
1903		
1904		
1905		
1906		
Total
£
2,000,000
4.300.000
1,000,000
2.500.000
9.800.000
[DOT]?
0,733,333
20.926.666 4,866,666
12.166.666 47,693,333
There is also a loan of $2,852,000, falling due in Canada, 1st November, 1903, now bearing 4 per cent.
In the Budget last year I presented iu some detail-possibly with tedious detail-some statistics showing the wonderful growth of the trade of Canada. , I do not intend to go into that so fully to-day, but simply to remind the House that gratifying as was the report for 1900 we are able to show in the year following an advance beyond the figures of that date, which is an evidence that Canada is indeed prosperous. I propose to give a very few figures, making a comparison between the business of 1901 and that of 1900 :

[Stage Direction]
Imports for Consumption-Dutiable.
1901
[Stage Direction]
Increase
[Stage Direction]
Imports for Consumption-Free.
1901
[Stage Direction]
Total Imports for Consumption, including coin and bullion.
1901
Increase
[Stage Direction]
$	433,672
Total Imports.
1900		
1901
[Stage Direction]
Increase
$	793,012
1901
Total Exports.
	 $191,894,723
	_ 196,487,632
Increase
[Stage Direction]
Total Exports-Produce of Canada.
1901
[Stage Direction]
Increase	$ 6,789,017
Total Trade.
1900	$381,517,236
1901	 386,903,157
Increase	$ 3,570,855
Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: Increase

Deposits by the people in the Chartered Banks.
1900	$277,256,716
1901	 315,775,429
Increase	$ 38,518,713
Deposits in the Savings Banks (including Post Office and Government Savings Bank ; the City and District Savings Bank and the Caisse d'Economie de Notre Dame de Qufi-bec).
. 1900	$70,575,193
1901	 75,174,053
Note Circulation (including Dominion notes and notes ol Chartered Banks).
1900	$71,672,310
1901	 76,790,931
Increase	$ 5,118,621
Railway Traffic-Tons carried.
1900	 35,946,183
1901	 36,999,371
Increase	 1,053,188
Increase	$ 4,598,860
Discounts-Chartered Banks.
1900	$316,634,620
1901	 318,240,549
Increase	$ 1,605,929
These figures briefly recount the great advance indeed in 1901 over the year 1900. I have at hand a statement of the trade of the past eight months of the current year, and it is pleasing to see that that also continues favourable :


EIGHT MONTHS TRADE, PRESENT YEAR IMPORTS-HOME CONSUMPTION.
[Stage Direction]
Eight Months ending February.	
	1901.	1902.
	$ 68,365,018 46,121,536	$ 74,368,939 49,452,300
		
		
	114,486,554 3,267,574	123,821,239 4,563,824
		
Grand Total	 	 Duty collected			
	117,754,128	128,385,063
	18,864,162	20,492,093

[Stage Direction]
Eight Months ending February.			
	1901.		1902.	
Domestic.	Foreign.	Domestic.	Foreign.The Mine	
ii Fisheries	
.. . it Forest . .. 	
Animals and their Produce	
Agriculture	
Manufactures	
Miscellaneous ..,	
Total Merchandise	8 27,009,630 7,968,143 21,052,427 42,753,901 17,463,156 10,199,086 42,923	S 114,352 8,781 256,370 649,143 10,462,722 1,107,264 217,466	8 24,617,043 10,798,438 22.240,309 44,203,926 21,890,748 11,424,953 24,804	8 116,122 36,446 8,453 525,216 8,409,101 1,565,664 162,375126,489,266 187.173	12,816,098 1,110,707	135,200,221	10,823,377 1,539,195Grand Total Exports	126,676,439	13,926,805	135,200,221	12,362,572
Thus the statement for the eight months goes to show that the indications for business during the current year are so far exceedingly good, and I see no reason why we should not look forward to a continuance of good business.
A feature which deserves a passing remark is the gratifying increase reported by the Department of the Interior with regard to the immigration. Not only from the old country is there a moderate increase, but a new feature has been introduced of late in the very large increase of immigration from the United States. Some portion of this, no doubt, is made up of Canadians coming back, while the others are people who have been settled in the United States for years and who are now coming across the line. I need hardly say that they are the most desirable class of immigrants, and we ought to feel pleased that so many are casting in their lot with us. Prom the returns of immigration, from the returns of homestead entries, from the returns of sales of land by the railway companies, from the recent announcement that the price is advancing of private lands throughout the North-west, we are led to the conclusion that, at last, the great work of filling up the North-west has begun in earnest. There is reason to believe that we may look forward to a splendid development of that great territory during the next few years.
There has been much discussion of late about the operation of our tariff as respects imports from Great Britain and the United States. Leaving out of consideration the question of free goods, it has been represented that on the dutiable goods imported the average rate of duty has actually been higher on British goods than on American. This* statement of the average duties, even if correct, may be so presented as to be somewhat misleading. If you buy from England a quantity of fine goods on which the duties are considerable, and from the United States a quantity of goods of another class on which the duties are low, you may strike an average which will seem to show that the duties on British goods are higher. But if the comparison be made of the duties in any one class of goods, the result will be quite different. No figures of this kind respecting averages can shut out from view the simple fact that there are no duties on British goods higher than on American, and that with the exception of a few articles which are excluded from the preference the duties on all British imports are just one-third less than on similar goods from the United States. As a matter of fact, however, the statements respecting the levying of higher average duties on British than on American dutiable imports appear to be inaccurate. By referring to the Trade and Commerce Report (part 1, page 15) it will be found that the average rate of duty on British dutiable goods last year was 24-74, while the average rate on American dutiable goods was 24-83. The frac-Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
tional difference, therefore, was in favour of Great Britain. Practically, however, on the business of last year the two average rates were the same. How does this compare with previous conditions ? One would assume from some of the criticisms that have been offered that the previous tariff bore more lightly on British as compared with American goods. But what are the facts ? In the year 1896, under the tariff of the late government, the average duty on dutiable imports from the United States was 26-69. In the same year the average duty on British dutiable imports was 30-20, showing a difference against Great Britain of nearly 4 per cent. Thus, even taking the averages, it will be seen that under the operation of our tariff a discrimination of about 4 per cent against Great Britain has been wiped out, until now there is a small difference in favour of Great Britain. But a closer examination shows still more clearly how the present tariff has operated favourably to British trade. The British preference does not apply to all goods. By general consent it has been deemed well to exclude certain articles such as wines, spirits and tobacco from the benefit of the preference. Leaving out these non-preference articles and comparing imports of British dutiable goods with imports of American dutiable goods-that is to say, taking into consideration all the articles to which the British preference applies-I find that while the average duty on American goods is over 24| per cent, the average duty on British goods is only a shade above 21 per cent.
If any importance is to be attached to this question of the relative duty on British and American dutiable goods, it is well that we should have the facts and figures clearly stated.
As bearing upon this question, I desire to draw attention to the figures with regard to our increased trade with Great Britain. It is not quite clear to me, by the way, whether some of my hon. friends opposite regard an increase of trade with Great Britain as desirable or not. Therefore, the application of these figures is somewhat difficult. Some hon. gentlemen profess to view an increase of trade with Great Britain favourably, while others think we ought not to buy so much from Great Britain. However that may be, it is undoubtedly the case that we expected that our trade with Great Britain would be increased under the preferential tariff. I have here the figures showing the imports :
Trade with Great Britain. Imports for consumption-merchandise only, dutiable and free.
1895		,.431,059,332
1896		   32,824,505
1897		 29,401,188
1898		 32,043,461
1899		 36,931.323
1900		 44,279,983
1901		 42,819,995

Now, it will be observed that, under the old tariff, from 1895 to 1897, the imports from Great Britain decreased. Under the new tariff, they began to increase and ran up to over $44,000,000. And, although last year, they dropped a little, they are far and away above any figures that could be quoted of any time under the old tariff. But, my hon. friends opposite may not attach much importance ito the imports. Then, perhaps, they will consider the exports. I will give first the exports of goods produced in Canada :
Exports of Homo Produce to Great Britain.
1895		$57,903,564
1896		 62,717,941
1897		 69,533,852
1898		    93,065,019
1899		 85.113,681
1900		 96,562,875
1901		 92,857,525
But, if we consider both home and foreign products, the figures of our exports are as follows :
Exports to Great Britain, Home and Foreign Product*.
1895		$ 61,856,990
1896		 66,689,253
1897		 77,227,502
1898		 104,998,818
1899		 99,086,981
1900		 107,735,968
1901		 105,328,956
So, thus far, our trade with Great Britain has enormously increased since the adoption of the preferential tariff.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) give us the figures with regard to the United States ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I believe my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) asked that exact question at this exact moment last year. I should have remembered that and brought the figures.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let me say that I never asked the question in this House before. It may be that the late Mr. Wallace, then representing West York asked it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is that gentleman's worthy successor in several respects. I have not the figures here. But we know that the imports from the United States increased. We know that the trade with the whole world has increased.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We cannot help it, Sir, trade in all directions is increasing under the rule of this beneficent government.


Mr. MACLEAN.: We got that information from the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton).


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Then, why does my hon. friend want it again? What are we wasting time for ?


William Findlay Maclean: We hope that the Minister of Finance has profited by it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. member for North Norfolk brought forward the fact prominently. I regret that it has not made a deeper impression on hon. gentlemen opposite. This question of how far the imports from Great Britain have been affected by our preferential tariff has been more or less, a matter of debate. I remember that, in the last session of the British parliament, that distinguished statesman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, in the debate on the sugar duties, during which reference was made to the Canadian preference, said, in terms very gratifying to all Canadians, that, while they appreciated very much the step that Canada had taken, the value was to be looked for, more in the good feeling that had been manifested than in the material results to trade.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. [DOT]friends opposite say : Hear, hear. I suppose they think likewise, and if they think likewise, what becomes of the statements that have been made for some time now that the increased imports under the preferential tariff are destroying some of the factories of Canada ? I am afraid my hon. friends are trying to blow hot and cold on that matter. I cannot find out whether they want that trade to increase or not. At one moment they complain the trade is not increasing under out preference, you will fiud a column of statistics in the Conservative papers designed to prove that there has been no increase at all, and the next thing we are told is that the preference is ruining the factories of Canada. However, coming back to my friend, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, I felt at the time that the statement, while made in good faith and made in terms which will be pleasing to all Canadians, was based upon a misconception of the situation. In the first place, the actual increase of trade as shown by the figures I have given, is very considerable. Then there is another point to which I fear Sir Michael's attention had not been drawn. In view of the severe competition which is now going on between the United States and other manufacturing nations, if, with the preference of one-tliird in favour of Great Britain, we have only been able to increase British imports to a small amount, what would have happened to the trade if there had been no preference at all ? Sir, I have no doubt in the world that but for the British preference, that advance in the imports from Great Britain would not have existed at all, there would not have been any increase in the imports from Great Britain. There is not much doubt but that, without the change this government made in the tariff, the imports from Great Britain would have continued to drop as they did from the year 1895 down to 1897.

There was one incident during the past year which calls for mention in the Budget speech. In the Tariff Act of 1897 there was the following clause :
Section 18. Whenever the Governor in Council has reason to believe that with regard to any article of commerce there exists any trust, combination, association or agreement of any k!nd among manufacturers of such article or dealers therein, to unduly enhance the price of such article, or in any way to unduly promote the advantage of the manufacturers or dealers at the expense of the consumers, the Governor in Council may commission or empower any julge of the Supreme Court or Exchequer Court of Canada, or of any superior court in any province of Canada, to inquire in a summary way into and report to the Governor in Council whether such iru.it, combination, association or agreement exists.
2. The judge may compel the attendance of witnesses and examine them under oath, and require the production of books and papers, and shall hare such other necessary powers as are conferred upon him by the Governor in Council for the purpose of any such inquiry.
3 If the judge reports that such trust, combination, association or agreement exists, and if it appears to the Governor in 001111311 that such disadvantage to the consumers is facilitated by the duties of customs imposed on a like article, when imported, then the Governor in Council should place such article on the free list, or so reduce the duty on it as to give to the public the benefit of reasonable competition in such article.
When the section was first submitted to the House, it provided that the Governor in Council should be the body to determine when the combine existed. On further consideration, however, it was deemed unwise for the government to take to itself so large a power. It was thought that in a matter of so much importance it would be better, even at the cost of some delay, to make use of the judicial machinery for the purpose of inquiry and to limit the authority of the government to action after the report of a judge. In several instances complaints were made to the government under this clause, but upon examination they did not appear to come within the provisions of the section. A few mouths ago, however, complaint was made by the Canadian Press Association in terms which were found to come within the intention of the section. It was alleged that the manufacturers of news printing paper had formed a combine for the purpose j of unfairly enhancing the price of the ar-tide. The matter was referred under the provisions of the section to Mr. Justice Taschereau, who held a protracted inquiry, heard all parties concerned, and finally reported that the complaint of the Press Association was well founded. Thereupon, the government, exercising the power given it by the section, determined by Order in Council to reduce the duty on printing paper such as is commonly used for newspaper purposes, from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. To distinguish between news print and other papers, it was decided that the reduction


William Stevens Fielding: should apply to all printing paper of the value of 2i cents per pound or less. That, of course, means not the value in Canada, but the value for customs purposes-the value at the place of production abroad. It has been represented to us that while the purpose of the government will be effected as respects the daily journals, the proprietors of which buy in large quantities, it may not cover the case of the weekly papers, which do not buy in such large quantities. The Press Association is to furnish us with further information on that point, and if it be found that the words used in our Order in Council do not properly effect the object in view, an amendment will have to be made. I liave no doubt that the results of this inquiry will be of material advantage to the publishers of the Dominion in the making of their arrangements with the Canadian paper manufacturers. Beyond this immediate result, however, the proceedings are interesting and important, and they will serve to remind other manufacturers that if they make an unfair use of any advantage which is given to them by the tariff, a remedy is open to those who will take proceedings under this section of the Tariff
We have again been approached by a large and influential delegation representing the. Ontario Beet Root Sugar Association to ask that a bounty be granted on the production of beet root sugar and a similar application came from Prince Edward Island. A new suggestion is offered by some of the parties connected with the movement, that the industry he encouraged by a considerable increase in the customs duty on sugar. I regret that we are obliged to take an unfavourable view of both these proposals. Sugar is an article of prime necessity, universally used in Canada, and already we have a considerable customs duty. Such an increase of the taxation on sugar as was asked would hardly prove acceptable to the sugar consumers of the Dominion, and should not be adopted without urgent reasons. Nor are we satisfied that even the best interests of the beet sugar industry would be promoted by the granting of the aid that is asked'. We have to remember that some years ago Canada undertook to encourage the beet sugar industry by the granting of bounties, and that the results were not satisfactory. The capitalists who invested their money lost it, and everybody concerned In the movement suffered a severe disappointment. Naturally, in the presence of that fact, we should be more than usually careful in entering again upon a policy of granting bounties for this industry.
It is represented that the advantages of the province of Ontario, and I suppose the same will be claimed for other provinces which are raising the question, are much greater than were possessed by the eastern townships for raising beet sugar, and it is also claimed that such an

advance lias since been made in the manufacture of machinery and in the methods of manufacturing beet root sugar as to ensure the success of the enterprise now. I think there is something in that and that the conditions which exist to-day are such as to give that industry a fair trial if it is naturally adapted to the soil of Canada. Our customs duty, which runs as high as $1,26 per 100 lbs. or a cent and a quarter a lb. on the highest grade of sugar, while it is designed for revenue purposes will provide an incidental protection for beet root sugar produced in the country. The competition from foreign beet sugar is likely to be less keen hereafter as it seems to be settled that the continental bounties on this article,which have so long had a disturbing influence on the world's sugar trade, are about to be abolished. In addition the Ontario government have granted a bounty of half a cent a lb. for two years and of one-quarter of a cent a lb. for the third year, but limited to $75,000 per annum, and I understand that at least three factories are at the present moment in the course of construction in that province. They are certain to go on-one of them is already started-and I am inclined to think that a fourth is in a fair way to being erected. In addition to that the establishment of the industry is no longer problematical but it is a certainty in the North-west Territories. Gentlemen have come in from the south and are erecting a refinery in Lethbridge. With the aid which has been given in the way I have described, with the incidental advantage derived from the customs duty on sugar, with the abolition of the bounties on continental sugar, with the advantage of the Ontario bounty as respects factories in that province, and with the further advantage we have given the beet root sugar industry of the free admission of machinery and structural iron for the purposes of beet root sugar factories, I am inclined to think that there are sufficient inducements to enable the promoters to give the industry a fair trial if it is adapted to the soil of the country. I think it would be a mistake if we were to give further aid which might result in encouraging the erection of a large number of factories which might come to grief. I think it is better to encourage the industry in this moderate way, to have three or four factories in the province of Ontario and one in the North-west Territories established so as to give the industry a fair trial than that we should encourage the starting of factories all over the country which might end in disaster.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The right to import machinery free of duty will soon end.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It will eud on the first day of April, but we propose to extend that for another year. Perhaps I ought to say that there has been some objection on the part of Canadian
manufacturers to the granting of this privilege of free admission. They say that this machinery is now largely made in Canada and they do not see why we should go abroad for it. I think, however, that the reason on which our previous action was based a year ago still holds good. The argument then used was that where the promoters of an enterprise of that character wish to make a contract for machinery it is an advantage to them to be able to make a contract with one manufacturer, so that he can take the contract for the whole of the machinery, make it where he pleases, be held responsible and guarantee that the machinery will be sufficient for the successful operation of the factory. We have concluded not to propose any changes in the sugar duties, or any bounty on beet root sugar, but to extend for another year the term in which certain machinery and materials for the erection of beet root factories may be admitted free. This privilege will therefore be extended to the fii-st day of April, 1903.
We do not propose to make any changes in the tariff this session. I do not for a moment claim that the tariff is perfect. I think, that, on the whole, it has proved a very good tariff. Indeed, when we recall the circumstances under which our tariff revision took place, when we remember the very complicated and difficult probleril with which we had to deal, we may well congratulate ourselves upon our success in devising a tariff so well adapted to the requirements of the country, a tariff under which Canada has prospered in a greater degree than in any previous period in her history. I have occasionally pointed out fhe desirability of a reasonable measure of tariff stability. Nothing would be more likely to unsettle business than a practice of introducing frequent tariff changes. Hence, we have resisted applications for many small changs and we think it well to do so to-day. But I would not have it understood that this view can always be held. As time passes, conditions change in our own country and it will be well for us to take note of this, so that we may adjust the tariff accordingly. Nor is that the only reason that might require some change. Conditions arise in other countries of which we are obliged to take account. [DOT]We do not propose that we shall stand still and that this tariff shall remain unchanged, but we think the time is not opportune for making changes at present.
There are several reasons which operate in our minds against entering upon a policy of tariff changes to-day. We have just completed the taking of a census, and while some of the results are available others of much importance have yet to be prepared. Among these are the returns of the operations of our industries. In considering the tariff in relation to the industries of the country, it is desirable that we should have

before us, with ample time for consideration, the industrial statistics of the recent census.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about the market gardeners of West York who have been living on promises ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If there are any people who have been living on promises that is what they were accustomed to do for eighteen years and they will find it very easy. A further reason against present change is that we are having certain negotiations with other countries in regard to trade of a more or less formal character. We are not without hope that we will be able to broaden the scope of our treaty with France, though of that I am not in a position to make any definite statement. Much has been said in regard to our relations with Germany. My impression is that there has been a misconception on the part of the German authorities as to the position of Canada. Our position on this question is strong in respect to Germany, but that is no reason why we should Ignore the German side of the matter. I admit that there is a colour of excuse for the position which Germany has taken. As I have pointed out on a previous occasion, Germany has two tariffs, one for the world generally, the other, known as the conventional tariff, for those countries which have commercial treaties with Germany. I suppose many hon. gentlemen will say that this is sound policy. Germany had a treaty with Canada, or Canada participate!! in an imperial treaty with Germany, and under that treaty Canada had the advantage from what is called the conventional tariff as respects Canadian products. Canada put an end to that treaty for her own purposes, for good and sufficient reasons. Not one party in Canada, but all of Canada, reached the conclusion that this treaty was not in the best interests of Canada, or of the empire, and it should come to an end. Our sister colonies took the same view on the subject. But it was admittedly the action of Canada above all others which brought about the denunciation of the German and Belgian treaties. When we ceased to have that treaty with Germany, when we ceased to extend to Germany certain privileges which she had enjoyed, Germany withdrew from us the privileges of its conventional tariff. Canada thus came into the class of non-treaty countries, the products of which were subject to the higher tariff. Let us not deny that from one point of view there was some colour of excuse for the German action.
But a more careful examination of the question must lead to the conclusion that the action of Germany, while it might have had an appearance of fairness, was based upon a misconception of the spirit and purpose of Canada's policy. It is true that we have withdrawn from Germany tariff privileges which she formerly enjoyed. But Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
it is necessary to point out that the privileges which Germany lost were not privileges which rightfully belonged to any foreign nation, but privileges which properly belonged to the family circle of the British Empire. Germany might reasonably ask that her products have as fair treatment in our markets as the products of any other foreign country. But she ought not to demand that her products should have the same treatment as the products of our mother country and our sister colonies. Public men in Germany appear to have received the impression that the action of Canada was in some way a discrimination against Germany. Such is not the case. Canada has been quite willing to give to the products of Germany the same treatment as is given to the products of any other foreign nation. That, it seems to us, is all that Germany can reasonably ask. We are inclined to think that the action of Germany has been the result of a misunderstanding of the Canadian policy, and we have therefore been disposed to exercise a large degree of patience in having the matter very clearly put before the German government. We are hopeful that our representation of these facts will in the end bring about a better understanding of the matter. Our trade with Germany is not at present very important to us; although what is called the balance of trade is against us, the value of our exports to that country has been increasing rather than diminishing. Nevertheless, at a time when we are stretching out in all directions for extension of our trade, it is not well to despise the opportunities which might come to us under fairer arrangements with Germany. Besides, the principle involved in Germany's action is important, and on that account, as well as for the possibilities of a larger trade, we should make every effort to have the matter settled in a satisfactory way. There are those who have advocated retaliatory legislation as the only means of settlement. We are hopeful that better results may be obtained by a patient presentation of the facts. Another and stronger reason against immediate changes in our tariff is the present position of our trade relations with the mother country and with our sister colonies. We are about to participate in two important conferences to take place in London. One of these has been called at the suggestion of our government for the special purpose of considering the possibilities of enlarging the trade between Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The other conference is of a broader character and has been called by the Imperial government. The ceremonies attending the coronation of the King will take to London representative public men from all parts of the empire, and the Imperial government desires to avail Itself of the opportunity to discuss various matters, including questions of trade and commerce affecting the interests of the empire. Canada will

be expected to take an active part in the consideration of these questions, and at the close of these conferences we shall be in possession of a knowledge of the disposition of other portions of the empire which will undoubtedly be valuable to us in the consideration of any proposed tariff changes. I do not underestimate the difficulties in the way of bringing about such trade relations within the empire as are desirable from the Canadian point of view. However, it is our duty to avail ourselves of the opportunity to discuss these matters with the public men of the other parts of the empire and to use every effort tu bring about such improved arrangements as would be beni-ficial to Canada and to the empire.
For these reasons we postpone for the present the question of tariff revision. When the moment for revision arrives, the public of Canada may rest assured that the government will undertake the work in the spirit of moderation and caution that has prevailed in their past actions in tariff affairs, avoiding the extremes which almost always find advocates, and having regard to what is best, not for particular industries or particular sections of the country, but for the interests of the people of the whole Dominion.
The Budget, Mr. Speaker, has friendly relations with the Saints.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It was on the morning of St. George's day, five years ago that I had the honour to place on the Table of this House the tariff resolutions containing that principle of British preference which has given so much satisfaction to all who honour St. George and Merrie England. This year our Budget is submitted on Ireland's day of rejoicing. This is St. Patrick's day, and from the topmost roof of our parliament House the British flag flies in honour of this occasion.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is something suggestive in the coincidence. It seems to remind us that, gratifying as is the story we are able to tell of the material progress of the Dominion, there is something that is more pleasing still. It is the very harmonious and happy relations which prevail between our people of all- sections, classes and creeds. Here in this broad Dominion we have a population drawn from many races and	nationalities-English,
French, Scotch, Irish, Welsh, German-all cherishing the memories and traditions of their mother lands, and specially honouring them at appropriate times, as the memories of Ireland are honoured to-day, yet all cordially uniting their efforts for the development of this country and for the maintenance of institutions under which all enjoy the priceless blessings of civil and religious liberty.	[DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is taking too much comfort to himself with regard to the relation of the Budget to the Saints' days, in as much as he intended to deliver his Budget speech last Thursday and I induced him to change his mind and to deliver it on St. Patrick's day.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) wanted it on Tuesday.


Robert Laird Borden: I acquiesced without a moment's hesitation to the suggestion of the Minister of Finance that it should be delivered to-day.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I am bound to say that if there is not more consolation for that grand old island across the sea in the matter of public expenditure, than there is for Canada in the Budget speech which the hon. gentleman has presented to-day, Ireland will not have much to comfort herself with.
Before dealing with the main matter in the Budget speech, I wish to make an observation or two about the tariff relations between Canada and Germany. It seems to me remarkably late in the day for the Finance Minister to arrive at the conclusion that the position taken by Canada in this respect should be pressed upon the attention of the German government. For about three years Canada has been excluded from the benefits of the German minimum tariff, and although we on this side had pressed the matter on the attention of this government session after session, the Minister of Finance is only now awakening to the fact that it is desirable to bring the true state of affairs to the attention of the German government. We have been urging upon the hon. gentleman and upon the government for three years past that this matter should be dealt with vigorously and promptly ; and though it is somewhat late in the day for the Canadian government to think of taking action, it is better late than never, and I hope our government will move at once.
The Minister of Finance asserted that the census returns are disappointing. They are disappointing to all of us. But when the hon. gentleman asserts that the increase is due entirely to the last five years he asserts that the official statements which have from time to time been presented by the government are absolutely misleading and inaccurate. We all know that the Minister of Finance does not mean anything of the kind, and that it is a mere catch cry to save himself from the position in which he would be placed if we referred to the criticism of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) made ten years ago. But even for the purposes of a catch cry, it is hardly worth while for

my hon. friend to descend to a statement which is so far from the true facts as that which he has made to-day. He also referred to the post office deficit of $489,000 ; but he omitted to tell us that the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock), during the election in the year 1900, told us that the Post Office Department would be self-sustaining. That indicated that the hon. Postmaster General was nearly $500,000 out in regard to the revenues and expenses of his own department ; and I do not know that it is much of a compliment from the Minister of Finance to the Postmaster General.
Now, I am not going to follow my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, in a great many of the comparative statements he has made. I wish, in the first place, to say a word or two about the general prosperity of this country and of the world. We, as well as the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, congratulate, not the government, but the country, on the splendid prosperity which has prevailed throughout Canada during the past year. We are not behindhand in doing our duty in that respect; but when my hon. friend, as well as the hon. gentlemen behind him, seem to suggest that this prosperity is in any way due to the present government or to any measure which they have brought down, they lay themselves open to fair criticism. Why, Mr. Speaker, a cock crowing at dawn might think his efforts occasioned, because they preceded, the rising of the sun. It would be just as reasonable for the cock to congratulate himself on the rising of the sun on that particular morning ns for my hon. friend to congratulate the government of this country upon the prosperity which has prevailed throughout Canada and throughout the world. That particular chanticleer would crow on a certain morning when the sun rose, and my hon. friend happens to be Finance Minister of Canada during a period of great prosperity not only in Canada but throughout the world; and I venture to say that there is just as much cause for congratulation in the one case as there is in the other.
With regard to the expansion of trade, my hon. friend has submitted figures to us with which we are very much pleased in some respects, though not in others, as I shall endeavour to show a little later on. In years gone by my hon. friend has presented diagrams to the House showing the enormous expansion in the trade and revenue of the country since 1896. I have sometimes been tempted to inquire why it is that my hon. friend has never seen fit to present to this House a diagram showing the increased expenditure and the increased taxation of this country from 1896 to the present time.


An hon. MEMBER.: There is not room enough.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Robert Laird Borden: char|laWeetoacolllecUMsh-argeable t0 consolidated fund- and then there are certain items-


CHARGEABLE TO COLLECTION.
[Stage Direction]
1890.	1901.	Increase.$	$	$Customs	227,485 13,509 12,258 200,435 113,349 2,551,735 32,230 5,800Dominion Lands	
Inspection of Staples	
,	119,908	133,417	Post Office	3,931,440 272,809 0,377,901 41,G9'J 103,725	Public Works	159,400 3,820,220 9,403	Railways and Canals	
Trade and Commerce	Weights and measures, gas, &c... ,	
My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and some of his colleagues. Then, there is
Commerce has not advanced as rapidly as

[Stage Direction]
Dominion Lands	
Intercolonial Railway	
Public Works	
Public buildings, Ottawa ... Prince Edward Island Railway.
My hon friend the Minister of Finance has not dealt very fully with this question of expenditure, so far as comparative expenditure is concerned, and I would like to draw his attention to certain figures during a period of five years from 1892 to 1890 as compared with those from 1897 to 1901. Let me give a diagram showing the increase in the total expenditure :
1892		
1893		
1894		
1895		
189G

[Stage Direction]
1897..	..
1898..	.
1899		
1900	....
1901
[Stage Direction]
Average annual exp snditure during
5 years of Liberal rule	 $50,110 001
Average annual expenditure during 5 years of Conservative rule		42 141 764
Average annual increase under Liberal rule	$7,968,237
Tctal expenditure, 1897 to 1901 both
years inclusive	$250,550,005
Ted al expenditure, 1892 to 1896, both yiars inclusive	 210,708,819
Liberal rule	 $9,841,186
1890.	1901.	Increase.$	$	$82,184	209,001	18G,877200,390	3,033,837	3,373,441114,820	960,502	851,670Nil.	40,482	40,482Nil.	280,174	280,174
Thus, from 1892 to 1896, the aggregate total expenditure amounted to $210,708,819, and from 1897 to 1901 it amounted to $250,550,005, showing an increased expenditure of nearly $40,000,000 in the latter five years. Therefore, during the five years of Liberal rule, there was a yearly average expenditure of $50,110,001 as compared with $42,141,764 during the previous five years of Conservative administration, or an average increase of annual expenditure of $7,968,237 by the present government over its predecessors.
Why does not my hon. friend the Minister of Finance claim the benefit of this result ? It is one to the full benefit of which he is certainly entitled. He may not be entitled to the credit of the prosperity which prevails in Canada, as well as in all the rest of the world, but certainly he is entitled to the credit of all this expenditure.
My hon. friend became reminiscent this afternoon. Does he ever think of the years gone by in which an expenditure of $38,000,000 was declared by his friends to he $3,000.000 or $4,000,000 too much. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) published an article in the ' North American Review,' in which he attacked the increase in expenditure, during
[Stage Direction]


the eleven years between 1878 and 1889, of 813,385,581. I happen to have the article in my hand. It does not appear to interest my hon. friend now, because I observed him yawn when I merely mentioned it. But I assure him that I am not speaking of him simply as the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the financial critic of the opposition at that time, but as the representative of the Liberal party in those days-the man who was put forward as its ablest exponent ; who, in the introduction to this very article, is referred to as the real, though not .the titular leader of the opposition; whose views were put forward throughout this [DOT]country as those of the real leader of the [DOT]opposition. I invite his attention to some of the views he then expressed-views not set out in the heat of an election campaign, but in the calmness of a magazine review; thought out carefully in the quiet of his study and not uttered on a political platform or in the heat of a political struggle. Let us see what view he took of the situation at that time. He said :
In }878, the actual taxation of Canada was $17,841,938, though, as there was a deficit in that year, the necessary taxation might he placed at $19,000,000. In 1889, the actual taxation was $30,613,522, being an Inornate of $11,613,522.
Now, if we compare 1897 with 1901, we find an increase of $15,000,000 in the four years of Liberal rule, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was shocked at an actual taxation of $30,013,522 in 1889, is not shocked at an actual expenditure of $57,982,000 at the present time.
My hon. friend may say that I am comparing the receipts from taxes with the total expenditure. Well, I will compare something else for him. The total receipts from taxes during 1901 were $38,743,550, so that if my hon. friend had occasion to grow eloquent at that time, he certainly has still more occasion to do so at present. What did he say about it in this magazine article :
Comment is hardly necessary, nor, indeed, does space permit me to point out ;he enormous mischiefs which result in a young and pcor country from absorbing so large a proportion of the earnings of the people, in defraying the charges of the federal government, as is now being taken in Canada.
, Yet, although $8,000,000 more are taken now than then, the Minister of Trade and [DOT]Commerce seems perfectly contented over the situation. Let us take a comparison which he was good enough to make then, and which is the most striking thing in the article :
In 1845 the population of the United
States was (by estimate)	 20,000,000
The taxes of the United States were. .$27,531,630
The total expenditure was	 22,935,828
Then, he says ;
In 1889 the population of Canada was
perhaps	 4,800,000
The taxes of Canada were	$30,613,522
The total expenditure was	 36,917,854
Robert Laird Borden: And he makes a pitiful comparison between the position of Canada and that of the United States, based on that standpoint. But suppose we were to make a similar comparison at the present time, would not the Minister of Trade and Commerce think it was a perfectly fair one :
In 1845 the population of the United
States was (by estimate)	 20,000,000
The taxes of the United States were. .$27,531,630
The total expenditure was	 22,935,828
In 1900 the population of Canada was (so far as we can ascertain from the census)						....	5,340,000
The taxes of Canada were	538,743,550
The total expenditure was	 57,982,8bb
I would ask my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce to take the figures I have read to him and go over the article which he wrote in 1889 and apply the same language to the state of affairs in Canada to-day, which he was good enough to apply to its condition ten years ago, and I am sure no stronger indictment can be made against the extravagance of this government.
It is remarkable that my hon. friend, in this article, attributed this scandalous and enormous increase of expenditure-during those eleven years-to what do you suppose ? To the fact that protection existed in Canada. But he tells us himself that in Canada protection does not exist to-day, so he has not that excuse. What then is the reason for the increase in four years of $15,000,000 in our total expenditure ? It cannot be on account of protection, because the Minister of Trade and Commerce tells us that there is no protection in the country and that we have merely a revenue tariff. To what cause must we attribute it ? Surely it cannot be due to the extravagance of this government, because having preached the doctrine of economy during so many years it is impossible to believe that these hon. gentlemen, now that they are at the head of affairs, are actuated by motives other than those of the most strict economy.
Let us look at the expenditure in another way. The per capita expenditure was a subject upon which the hon. gentleman was wont to be very eloquent in days gone by. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance says that our population remained stationery from 1890 to 1896. If he is correct, the figures which I am giving will show very much worse against the government. But I do not intend to take that position, because I do not think it would be a fair one. I intend to take the position-which I think is reasonable-that in 1896 the population of this country was about 5,070,000. In that year our expenditure was $41,702,383, and the per capita tax 8-22. In 1897 the population, as I estimate it, was 5,120,000, and our expenditure $42,972,756, and the per capita tax had increased to 8-39. Let me give a tabulated statement, made up from the Public Accounts :


PER CAPITA-TOTAL EXPENDITURE.
[Stage Direction]
Year.	Population estimated.	Expenditure.	Per Capita.1896	
...	5,070,000	$ 41,702,383	8-221897	5,120,000	42,972,756	8 391898	5,175,000	45,334,281	8'761899	5,230,000	.51,542,635	9-851900	5,285.000	52,717,467	9981901	5,340,000	57.982,866	10-88
Thus, these gentlemen have Increased the expenditure about 36 per cent, the per capita expenditure about 32 per cent, while the population has increased less than 7 per cent.
And, from the proposed expenditure, it is evident that there will be a great increase in the per capita tax for the ensuing year, unless there is a much greater increase in the population than we can reasonably anticipate or look forward for. Now, the taxation of the country might be looked at for a moment in periods of five years, in the way in which I have just dealt with the expenditure :

[Stage Direction]
1892. 	828,446,157	1897....	.. $28,648,6261893	29,321,367	1898....	.. 29,576,4561894	27,579,203	1999....	.. 34,958,0691895	25,446,199	1900....	.. 38,242,2231896	27,759,285	1901.. .	.. 38,743,5508138,106,054	$170,168,924
Average annual taxation under five
years of Liberal rule	 $34,033,785
Average annual taxation under five years of Conservative rule	 27,710,442
Average annual increase under Liberal rule	 6,323,343
Total taxation, 1897 to 1901, both inclusive	$170,168,924
Total taxation, 1892 to 1896, both inclusive	*	 138,106,054
Increase under Liberal rule.... $ 32,062,870
Thus we see that the taxes had increased by no less than $32,000,000 in a period of five years. Therefore, I thought it right to bring to the attention of the government and of the country the fact that, while there has been a very great increase in the volume of trade, and in the revenues of the country, there has been an enormous, a startling increase in the public expenditure. During this period of buoyant revenue we have had no decrease in the public debt as might have been expected. The Minister of Finance has referred to the increase in the public debt under Conservative administration, but
' 42i
if during the period of eighteen years of Conservative rule, the government had had so large an average revenue as this government has had for the past five years, not only would there have been no increase in the public debt, but there would have been a great diminution. I desire to point out also that, during that period of time, the Conservative government expended enormous amounts in the public works of this country. From 1878 to 1896, the Conservatives spent $65,000,000 on the Canadian Pacific Railway; the Liberals, from 1896 to 1901, have spent about $33,000 for the same purpose. On canals, the Conservatives spent $36,000,000, the Liberals, $14,250,000. The Conservatives set aside as debt for the provinces, $10,300,000, while this government set aside $267,000. The Conservatives spent on the Intercolonial Railway, $20,500,000; the Liberals spent $8,250,000. Taking these things into consideration, I do not know that the Minister of Finance has dealt quite fairly with the country in his comparison of the Increased debt during the last five years and during the eighteen years of Conservative rule. He does not take into consideration the enormous revenues we have had for the past five years, nor does he take into consideration the very much larger amount the Conservatives spent on public works in this country than have been spent by the present government.
Now, with regard to the trade conditions of the past year, I do not think it necessarily follows that because importations into Canada are greater than they have been in past years, the country is prospering. If the tariff of this country were so arranged as to close dozens of our factories and drive thousands of our people to the United States to seek employment, one of the first results would be an enormous increase in our imports. Merely that this country has increased its imports, that of itself does not prove that the country is prospering; on the contrary, it may indicate a very bad condition of affairs so far as some of our industries are concerned.
The following figures afford a comparison of the exports for 1900 and 1901 :-

[Stage Direction]
1900.	1901.
		
	$	$
Produce of mines	24,778,339	40,531,314n fisheries...	11,224,866	10,730.999ii forest	29,954,089	30,276,180Animals and their produce ... 	57,296,667	56,299,282Agricultural products.	38,469,961	38,568,052Manufactures	15,511,581	17,751,350Miscellaneous	540,541	351,966
A considerable portion of the increase of the produce of the mine consists of the exports of gold-bearing quartz, nuggets, and silver concentrates and ore, which went to the United States, as the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) told us, to pay the balance of trade which exists between this country and the United States. Let us eliminate these articles from the calculation. The total exports for 1900 were $191,894,723. Deduct gold-bearing quartz, silver concentrates, coin and bullion, amounting to $24,159,666, and we find that the exports of other articles were $167,735,057. In 1901, our total exports were $196,487,632. Deducting coin, bullion, concentrates, &c., $28,844,393, and we have a balance of $167,643,237, or about half a million dollars less of exports than we had last year. The following is a tabulated statement
TOTAL EXPORTS OF CANADA. ' 1900.	1901.
Total exports of Canada $191,894,723 $196,4S7,632 Less gold-bearing quartz, silver concentrates, coin
and bullion	 24,159,666	28,844,393
[Stage Direction]
I do not see that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has so much to congratulate himself upon, so far as the agricultural, mineral and forest exports of the country are concerned, because the advance seems to be made up altogether of gold-bearing quartz, bullion, &c., coupled with the substantial advance of upwards of $2,000,000 in manufactured goods.
Now if we look at the imports and the exports in the same way for 1901, let us see how we stand. If we eliminate from our exports and imports gold-bearing quartz, silver concentrates, bullion and coin, our imports and exports stand as follows : Imports, $186,878,231; exports, $167,643,237; leaving what my lion, friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) would call a balance of trade against Canada of $19,234,994. The following is a tabulated statement
Tctal imports, 1901	 $ 186,878,231
" exports, 1901	 167,643,237
Balance of trade against Canada. $ 19,234,994
Now the development of our trade with the mother country is a circumstance upon which my hon. friendi the Minister of Finance has seen fit to congratulate the country; but I notice that in doing so he congratulated the country more particularly on the average for five years, and not on the particular results of the past year. Well, let us look at the results of the past year and compare them with those of 1900 :
Robert Laird Borden: Exports to United Kingdom.	Imports from United Kingdom.	Aggregate trade with United Kingdom.$	$	$1900	107,730,368	45,472,294	153,208,6621901	105,328,956	43,164,297	148,493,253Decreases..	2,407,412	2,307,997	4,715,409
I do not know as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance thinks that the country is to be congratulated upon the decrease in our exports.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: You will find it in my speech, at all events.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Six o'clock.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the right hon. gentleman propose to sit this evening ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: If it will suit the convenience of my hon. friend I propose to go on.


Robert Laird Borden: I have just this to say to my right hon. friend. I propose to move an amendment, and I thought possibly it might be more convenient for me to announce it immediately than during my speech to-morrow afternoon.


The PRIME MINISTER.: As the hon. gentleman prefers.


Robert Laird Borden: I move the adjournment of the debate, and in doing so I may state that in concluding my remarks to-morrow I will move the following amendment :
That all the words after 'that' id the proposed motion be left out and the following substituted therefore :
This House regarding the operation of the present tariff as unsatisfactory is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries, as will at all times secure the Canadian market for Canadians. And, while always firmly maintaining the necessity of such protection to Canadian interests, this House affirms its belief in a policy of reciprocal trade preferences within the empire.
Motion (Mr. Borden, Halifax) agreed to, and debate adjourned.


REPORT PRESENTED.
[Stage Direction]
Annual Report of the Department of Militia and Defence, 1901.-Hon. Mr. Borden.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 18, 1902.
The SPEAKER took the Ghair at Three o'clock.

Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).: In the absence of the Chairman of the Committee, I move that the second report of the Select Committee appointed to supervise the Official Report of the Debates of this House during the present session be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 54) to incorporate the Essex Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 55) respecting the Lake Erie and Detroit River Railway Company-Mr. Sutherland (Essex).
Bill (No. 56) to indemnify sufferers from fires caused by railways.-Mr. Demers (St. John and Iberville).

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada, certified copies of the judgments and decisions of the said Court in the Election Appeals for the electoral districts of Two Mountains and Richelieu, by which the said appeals were dismissed.


JAPANESE IMMIGRATION.
Mr. AULAY MORRISON (New Westminster).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the first minister if the Japanese section of the oriental report has been brought down, or when it will be brought down ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: It has not yet been received, so far as I know.



[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Minister of Finance :
That the Speaker do now leavo the Chair for the House to go into committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.
['Mr. Speaker, owing to the very lengthy discussion we have had on this question to-day, I presume it would be gratifying to both sides of the House if it were brought to a close now, and I therefore move the adjournment of the debate.']
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, before the debate was adjourned yesterday, I had pointed out that while the revenue and trade of this country had expanded to a very great extent during the past five years, the expenditure of the country also, as the Minister of Finance would have expressed it, had increased by leaps and bounds. From a total expenditure of $42,972,756 in 1897 to $57,982,866 in 1901 is a pretty good leap. But my hon. friend the Minister of Finance proposes to take a leap of nearly seven and a half millions dollars next year, as he estimates the total expenditure of that year at $65,250,000-being a leap from 1897 to 1902 of $22,277,244. or over 50 per cent increase.
I pointed out also an increase of nearly $50,000,000 in the total expenditure for the last five years, as compared with the total expenditure of the previous five years, and an increase of more than $32,000,000 in the taxes taken from the people during the past five years as compared with the five years preceding. And if we look to the United States, we find that the expenditure of that


Thomas Walter Scott: country, when its population was 20,000,000, was only a little more than one-third of that which the Minister of Finance proposes for the ensuing year, with a population of not more than 5,500,000.
I again invite my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce to devote his attention to that article written by him for the ' North American Review,' to which I referred yesterday, and tell us why it is proper now to have an expenditure of $65,250,000, when our population is only five and a half million, in view of the fact that he lamented so greatly our extravagance in 1889 and 1890, when our expenditure was only about two-thirds as much ?


Mr. COWAN.: What was the trade of the United States when they had a population of
20,000,000 ?


Robert Laird Borden: 

[Stage Direction]
strong protectionist address at the opening of that convention, and in the course of his remarks used the following language :[DOT]-
In 1898 Canada put into effect a tariff which now gives to the British exporter 33 per cent better rates than you can get if vou export to Canada. Here was a chance to see how reciprocity would work under favourable circumstances. With what result ? You would think England would have male enormous gains. I will not bother with the figures, but will say that up to and including 1900 England had absolutely lost ground and we gained it, with a 33 per cent differentiU duty operating against us. The Canadians had every kind of inducement, the money inducement and the loyalty inducement and the desire to buy British goods, and yet we beat the Englishman on Canadian ground with a 33 per cent duty in their favour.
My lion, friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) was at that convention. The Americans were rather curious about that matter and asked him to explain the circumstances. In the report of his speech the hon. gentleman is represented as making the following very lucid statement as to the causes that had led to this condition of affairs
The Canadian tariff against England has a rebate of 33$ per cent, but the goods imported from the two countries are dissimilar and the rates of duty on the goods from England happen to be higher than the rates of duty on the class of goods coming from the United States, and the net result, the total duty, is almost the same.
Now, what delightful simplicity there is in that word ' happen ' in the speech of my hon. friend from Norfolk. He takes it for granted that this government had brought down a tariff without having the slightest idea of what they were doing when they fixed the rate of duty. Well, according to the view of the hon. member for North Norfolk, British goods, counting all dutiable goods together, pay a higher rate of duty than goods from the United States. And, even according to the statement of the Minister of Finance, the duty paid on dutiable goods coming from the United States is an average of 24-83 per cent, while that on British goods is 24 -74 per cent. If you exclude from the calculation, as the hon. Minister of Finance saw fit to do, goods which do not en.joy the advantage of the preferential tariff, you still have a duty of 24-50 per cent-I think he said-upon United States goods, and on British goods a fraction over 21 per cent. Now, this preferential tariff was announced to the country as a tariff which gave the mother country a real advantage of 33$ per cent. The Minister of Finance took great credit to himself for bringing down that tariff on St. George's Day. and said there was an association between the saints and his budget. All I have to say is, that, considering the words of the Finance Minister of yesterday, this seems to be the first time on record when any saint was ever taken in by a confidence man. We read in Holy Writ of those who would de-
Robert Laird Borden: especially it must be borne in mind that our frontier extends for more than 4,000 miles along that of the greatest agricultural and manufacturing country in the world. For the first time in the history of the United States her domestic exports in 1901 exceeded those of Great Britain. The figures for that year are as follows : Domestic exports of the United States, $1,400,462,806 ; domestic exports of Great Britain, $1,363,224 000 ; or nearly $100,000,000 less than those of the United States. Of those exports of the domestic products of the United States, $943,811,020 were agricultural products and $412,155,066 were manufactures.
Now, there is another thing we should consider in this connection, and that is that the growth of manufactures in the United States during the past five years has been phenomenal, and will probably advance in a somewhat similar ratio in future. At the National Reciprocity Convention, of which I have already spoken, the figures which I am about to give were accepted by the convention as correct, and I therefore assume that they are correct. They show the growth of manufactures in the United States during the past fifty years :
1850	$ 1,000,000,000
1SG0	 2,000,000,000
1870	 4,000,000,000
1880	 5,500,000,000
1890	  9,000,000,000
1900	 13,000,000,000
From one billion in 1850 to thirteen billions in 1900, an increase of 1,300 per cent in fifty years. Now, Sir, I am pointing that out for this reason, that when we come to compare those figures with the exports of the United States, they indicate to us what an enormous home market the United States have, and how slight an increase in the produce of manufactured articles in the United States, or how slight a decrease in the consuming power of the United States, would immediately enormously increase the exports of the United States, or rather the surplus for export.
The total manufactures of the United States in 1900, aggregated thirteen billion dollars. Their exports of manufactures in that year aggregated $4,333,851,756, so that you will see that the total exports of the United States of manufactured goods in 1900 were less than Si per cent of their total production. This is a pretty significant fact When we have to look at the possibility of competition with the United States in times of depression that may not be so very many years away. Now, as to the ,total agricultural production of the United States in 1900, 1 cannot give the exact figures, but of this we are well assured that the agricultural products of the United States were many times in excess of their exports of agricultural products in that year which aggregated $835,858,123. If there were any doubt about that I might quote from vol. 19 of the final report of
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax!.
the Industrial Commission of the United States, page 187, where it is said that:
The products of agriculture comprised 64-64 per cent of the value of our domestic exports in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1901. In spite of this extraordinary preponderance, only a comparatively minor proportion of our farm products ever passes out of the home market.
Only one fourth of the commercial corn crop ever leaves the county in which it is grown.
From 5 to 10 per cent enters into foreign trade.

Less than one-third of the wheat crop is exported and 4-6 per cent of the oat crop is exported. The conclusion of this report is that even taking these great staples as to which the percentage of export would probably be greater than in most other articles :
The three great staples taken as a whole are mostly consumed at home.
Now, as the produce of the United States both in agriculture and manufactures, will be increasing beyond the home consumption, their need of a foreign market is becoming more and more apparent to them. The utterances of their public men and of then-leading business men during the past year indicate that they fully realize the situation and that they are determined to conquer foreign markets in the near future. For example, the late President McKinley, of the United States, in His speech at Buffalo, which has been hailed throughout the United States as the embodiment of political and economic wisdom, used the following language :
We should take from our customers such of their products as we can use without harm to our industries. Reciprocity is the natural outgrowth of our wonderful industrial development under the domestic policy now so firmly established. What we produce beyond our domestic consumption must have a vent abroad, the excess must be relieved through a foreign outlet.
Another utterance of the same gentleman is as follows :
It

That is reciprocity-
_____is to afford new markets for our surplus
agricultural and manufactured products without loss to the American labourer of a single day's work that he might otherwise procure.
That seems to be hailed in the United States as the height of economic and politic wisdom, as I have said. Possibly it would not be out of place for us in Canada to take a line from that which has been placed before us by these gentlemen in the United States and to consider whether our policy should not be to so frame our tariff that there would not be the loss of a day s work to a single Canadian labourer. Then, a senator of the United States,! Sir. Foraker, said :
We must have markets for our surplus or quit producing It.

Mr. Deering, President of the Deering Manufacturing Company, in his speech at the National Reciprocity Convention, expressed the following views :
But now that the protective system has done Its work, we are confronted by new problems that are more serious than the old. If we cannot go forward and find new markets to absorb our increasing output, it is inevitable that we shall turn upon ourselves and waste in destructive competition the energy that might with a proper output give us command of the markets of the world. It is axiomatic that with industry stagnant and mills half idle the country at large cannot prosper.


Mr.  A. B.@: Farquhar, representing the National Association of Agricultural Implement and Vehicle Manufacturers, in his introductory address at the same convention, used the following language:
That our import duties as they stand invite retaliation from countries with whose interests they conflict every week's cable dispatches bring us added testimony.
We are the greatest manufacturing nation upon the earth and the general prosperity depends largely on that of the manufacturers of the country. *
* * Our capacity for production at low cost renders foreign markets a necessity to keep our labour employed.


Mr.   T@: Search, chairman of that convention, expressed similar views in the following language :
Many of our industries have reached a stage in their development where the home market alone cannot absorb their entire product, and consequently new outlets are necessary for their continuous operation and the steady employment of their operatives.
Now, Mr. Speaker, taking these matters into consideration as they strike me, two causes do, and will contribute towards the slaughtering of American goods on the Canadian market. In the first place, their enormous total production which enables them to produce at a relatively small cost in the United States and in the next place the absolute necessity of getting rid of their surplus even at a loss. Now, Canada, as I have said, lies contiguous to the American market for 4,000 miles, and affords a market-you	might	say	a slaughtermarket-for some portion at least of the excess	which	must be disposed of. The manufactured and agricultural products of this country are more likely to feel, competition from the United States than those of any other country, not only for the reason that we border the United States for 4,000 miles, but also for another reason, that we are their third best customer, receiving one-fourteenth of their exports. We are their third best customer of their total products, and according to the hon. member for North Norfolk, we are their best customer so far as manufactured goods are concerned. In 1901 we took nearly one-sixth of the total export of manufactured goods from the United
States. Their total export of manufactured goods in 1901 was $412,155,066, and we took of that $65,000,000, or nearly one-sixth. Our own resources are not only those of an agricultural, but of a great manufacturing people. We have the coal, the iron and raw materials of many kinds which should enable manufacturing industries to be built up and sustained in this country. If we are not to possess such manufacturing industries in the future, then this country must become very largely an agricultural and pastoral country selling its produce and importing all its manufactures. The result of that would be a large diminution of our population, because a large portion of our people would go to the United States for the work which they could not obtain here, and we would be at the mercy of the trusts in the United States, which in the future, beyond doubt, will control the agricultural production of that country as they now, to a very considerable extent, control certain other industries in that country. I do not believe that the people (of this country are prepared to accept such a destiny as that. On the contrary, I believe that they propose to develop this country not only on the lines of agriculture, but on the lines of manu-facturihg and industrial development as well, and I believe they will look to the government to so readjust the tariff as to prevent Canada being made the slaughter market of the United States, whether of manufactured products or of agricultural products. They will look for a policy which will enable this country to be developed along every legitimate line.
Now, when we make a comparison of our tariff with the tariff of the United States, one would suppose that we were a country of 70,000,000 people and the United States a country of 5,500,000 ; one would suppose that we were the greatest exporting, the greatest agricultural, and the greatest manufacturing country in the world, and that the United States was a country practically undeveloped beside us, a country from which we need fear no competition whatever. We find that our rate of duty on total imports from the United States is about 12J per cent, and on dutiable goods from the United States 24:83 per cent; while on the other hand, the rate of duty on the total imports of the United States is 28-91 per cent, and on dutiable goods it is 49-S3 per cent, or, more than double our rate in each case. As has been already pointed out, the United States has nearly three-fourths of the total importation of free goods into Canada, while Great Britain has to be content with some 15 per cent. One would expect that if we intend to maintain and build up our own products and manufactures against such powerful and tremendous competition as that which we must anticipate from the United States we would fix our tariff of

customs against tliat country on a scale at least as high as is that of their tariff against us. We must remember that our producers and manufacturers are restricted very much as to the home market, while in Great Britain and in other countries we enjoy no advantages in their markets over the United States. In Germany, for example, Canadian products have to meet a less favourable tariff than that which the United States enjoys. While we have no greater advantages abroad, we have a more restricted market at home on account of our small population, and we therefore can reasonably say that having regard to that fact there is all the more reason for that restricted market such as it is being protected for the manufacturers and for the agricultural producers of this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I desire to emphasize that which I mentioned a little time ago, namely, the condition which will be brought about if the production of the United States in manufactured goods or in agricultural products, or in both, increases more rapidly than their power of consuming these commodities at home. You will bear in mind that the United States exports between 3 and 4 per cent only of its manufactured goods and probably not more than 10 per cent of its total agricultural products. If you increase the output in the United States of manufactured goods by 5 per cent, what have you V If the home consumption does not keep up to that ratio you have an enormous increase of surplus for export, and where, let me ask, will that surplus for export be first slaughtered '! Where will it first be sent for the purpose .of getting rid of it ? Naturally it will be sent to Canada, which at the present time is the third best customer of the United States in all products, and the best customer of the United States so far as manufactured goods are concerned.
In this connection we must not forget the enormous importance of the home market, not only to Canadian manufacturers but also to Canadian agriculturists. Our total manufactures (including under that term all articles made in factories using machinery and motive power), have been estimated by a very competent authority during the past year at $730,000,000. Of these, we exported less than $68,000,000 or about 9 per cent. Therefore, 91 per cent of the goods manufactured in Canada have been consumed in Canada. We have consequently at the present time to look first to the home market and not to a foreign market. Having regard to that, is it not right that we should take care that the home market is properly protected for the industries of this country ? We can see at a glance that if we increase our foreign export by 300 per cent, and gave away half of our home market, we would be infinitely worse off in Canada than we Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
are to-day. Our home market is in proportion to our foreign market in the ratio of at least nine to one so far as we can get at the figures.
With regard to our agricultural products the same is almost equally true. The agricultural products of Canada are very largely used by Canada herself. If you take the article of wheat alone, an article which I suppose in proportion we export more largely than any other article; assuming the consumption to be four bushels per head in Canada (which I believe is a fair average), we would use in Canada at least 22,000,000 bushels. In reference to many other articles of agricultural products the proportion would be two or three times as great, I have no doubt.
In discussing this question from the standpoint I have taken, I am following a very illustrious example in the United States. The late President McKinley, speaking in support of a Bill which he introduced into congress and which formed the customs tariff of that country, known as the McKinley Bill, quoted my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and Professor Goldwin Smith for the purpose of showing that Canada not only greatly desired, but could not do without the United States market. And accepting the conclusions of those gentlemen he argued that if reciprocity was so much desired in Canada and would greatly benefit this country, it could do so only at the expense of the United States, and therefore, the proper policy for the United States was to enact a tariff such as he then proposed. He for one was against granting reciprocity to Canada, and so he put up the tariff against Canada, and it has practically remained on that basis ever since.
Now, I do not say that our policy should be framed on any principle of retaliation of tariff. I absolutely and decidedly dissent from that. I say that our tariff should be framed from the standpoint of the Canadian people and with the view of the preservation of the Canadian markets for the Canadian people themselves.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not prepared to say that we want reciprocity in natural products with the United States at the present time. In that I disagree with my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). There was a period during which such reciprocity was desirable, and during which it would have been a benefit to this country. That period may or may not have passed away. That period probably has passed. What I object to, in any principle of reciprocity of tariffs or retaliation of tariffs, is, that it may bind us to put our tariff down, admitting the United States manufactures to crush out our own manufacturers ; admitting United States agricultural products to the detriment and destruc-

tion of our own farming population. I say we do not want that..
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: What we want in this country is a tariff framed for the benefit of our own Canadian people.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: What we want in Canada is a tariff framed for the purpose of preserving the Canadian markets for the Canadian people, and that I believe is a policy which will meet with the approbation of the Canadian people whenever it is placed before them.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: And if we have this reciprocity of tariffs that is talked of, how would we stand with these enormous American trusts which are beginning to control all the industries of that country. I do not know how the clause in the customs tariff which was spoken of by the Finance Minister could be applied to these trusts if we were practically to have free trade with the United States. It would certainly be of no service whatever. We will have a hard enough time in fighting trusts and combinations in Canada without undertaking the task of subduing the trusts and combines of the United States which are giving the congress and the legislatures of that country all they can do. And if American writers are to be believed these trusts in the United States have more than once controlled the legislatures of several states of the union in the past, if they do not so control them at the present time.
It may be said that a readjustment of the tariff on the lines which have been suggested will necessarily increase the burdens of the people. I do not think that at all follows. It may be said that the labouring classes and the manufacturing classes will pay more for agricultural products, and that the farming population will pay more for manufactured articles. I do not believe this will be the necessary result. I believe that internal competition will keep the prices down to a reasonable limit. It has done so in Canada in years gone by ; though I believe the labouring classes, the manufacturing classes and the agricultural classes of this country, for the sake of developing the country, for the sake of keeping their markets for themselves, for the sake of preventing American competition, which has reached so disastrous a point, would be willing, for a few years at least, to pay slightly increased prices, if necessary.
So fas as competition within our own country is concerned, we have the remedy which was pointed out by the Minister of Finance yesterday, and which has been acted upon during the past.year. If the manufacturers in Canada keep up prices unduly, if they use any combination among themselves to the detriment of the consumer, or if the agricultural products of the country should happen to get into the hands of a trust or a combine, it would be open to the government, whatever it might be, to use the clause which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance referred to yesterday, and, by a reduction of the customs duties or otherwise, to teach those people that the people of Canada want nothing of trusts or combines, but want their industries developed on plain, straightforward, and honest lines.
Now, I do not expect that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) will take very much stock in the principles I have been putting forward. We know that in days gone by he has vowed death to protection ; he has wanted to stamp upon it ; he has called it that villainous protection ; he has called it a system of robbery ; he has called the men engaged in manufacturing robbers ; and, even at this late date, I hardly expect that the lamp holds out sufficiently for my hon. friend to return. Therefore, whatever impression I may have made upon any other gentleman in the House, I do not apprehend that I have made the slightest impression upon my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He will still adhere to his view that to develop the industries of this country on the lines I have suggested would not be in the interest of the country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in saying that the manufactures of Canada should be developed in this way, I adopt the principle, so far as the mother country is concerned-for I have been dealing up to the present time largely with the United States-that the manufactures of Canada are of as much value to the empire as manufactures in Great Britain. The development of Canada has been intrusted to us, and we certainly would not be true to our duty if we did not seek to develop this country along the lines of manufacturing industries as well as along the lines of agricultural industries, provided we consider that the resources of this country justify us in doing so. We know that the resources of this country do justify us in doing so. We know that we possess the material for carrying on manufacturing industries to an extent possessed by few other countries in the world, and 1 say that we would not be true to ourselves if we did not seek to avail ourselves of those materials which are close to our hands, and seek to build up in this way not only an agricultural production, but a manufacturing production as well. Our interests must sometimes give way to imperial interests ; but any system or policy which closes our industries, causes our machinery and plant to lie idle, and sends our operatives to the United States is not a policy which is advantageous to Canada or to the empire, merely because it gives an increased output to some manufacturing industry in

Great Britain. Our policy should be, in the first place, to conserve our own interests ; and, in the next place, as between our competitors, British and foreign, our policy should be to give to the manufactures of the mother country a preference over those of other countries.
In considering this matter, Mr. Speaker, we must not fail to bear in mind, of course, that the mother country is our best customer ; but we must not shut our eyes to the fact that she is also the best customer of the United States, and that she takes a very large proportion of the product of the United States of America. In 1901 Great Britain exported to the United States $143,000,000, and took from the United States $631,000,000, a very much larger proportion of imports over exports than her trade relations with Canada would show.
I submit that the policy which I advocate has nothing in it to which any man in Great Britain or any man in the empire should have the slightest objection. It is sometimes suggested that we have not contributed our proper share towards the defence of the empire. Well, Sir, if we have not, let us go about it in a straightforward way. Let us not, when the mother country suggests it, tell her that we will not even discuss it with her. I wondered that our hon. friends on the other side of the House did not get up and sing ' God save the King,' when that correspondence was brought down the other day. I suppose that although we must settle these matters ourselves, it would be no harm to discuss them at least with the mother country. I for one will always maintain the utmost rights of Canadians to their own self-government. I will always maintain that Canada must settle for herself what her contribution towards the defence of the empire shall be ; but I do not think it necessarily follows that Canada should slap the mother country in the face when the mother country proposes in a courteous manner to discuss this subject with her. I say that I believe in dealing with the defence of the empire in a straightforward way. I do not believe in dealing with it by adopting a preferential tariff which will shut up mills in Canada and give increased profits and outputs to some manufacturers in Yorkshire. That is not the way to contribute to the defence of the empire. We may have our differences about this matter ; but we can settle them in our own way, according to the principles of constitutional government that prevail in this country, and every man in Canada is perfectly entitled to express his views on the matter either in parliament or outside of it. But when we once settle the question to our own satisfaction, let us approach the mother country in regard to it in a courteous manner ; and if we do propose to contribute to the defence of the empire, let us do it in a straightforward, manly way, and not, as is suggested on the other side of the Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
House, by creating a preference and ruining our own industries, because we have not contributed our proper share towards the defence of the empire.
My hon. friend the Minster of Finance, gave utterance yesterday to certain remarks with regard to the preferential tariff which I thought were hardly worthy of the hon. gentleman. He sought to put gentlemen on this side of the House in a dilemma with regard to the action of the preferential tariff. He said that if it had not done Great Britain any good, it could not have done Canada any harm. That was the substance of his remark.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say that.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what his argument meant if it meant anything. If it did not mean that, it meant nothing. Well, Sir, I should think that speaking to men who are supposed to have common sense at least, the Minister of Finance might have remembered that the preferential tariff might yield only a very inappreciable increase to the $1,400,000,000 of exports of Great Britain, and at the same time close up some Canadian industries. I would not suppose that a gentleman of the ability and the astuteness of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance would require to be reminded of that. Why, take just a very few millions, not worth considering in the average $1,400,000,000 of Great Britain's annual exports, and apply them to the product of the woollen and some other industries in Canada, and you might close every woollen mill in Canada without appreciably affecting the total output of Great Britain. Yet the Minister of Finance wants us to believe that because this has not resulted in any appreciable benefit, to the mother country, therefore it cannot do any harm to Canada. I repeat that an argument of that kind does not seem to me a legitimate one in the mouth of a gentleman of the standing and position of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance.
I do not need to reiterate what Conservatives have said in the past with regard to the policy of mutual trade preference within the empire. That is a policy which, if I am not mistaken, was first put forward by the Conservative party in Canada. We still believe that mutual preferential trade in the empire will be advantageous to all portions of the empire, and are prepared to adopt and carry out that policy, if called into power, having regard in the first place to the protection of our labour and of our agricultural, mining, manufacturing and other industries.
One feature of the present tariff we do strongly object to, and that is the feature under which German and Belgium goods are admitted to the benefit of our preferential tariff under the pretense that they are British goods. That such is the case we

know. That such is the case our manufacturers know. That such is the case is apparent from the very terms of the customs regulations which deal with that particular subject. Goods are manufactured in Germany and taken over to Great Britain, where a trifling value of work or material is added to them, and then they come into Canada as British goods entitled to the preferential tariff, while at the same time Germany is imposing on Canada her maximum tariff. And the Minister of Finance only woke up yesterday for the purpose of endeavouring to press upon the German government the injustice which is being done to Canada in this respect. When he goes to the German government, perhaps he will tell them that a considerable proportion of the goods brought into Canada under the so-called British preference are really German goods, to which have been added a small value of work or material in Great Britain, and which have been exported from Great Britain to Canada as British goods. Perhaps that would be as forcible a way of putting the position before the German authorities as my hon. friend could adopt. I venture to think that some greater precaution should be adopted by the government for the purpose of preventing German and Belgium goods coming into this country under the preferential clause.
I must apologize for having detained the House at so great length. X have very little to add. X say that in this country we want a declared fiscal policy. We have not had that during the past five years. We have had the Minister of Trade and Commerce telling us that the ship's head is pointed towards the open sea of free trade. We have had the Minister of! Finance telling us that all these matters are matters of compromise, and that eternal vigilance is the price of protection. We have had the Minister of the Interior in the west telling us that this tariff is a free trade or revenue tariff. We have had the Minister of Public Works openly and repeatedly telling the people that he is a protectionist, first, last and all the time. We have had him telling the people that there is a crisis because there is not sufficient protection, and we have had the Minister of Finance telling us at the same banquet that all these matters are matters of compromise, and the right hon. gentleman, who leads the House, telling us on the same occasion that the tariff is as nearly perfect as it can be. Half an hour afterwards the Minister of Public Works declared that he is a protectionist, and a fortnight or three weeks afterwards lie told the people that there is a crisis because wo have not sufficient protectiou. How can we expect men to put their money into the industries of the country with any confidence ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Are they not doing it ?


Robert Laird Borden: I believe that some of them are shrinking from doing it.
I tell the Minister of Finance that we do not want a cabinet of all the policies, but a cabinet of one national and Canadian policy. Criticism was made in England a good many years ago of a cabinet which was called the cabinet of all the talents; but to have a cabinet of all the policies is the greatest misfortune which any country under heaven can suffer from. We do not want any vague suggestions from the Minister of Finance about what will be done in the future. He tells us that this tariff will be readjusted some time in the future, and readjusted in all moderation-whatever that means. That is a splendidly indefinite statement with which to go to the people. We want to know what will be the policy of this government, as a government, with regard to the fiscal affairs of the country. We want that to be a declared policy so that the people will know what to expect. In asking that we are asking nothing unreasonable or unfair. We want a policy of protection vto our labour, agriculturing, manufacturing and other industries. We want a policy which will give to our people the advantage in their own market-a policy of Canada for the Canadians ; and Canada for the Canadians means not the less Canada for the empire as well. Because in seeking to promote the development, prosperity and advancement of Canada, we are but doing our duty to that portion of the empire which has been specially committed to our charge. And, lastly, we believe in a policy of mutual or reciprocal trade under which, while protecting Canadian interests, we shall give to and receive from the other portions of the empire preference over foreign goods. Therefore I beg to move :
That all the words after ' that ' in the proposed motion be left out and the following substituted therefor :
This House regarding the operation of the present tariff as unsatisfactory is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries, as will at all times secure the Canadian market for Canadians. And, while always firmly maintaining the necessity of such protection to Canadian interests, this House affirms its belief in a policy of reciprocal trade preferences within the empire.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: Mr. Speaker, it is very pleasant for me on all occasions to welcome old friends back. And, when I listened to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) and to the terms of the motion which he has placed in your hands, I had only to close my eyes, and five and twenty years rolled away, and his predecessor in that very seat was putting before the House precisely the same idea.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Let my hon. friends hear me out. I have said, Sir, that this was a very old friend. And, most assuredly, no more fitting time could be imagined for the introduction of our old friend to our notice than when the third census that has been taken in Canada since the promulgation of the national policy will give us, as I shall presently show, such an opportunity as we have never had before of seeing what that policy has done for Canada. Now, Sir, I am not going to wade through all the weary statistics that afllicted my hon. friend; I am not going to bother myself with the doctrine of averages as defined by himself or anybody else. There is better game afoot. However, in the first place, I would like to know from my hon. friend what are those ' official statistics,' forsooth, which induced him to dispute the assertion of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) who sits beside me that, in all human probability, the growth of Canada during the last five years had been equal to that during the fifteen years preceding. Perhaps my hon. friend would gratify my curiosity ?


Robert Laird Borden: The Year-book.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I am sorry for my hon. friend if that is all the authority he has to adduce. The Year-book may be a very valuable document. I will give a few illustrations of what the Year-book was worth a little while ago.
I remember that this same document-I thought that that was what my hon. friend referred to-estimated, in 1S87, that the population of Canada was 4,850,220. In 1888 the Year-book's estimation of the population of Canada was 4,940,407. In 1899, it had risen to 5,075,855. They suppressed 1890 and 1891, but I will carry out the calculation. On the same line of calculation, the Year-book would have given us a population of 5,210,000 for 1890, and 5,345,000 for 1891-just ten years ahead of time. These are the ' oflicial statistics ' that the hon. gentleman relied upon for the purpose of contradicting what, as I shall show presently, was a very well-reasoned hypothesis on the part of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding). There is another matter I would like to call to the attention of the House. I do not know whether the House noticed it, but I did, that, whenever the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden. Halifax) was able to point to anything showing the slightest induction in oui* ti*ade with Cleat Britain, his loyal followers cheered; and, when he was able to point to any increase in our trade with the United States, his loyal followers cheered more loudly. Let me give the hon. gentleman a few facts as to our trade with Great Britain. We need not follow those microscopic fluctations on which the hon. gentleman lays so much stress. A large trade will vary one or two points from year to year, no doubt. But what were the broad facts as to our trade with Great Britain ? In 1889, our trade with Great Britain was $43,277,000, on which we


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: collected a duty of $9,576,000. In 1897, the last year of the national policy, our trade with Great Britain had fallen to $29,401,000. In 1901, our trade with Great Britain was $42,819,000, on which we collected a duty of $7,845,000. What did our preference do for Great Britain ? In eight years, under the national policy, we had lost $14,000,0001 in the four years under our policy we had gained $14,000,000. And, whereas under the old tariff on imports of about forty-three and a quarter millions, we collected $9,576,000 of duty, under our tariff, on imports of almost forty-three' millions-bear in mind, the merest fraction of a difference-we collected $7,845,000 of duty, or about $1,700,000 less duty than was collected on a nearly similar amount of goods imported into Canada in 1889. Of course, there are fluctuations, we know that perfectly well. It has been stated recently-I think the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) told us the other night-that there had been a fluctuation amounting to several millions in the importation of cheese into Great Britain. Under these circumstances what did the present government do ? Did it sit down and wail ? Not a bit. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Fisher) at once held a conference with those who represented the great dairy interests of this country, and they are now-applying themselves, as men should do, not to give more protection for the dairy interests, but to enable them to help themselves over their difficulty and restore the cheese interest of Canada to the proud position it has hitherto held in the British market. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden) thought it a very absurd thing that the hon. Minister of Finance should intimate that the government had anything to do with the prosperity which, thank heaven, has blessed Canada during the past four years. That is a very new doctrine from those benches. When I sat here before and the hon. gentleman's predecessor sat there, was there a day, was there an hour, in which it was not thundered out, much more loudly than my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has done that a government did not deserve to exist for an hour-this was what was said by Sir Charles Tupper-unless it could bring prosperity to a country ?


Robert Laird Borden: What does the hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) sav about it ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: 
Robert Laird Borden: What did mv lion, friend say ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I said then, what I say now- that even the best government that ever existed, even a government like Mackenzie's, could not altogether avert a disaster which overspread the whole world, though it could greatly modify it; and that the position of Canada while Mackenzie was at the head of the administration, compared most favourably with the condition of the adjoining republic, the United States, as every man who examined the conditions of the United States from 1873 to 1879 knows right well. That, Sir, is what I told the hon. gentleman. Now, it is quite true that the best governments cannot always avert a calamity, but unfortunately the reverse is only too true, that a government can very easily bring about disaster to a country, as I shall presently show the government which we displaced was eminently successful in doing, from 1878 to 1896.
Now, Sir, the doctrine of averages is a great doctrine, the favourite doctrine, I remember, of my old friend Sir Leonard Tilley, and I cannot see that it has advanced much in the hands of his successor. But take a sample or two of the doctrine of averages, take the case of Holland. My hon. friend was great on the fact that we apparently discriminated against Great Britain, although I do not think he quite understobd the case. We will take the case of Holland, and I call his attention to it. From Holland we imported the last year $797,000 worth of goods, and we taxed these imports $1,350,000. Was not that a fearful discrimination, 170 per cent on the average of goods we imported from Holland ? Perhaps my hon. friend thinks that, being pro-Boers, it is all right to punish the Dutch. Or how does he explain that horrible discrimination against the unfortunate Hollanders 7 We imported less than $800,000 worth, and taxed it $1,350,000. Has my hon. friend any explanation to give ?


Robert Laird Borden: I should say it was gin.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: He is perfectly right, it was gin; and it shows the utter absurdity of applying this same doctrine of averages. Here one single article amounting to about one-fourth of the whole importation is so taxed that it brings the average up to 170 per cent. Yet the hon. gentleman thinks it is quite safe to apply the doctrine of averages as between Canada and Great Britain, and as between Canada and the United States. Now, I will give the hon. gentleman another illustration of the danger of relying on this doctrine of averages. We import from the United States this very moment a very large quantity of anthracite coal and a very large quantity of cotton wool. Suppose my hon. friend here in the exercise of his discretion was to place a duty of, let us 43
say live per cent, on those articles, and what would the result be ? Why, he would at once lower the average on the importations of American goods from twenty-five to twenty per cent. Would that be a proof that we discriminated in favour of the United States as against England ? And yet, Sir, under these conditions we would be importing goods from the United States on an average of twenty per cent as against twenty-five per cent charged against England.
Sir, the whole comparison that the hon. gentleman has made of the expenditure is vicious to a degree. I hoped better from the hon. gentleman. I hoped he would have had the candour, when he came to compare the expenditure of last year with that of half a dozen years ago, to point out that a very large proportion of our increased expenditure could not have occurred in the time of his predecessor, and that a very large proportion of our increased expenditure does not cost the people of Canada one cent. It has not cost one cent to the people of Canada collectively, of older Canada at any rate, that we spent a million and a half in the Yukon, because we get a million and a half and more out of the Yukon. It does not cost them one cent that we pay half a million more for sinking fund than we did in 1895. What comes out of one pocket goes into the other. If my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals asks us for six millions for the purpose of carrying on the work of the Intercolonial Railway, he brings back very nearly, though not quite, six millions to us in the increased receipts, without costing the people of Canada a penny beyond the small difference between receipts and expenditures. I beg the hon. gentleman to remember that that is quite as near to an equilibrium as the predecessors of the hon. gentleman ever got. Now, Sir, he allows nothing for that, he won't allow anything for sinking fund, he won't allow anything for expenditure on the Yukon, he won't allow anything for increased receipts from the railway, he won't allow anything for increased receipts from the post office. My hon. friend the Postmaster General, I believe, is spending about $300,000, in round numbers, more than was spent in 1895. But my hon. friend is getting back $500,000 more. The deficit is very considerably less now than the deficit was then ; and the people of Canada, Sir, have received, under my hon. friends administration, the advantage that they can send a letter for two cents from one end of the British empire to the other which used to cost them five cents, and they can send a letter from one end of the Dominion to the other for two cents which used to cost them three cents ; in other words, they are being charged very little more than one-half what they were charged a few years ago. The burden of the people has been lessened to the extent of one million dollars, but no credit is to be



given, of course, to this government for anything of that kind. Why, Sir, we will take this lion, gentleman's mode of calculating and computing the average expenditure. We will suppose, for illustration's sake, that the railways were earning twenty-five millions, and that my hon. friend was expending twenty million dollars upon them. Under these conditions, if we were to apply the line of argument used by the hon. gentleman, the people of Canada would be four dollars per head worse off than they were before ; the expenditure per head would be about fourteen dollars instead of ten dollars under those circumstances, and we would be, I suppose, just so much worse off if his way of reckoning our expenditure is to prevail.
Now, the hon. gentleman must needs mix and muddle up capital and ordinary expenditure. That is always indiscreet, that always leads to confusion. They must be judged by different canons and different principles, and he would have done far better to confine himself to the ordinary expenditure. Sir, I am willing to meet the hon. gentleman, I am always willing to meet these hon. gentlemen on their own ground. 1 will take a parallel case. He was appalled just now because my hon. friend spent $57,000,000 last year and was in danger of spending $65,000,000 for all purposes during the next year. Sir, I turn to the public records which I have under my hand and I find that in 1884 this hon. gentleman's predecessors found it necessary to expend $57,800,000 ; in 1885 they found it necessary to expend $49,163,000; in 1888-let the hon. gentleman mark it-they were obliged to spend $61,837,000. Sir, on what population ? The population of Canada in 1884-85-86 amounted roughly to about 4,450,000 to 4.500,000 souls. Now, Sir, if it be such a terrible thing for us to expend $57,000,000, or even $65,000,000, if, as this hon. gentleman declares, it is so terrible a thing that the gross total expenditure of Canada for all purposes, good, bad or indifferent, whether productive or unproductive, should range to a matter of $10 or $11 per head, what has he to say of the case of 18S4 when the average annual expenditure per capita amounted to $13.50, or of 1885, when the average annual ex-jjenditure per capita amounted to $11.18, or of 1886, when it amounted to $13.75 ? It is a poor rule that wont work both ways. I care little myself for this doctrine of averages, but if it pleases the hon. gentlemen to know what the averages are, why, I am always willing to oblige them. Sir, let us look at the broad facts of the case. We find that the broad facts of the case are these : In 1895, as be can see by looking at the public records, our total expenditure on consolidated account was $38,138,000. Our population, taking his own estimate, which I do not concur in for reasons I will give presently, was about five million. Now, in 1901 it is quite true that our expenditure Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
amounted to $46,866,000 ; but of that sum $5,000,000 represented cross entries, sums which we received with one hand and which we paid out with the other, sums for sinking fund, sums for post office, sums for Vukon Territory, sums recived from the railway and paid out again in wages on the railway.
Strike, as I have a right to strike, this $5,000,000 out, and then apply your per capita calculation. What is the result V Your 5,000,000 people in 1895 spent $38,138,000 representing an expenditure per head of $7.63, and your 5,370,000, deducting the $5,000,000 I have spoken of, as entries ou both sides of the account, expended $41,360,000, being a per capita amount of $7.70 as against $7.63. Well, Sir, seven cents per head are not to be sneezed at. We required three of those cents (with the full concurrence of hon. gentlemen opposite) to pay our extra indemnity last year. We required four cents of the balance, making up the seven cents, to meet the necessary expense incurred by my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) in collecting nearly double the revenue we had in 1895.	1 ask the hon. gentleman, does
he consider that the people of Canada are any poorer with the addition of this $5,000,060 for the purposes that I have enumerated, or, do any of the hon. gentleman's friends contend that it should be fairly counted as a part of the taxation to be reckoned against us, in stating as he did the fact that we spent $50,000,000 a year as against the $40,000,000 spent by our predecessors ? I have not the time, but I would like to go over the $3,000,000 of difference between the $46,000,000 and the $38,000,000, deducting the $5,000,000 that I have spoken of, and I think if the hon. gentleman or any of his friends, choose to go over that in detail they will see that for that additional sum that was expended by us during these five or six years the people have received very ample returns. A certain portion of that amount was expended for the benefit of the agricultural community and they have received, I venture to say, from ten to twenty fold in the increased value of their productions from the annual expenditure which was made for the purpose of promoting their interests under the administration of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher), Another considerable portion of that expenditure was for the purpose of promoting and increasing immigration to this country, one of the most desirable objects in a country like Canada for which we can possibly expend our money. Yet another part, with the full concurrence and approbation of these hon. gentlemen who are constantly pressing us, forsooth, to spend more money in that direction, was expended for the purpose of putting our militia on a more efficient footing. And so, I might go on through the whole of it. The hon. gentle-

man lias not chosen to do it. Possibly the hon. gentleman considered that as neither he nor his friends ventured to oppose these expenditures on the floor of the House, they could not with much decency criticise them on the present occasion.
As to the capital expenditure, that, I say, is entirely on another footing. It must be judged by itself because it may be productive, or it may be unproductive. If it be not productive it is the hon. gentleman's duty, and it is the duty of his friends behind him, to criticise any proposition we make and I invite him most cordially to do so. It is all very well to say that because we have added a few million dollars to the public debt we are open to criticism. It is for the hon. gentleman to show that this expenditure will not be profitable. An addition of $20,000,000 or $30,000,000 may be a most useful and productive outlay, while, on the other hand, an addition of half a million to the public debt may be most useless and mischievous. You must judge each case on its individual merits. We are all prepared, and the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) is prepared, to challenge the sharpest criticism as to any amounts we have added to the public debt for the purpose of public improvements, and here I may add as to the remainder, it is well known that a very considerable portion of the addition to the public _ debt was incurred by the gift we made to England to help her in her South African difficulty. I must say that I did hope for better things from the hon. leader of the opposition who is a lawyer and a lawyer of repute. I thought that he would have embraced this opportunity to make something like a discriminating review of these expenditures. I expected that making due allowance for the circumstances I have referred to, that recognizing the facts I have stated, that admitting that it was not fair to charge us with those large sums which came into one pocket as fast as they went out of the other, that admitting what he has not alluded to in the slightest degree that within the last four years there has been a marked increase in the cost of living and a marked increase in the rates of wages all through the Dominion necessarily involving a large increase in the cost of carrying on public-works, that allowing that there is an increase of population under our regime to be accounted for, and that this was a growing time in a period of great expansion, if then he had any criticism to make, If he thought there had been improvidence and extravagance my hon. friend might have done a great service to this country by pointing it out. I, myself, desire to say that I think the time has come when we should proceed more cautiously, when we must consider very carefully what further large expenditures we commit ourselves to, and I think that in that respect 43}
the opposition, if they choose to do their duty, may be of considerable use to us. The hon. gentleman talks very lightly and rather flippantly, I think of the progress of Cau-dian trade. I do not take quite the same view as the hon. gentleman does. I do not regard it as being a matter of indifference that our Canadian imports and Canadian exports should expand in a ratio hitherto unknown in this country. I have here a rather interesting table showing the total trade of Canada, our imports and exports, as compared with the trade of Australasia, the trade of the United States, the trade of Great Britain, the trade of Belgium, the trade of France and the trade of Germany.
I will give the House a few extracts from that which are worth considering. Our total imports, per capita, in 1890 amounted to about $24. In 1895 they were $22, per capita, and in 1900 they had risen to $30. '


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The hon. gentleman dislikes to hear that Canada's imports have increased. I differ from him. I take issue with him and with all those other hon. gentlemen. I am glad to see Canada's imports increase, and I am glad to see Canada's exports increase. I think, if he does not, that if we wish to sell we must also buy. In 1890 our exports amounted to $19 per capita, in 1895 they had risen to $22, while in 1900 they had risen to $36, or nearly double within the period of ten years, and they have largely increased within the period of four years that I have alluded to. How does this compare with the trade of the other countries which I have mentioned during corresponding periods ? In Australasia imports remained stationary and exports increased at a vastly less ratio than ours. Ours rose from $19 to $36, while theirs rose from $45 to $59 per capita. In the case of the United States I find that they began in 1890 with $13 per capita, that in 1895 they had sunk to about $12, and that in 1900 the per capita exports of the United States had risen to $19. That is to say that they were just exactly in the position which we held ourselves ten years ago, and at this present moment have very little more than half per head in their export trade of that of Canada.
I take the total volume of trade. In 1890 it amounted to $44 per head; in 1895 it amounted to the same; in 1900 it had risen to $71 per head. And, how does this compare with our neighbours to the south ? In 1890 it was $26 per head in the United States; in 1895 it was $23 per head in the United States, and in 1890 their total volume of trade amounted to $29 per head; very little more than one-third per head as much as the people of Canada. I have not time to go through all these figures, hut I will give the House the general result. Of all these countries-and several of them, as you

know, are in the very van of progress in all ways-of Australia, the United States, Great Britain, Belgium, France, and Germany, Canada has increased at all points; increased in her imports, increased in her exports, increased in her total volume of trade, in a far greater ratio than the best of the others-not by any means excepting Great Britain.
Our volume of trade compares with Great Britain, as follows : In 1890 we had $41 per head; in 1890 Great Britain had $97 per head. In 1900, we had $71 per head; we had increased in the ratio of about 60 per cent; and Great Britain had $104 per head, having increased in the ratio of about 7 per cent. I commend these figures to my hon. friends opposite. They ought to do them good, but I am afraid they won't so long as they continue in their hide-bound state of adherence to their medieval ideas of trade and commerce.
Now, Sir, this tariff-making which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is engaged in is no doubt a very interesting problem. Perhaps he will pardon me for giving him a few hints. I am an older man than he is; I have a little more experience in the trade. I think I can give him a few hints even in the art of making a tariff to suit a protective community. Would it surprise my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) very much to know that it would be a very easy matter indeed to make a tariff which should be at once and the same time a most highly protective tariff and yet under which the average duty on all imports would be very low indeed ? Would it surprise him to hear that ? Would he like to know how it is done-it may be useful to him ? Would it surprise him to know that it would be equally easy to double, to treble, and to quadruple the actual taxation of the people of the country and at the same time to reduce their nominal taxation to one-half or one-tliird of what it now' is ? Would it surprise him to know that ? Would it surprise him very much to know that it would be an easy matter-and he is on the high road to it- to frame a tariff under which the people of Canada should be taxed $60,000,000 a year, and under which $20,000,000 would go into the treasury and $40,000,000 would go into the pockets of a few favoured interests, from whom in good time a campaign fund might be levied as in the old days to keep the hon. gentlemen opposite in power ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) does not know that, I will be very pleased to give him a few lessons in these three matters at any time he likes. Here you have the protective practice and the protective theory in a nutshell. What I have suggested is not a mere matter of academic possibility, but it is what is being done to-day in the United States, which the Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
hon. gentleman has been holding up to us during the latter part of his speech as such a model of political economy. I have very great respect for the memory of the late Mr. McKinley. 7 had the pleasure of making his acquaintance, and I very greatly honour Mr. McKinley in many respects; but he was not the sort of person whom I would advise a Canadian legislator to look up to as a model of all that was wise and prudent and successful in economic questions. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is disposed to follow Mr. McKinley. I have no objection. It is not the first time that we have found these gentlemen hiding a very strong appreciation of American political methods and of American political designs under the guise of an earnest desire to keep up British connection.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Now, Sir, while I am on this subject, I would like to say a word to our manufacturing friends. I understand that many of them are pleased to regard me as their particular enemy. Well, Sir, I have no desire to quarrel with the manufacturers of Canada. I desire to do justice to them as I desire to do justice to all classes of my fellow-countrymen. But, I would like to say a few words to these gentlemen. Sir John Macdonald was in the habit very frequently of calling attention to a certain epitaph which he said he had seen in a grave yard, to the effect:
I was well, I would be better, here I am.
Now, Sir, I would advise our manufacturing friends to lay this to heart.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I say that this government has treated them with the greatest consideration. I say that this government used all possible care to see that their interests-not alone, mind you, but in common with the interests of the rest of the people-were safeguarded in the preparation of our present tariff. And in any alterations that may be made in the tariff, whatever line they may be pleased to take, I for one shall never advise that injustice be done to the manufacturers or done to anybody. But, I have to say to them, that they have had most uncommonly good fortune and most uncommonly good times. If they have used these well they ought to be most admirably prepared to-day to meet any reverses which may happen to overtake them, as reverses may overtake them, as reverses may overtake all classes of the community. I hope they have used their opportunities well. But, I do not believe that the way to really advance their interests is to impose higher taxes for their benefit on the rest of the community. If we are to have protection, I have this to say to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax). 1 may tell him that we will see that that

protection shall be thorough. We do not want any more of the jug-handled, one-sided kind of protection which prevailed under the late administration. There are other classes to be heard. I have the honour to represent one of the richest, wealthiest, and most independent agricultural communities in the province of Ontario, and 1 can tell the hon. gentleman that the farmers of Ontario-and the farmers, 1 think, of Canada at large-are not disposed, if this protective question is to come to the front again, any more to be content with the sort of sham protection that was awarded to them before.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Sir, you cannot protect the farmers of Canada or of the North-west. You cannot protect men who raise a vast deal more of food products than they can possibly dispose of in the home market; and the price of whose farm products is fixed for them in England and in London. You cannot protect them by any paltry fence of a tariff that you may put up against importations of food from the United States. There is but one way in which the farmer, if you are going to have protection, can have a share in it. Again, I make a present to the hon. gentleman-as he appears to be desirous to protect all interests-of the way in which it ought to be done and can be done. That way is simple enough. You cannot protect the farmer, as I say, by putting up a higher tariff fence, but you can protect the farmer, if you like, by giving him a bounty on all that he raises. If you are going to have protection let it be thorough; let the farmer have protection on every bushel of grain he raises; let him have protection on every pound of bacon, every j)ound of butter, every pound of cheese, every horse, every cow, every hog, that he brings to maturity. Has he not the right V Has he not as good a right as the manufacturer, the fisherman, the lumberman, the miner ? Are not the farmers men on whose prosperity the prosperity of all of us depends-the prosperity of the manufacturer, the prosperity of the professional man, the prosperity of all classes in Canada ? And, therefore, I say, that if we are to have protection, by all manner of means let it be thorough, and let us begin, and let the hon. gentleman begin, by introducing a proper scale of protection for our farmers in the only way it can be given, namely, by giving a cash bounty down on the nail to our farmers for all they may be pleased to produce.
I admit that it will cost a trifle. Our farmers are not greedy. They do not want 35 per cent, they do not want 40 per cent, or 50 per cent or 60 per cent ; they will be content with a very moderate rate. But, Sir, what would a moderate rate amount to ? Well I made a calculation. Say, for instance, ten cents a bushel on all the grain they raise, one cent a pound on all their
butter, all their cheese and all their pork, $10 for each decent horse, $5 for each decent cow. It would cost a trifle-$40,000,000 or $50,000,000 ; but what is that by the side of a great principle for the benefit of the whole community, such as my hon. friend advocates ? My hon. friend sitting opposite me sees that the farmers have to be considered in this matter ; and if it be so extraordinarily advantageous, by protection, to increase the manufacturing population a few thousands, what would it be if we were to add several hundreds of thousands to the farming population by a moderate system of bounties, amounting to 10 per cent only, such as I suggest to my hon. friend ?
Sir, this puts me in mind of a little story, I do not tell many stories, and therefore I may be pardoned on this occasion. It so happened that once upon a time I was present with a distinguished member of this House, who I am afraid at this moment is slightly backsliding towards protection-no less a person than my distinguished friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). Now, my distinguished friend is a devout man. We know it because he has told us so more than once ; and, like other devout men, he had seen a vision. We were present at a certain agricultural gathering. My hon. friend narrated his vision. Like Dante, he had visited the nether regions. He had travelled through the various circles, including that circle to which faithless friends, according to Dante, are committed. At last he came to a very large and very extensive room, where he saw a number of persons suspended in a very curious attitude, closely resembling flitches of bacon prepared for market. My hon. friend addressed his sable guide, and inquired what on earth they were doing with these people overhead. The black gentleman informed him that these were the souls of farmers who in their lifetime had believed in protection, but, being found too green to burn, they were hung up to dry until they could be made lit for fuel. Now, I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet; but I warn our manufacturing friends that it would not be a very difficult business- because the tempers which once influenced the patrons of industry is not dead in Ontario-in a campaign of a few months to unite the farmers of Ontario, and I suspect the farmers of some other provinces, in a demand to be given their share of protection, if protection is to be the law of Canada ; and they are wide awake enough to know that the way I suggest is the only way in which the farmers of Canada will ever obtain any fair share of protection.
Now, Sir, I have another matter to bring before this House. As I stated at the commencement of my remarks, I was very much pleased-more pleased than I can express- that this question was being brought up at the time when the records of the third census of Canada were being laid before us.

No more fitting time could be selected for investigating tbe policy under which the government of Canada has been carried on during the major part of the 24 years that have elapsed since Mr. Mackenzie was defeated. My hon. friend beside me had very great cause indeed, as I thought, to congratulate the people of Canada on the immense accession of material wealth in various ways which had marked our progress during the last four years. But, Sir, there is one thing which is more important to Canada than even an increase of wealth, and that is an increase of the number of intelligent, industrious, active and vigorous people residing in Canada. That is the true wealth of a nation. That is what I desire to see grow and increase very much more than I do savings bank deposits of the volume of trade and commerce. I beg to say to hon. gentlemen opposite. particularly to the hon. leader of the opposition, that X adhere at all points to the statement made by me, not once only, but many times in this House, that the best test of the growth of any nation, more especially any young nation like Canada, with boundless areas of fertile land untouched. lies in this, whether in such a country you find the people of the land willing to stay in it. and the strangers who come induced to remain. That is the true test, not only of the growth of the country, but of the way in which it is administered. By that test I am ready to be judged, and that test I am about to apply. I can tell the hon. gentleman that the estimate which he appeared inclined to dispute, the estimate which I made of the natural increase that might be expected in a country like Canada unless violently disturbed, is perfectly correct; and the record of our census and that of the census of the United States go very far to establish it, if they do not establish it completely.
I say that the record of the last twenty years-because in order to do justice to this matter we must go back not merely to 3801 but to 1881-is a most singular record. Prima facie that record shows the grossest misgovernment on the part of those who were entrusted with the destinies of Canada during the greater part of that period. If the opposition be correct in what they appear disposed to contend, if they are right in the statement that after four years of unexampled prosperity, after adding nearly 100 per cent to the total volume of our trade and commerce, the exodus is still going on unchecked, if our growth has been as slow since 1895 as it was before that time, then I should say that the outlook for Canada was gloomy indeed. But if analysis proves the direct reverse-if I am able to show, as I think I shall be able to show, that the plague has stopped, that the current has been reversed, that our own people are remaining in Canada and that strangers are crowding in, notably from the Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
United States, then there is a good hope for Canada, for a better era is dawning on this country.
Now, I cannot doubt that, as loyal Canadians, hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly the hon. leader of the opposition, will be very pleased to hear me say that I have good ground for stating that after a careful analysis of these two censuses, I believe first of all, the increase during the last decade is double the increase which took place during the decade from 1881 to 1891, and next, that the increase during the last five years, from 1896 to 1901, in all human probability equals the total increase of the preceding 15 years from 1881 to 1896. Sir, these are not statements to be made lightly by a man in my position, and I do not make them lightly.
I shall be prepared before I sit down, even at the cost of wearying my bon. friends' patience, to give chapter and verse for these rather remarkable statements. I shall be prepared to show that the error which has led to the statements which have been circulated has been caused by very gross frauds in the census of 1891 ; that the returns for 1891 were purposely and deliberately for political purposes swelled unduly : and that in consequence the apparent rate of increase from 1891 to 1901 was very materially reduced. I challenge the keenest criticism on this point. If I make good the statements to which I now pledge myself, if I am able to show that the increase during the last decade was double the increase which took place between 1881 and 1891, and that the increase during the last five years in all probability is fully equal to the increase that took place during the preceding fifteen years, then I say that is a most pregnant fact, and while it is the best augury for the future, it sheds a most lurid light on the manner in which the administration of Canada was carried on from 1878 to 1896.
Sir, I say that the passage in the Address to which the hon. gentleman referred is true in all particulars and true to the letter. But first I would desire to contradict a slanderous statement which has crept into the public press, and concerning which I believe that those who circulated it did not fully comprehend what they were about. I refer to the statement which endeavours to put the blame for the small increase in the population of Canada on the shoulders of the ladies of Canada. I stand here to refute that slander and to say that the ladies of Canada, now as ever, haVe done their duty faithfully to their country. And if our numbers are less than we think they should be, it is no fault of theirs. If the men will go away what are the poor women to do 7 It is not through any fault of theirs that the rate of increase has not been so great as we would have desired. Of course we know that evil communications corrupt good manners, and it may be that here and there, certain Yankee practices have crept in ; but

I deny that such practices have affected in the slightest degree, the great majority. They are prepared to do their duty by their country now and ever as they have always done. One thing more, I am breaking no state secret when I say that long ago I foresaw just this controversy which has occurred, and I was very desirous, when I came into office-knowing thatgross frauds had been committed in 1891 in taking the census-to establish a fair point of departure, so that we might have absolute legal proof of where Canada had arrived in 1896. There was a good deal to say against taking a census then. No doubt such a measure was a contentious one and would have been violently opposed by the other side. Our finances were not very flourishing in 1896, and I am far from saying that those who opposed the idea had not a great deal to say for themselves. But 1 regret that we did not take a census in 1896 and obtain legal, absolute proof of what our population was at that time. I think, however, I will be able to lay before this House such ample circumstantial evidence as will fully bear out the statement I have just made.
I propose to deal with the exodus in several aspects. First, as regards its extent, which has been greatly underrated, or at least not sufficiently appreciated, by the people of Canada. I propose to deal with it also with respect to the quality of the exodus, which I consider to have been, in every sense and shape, a double loss to Canada. The people we lost and sent to the United States were emphatically the very flower of our population. They were to a most unusual extent, composed of young men and women in the very best of their youth, and the only consolation I have ever been able to find has been that wherever I have gone through the United States, from one end to the other, always and everywhere, I have found Canadians doing well, occupying places of trust and emolument, and in many cases places of the very highest position. I doubt whether any equal number of the people of the United States-any equal number, whether they be native or foreign born-could show to-day so many persons well and highly placed ns the Canadian immigration to the United States. Look to the United States Senate and you will find Canadians there. Look to the United States judiciary and you will And them on the bench. Look at the very front rank of American inventors, who can surpass Edison, a Canadian boy. Look at the front rank of railway magnates, and there you will find Canadians. Everywhere you will find them, and if the very best of our people have gone to the United States, that only makes the loss to us the more severe, and how severe I shall presently proceed to show.
Our people hardly appreciate the immense extent of the loss which we sustained from
1880 to 1891. In 1880, according to the census returns of the United States, there were
717.000	Canadians in that country. In 1890 that number had increased to 080,000 ; in 1900 it amounted to 1,181,000. You will remember that in order to keep up the number of those who were found in the United States at any one of these given periods, a very much larger number than the difference between those found in 1890 and those found in 1880 must have emigrated to the United States. You cannot possibly put the death rate at less than 2 per cent per annum bearing in mind the very large number who had been in the United States a long period. If you bear that in mind, you find that Canada lost from 1880 to 1890 not less than 433,000 souls altogether, and hom 1800 to 1900 Canada lost certainly not less than 417,000 souls. In other words, in the two decades, beginning in 1880 and terminating in 1900, the total loss to Canada-the absolute and ascertained loss-was not less than 850,000 souls ; and bearing in mind that a most unusually large number of these people were men and women in the very flower of their youth, you must in all conscience, add to these the children who would naturally have been born to them had they remained in Canada, if you wish to form an estimate of the total loss to Canada duriug those years. Putting all those together, is it possible to believe that we lost less than
1.400.000	people who, ought to have been in Canada between 1880 and 1901.
I have stated that this was a most miserable exhibit. I am aware that hon. gentlemen opposite have not paid very much attention to this rather unwelcome subject, and I doubt if they have ever taken the trouble to consider how other countries similarly circumstanced to ours have fared during the same period of twenty years. We, from 1880 to 1901, have barely added one million to our population. We began with 4,324,000. and we have increased to 5,370,000. What was the record in the United States during the last twenty years 1 Beginning with a population of 50,155,000, they rose to 62,000,000 in 1890, and advanced to 76,000,000 in 1900. The United States gained 26,000,000 in these twenty years, against Canada's 1,000,000. We gained at the rate of about 25 per cent- not quite that-in a period of twenty years, and the United States gained at the rate of 52 per cent. But I will take an illustration that is better than that. Take the United States at a time when they had no immigrants to fall back on, when the United States were left to their own resources, when locomotion was slow, when every yard of territory had to be gained at the point of the rifle, from 1790 to 1810, when the population of the United States was very considerably less than the population of Canada in 1880. How stands the record then ? In 1790, the United States had a population of 3,929,000 ; in 1810, the

population had risen to 7,239,000. They had gained 3,310,000 on a population of less than 4,000,000; while we with the large addition from the immigrants who came to us, had gained a bare 1,000,000 in a like period starting with a population of about 4,300,000. Am I not justified in saying that this is a most miserable exhibit ? Or, I will take the states adjoining our Northwest. Take the states of Dakota and Minnesota. In 1880, Dakota had a population of 135,000; in 1900, the population had risen to 720,000. Minnesota, in 1880, had a population of 780,000, and in 1900, the population had risen to 1,750,000. Why, in Dakota and Minnesota alone, in these twenty years, the growth of population was 1,500,000, starting as they did with a population of less than a million. Some of these hon. gentlemen opposite are fond of talking of national humiliation, because, forsooth, we buy more from the United States than we sell to the United States. But I have not heard them tell us what grievous national humiliation it is that England buys from us a great deal more than England sells to us. How it can be a disgrace to us to buy more from the United States than we sell to them, and not a disgrace for England to buy more from us than she sells to us, I do not see. But I say that this is the true national humiliation, that, under the circumstances I have stated, with boundless territories almost unexplored, with room fori fifty millions of people-I well believe, for a hundred million-we are unable, after twenty years, to point to an increase of more than one million, while the United States, under far more disadvantageous circumstances, were able to show an increase of 3,300,000. I say that this is a national disgrace, and speaks in trumpet tones of the gross mis-government and mismanagement of those who were charged with the government of the country during the greater part of that time.	.
I have said that I have very grave ground to distrust the census of 1891. One of my grounds was the conduct of the government of that day when the accuracy of that census was challenged. Unfortunately, there are but few here who had seats in parliament in 1891. But those hon. gentlemen who were then in the House will remember, when my hon. friend the present Minister of Militia (Hon. Mr. Borden) rising in his place, brought forward most incontrovertible evidence that gross frauds had been committed in one subdivision at least in his own province, how his statements were received. If the government had been honest men, they would have ordered a rigorous investigation. Or. at least and at lowest, they would have abstained from throwing every obstacle in their power in the way of the investigation that my hon. friend desired. They would give us no satisfaction, no opportunity to


Richard John Cartwright: extend the scope of our investigation. But enough was done by my hon. friend on that occasion to show clearly and distinctly, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that, in the case he gave there had been very gross and deliberate stuffing of the lists on the part of the census enumerator. That was one ground for distrust. Another and even graver ground is to be found in the conduct of the enumerators employed. There were two objects which the census enumerators of that day had in mind. They were extremely desirous of making it appear that the national policy was a success. They were extremely desirous of swelling the number of the people. As it happens, we are in possession of very perfect evidence as to the means they adopted for the purposes of glorifying the national policy. Hon. members who were in the House at that time will remember how astonished they were to find that the national policy had called into existence twenty-five thousand new industries in the space of ten years. And we were still more astonished when we got hold of vol.
' C,' the third volume of the census of 1891, and Wlien it dawned on our astonished mind what sort of means the Conservative enumerator on the warpath is ready to use for ad majorem Dei gloriam his own emolument and the renown of the national policy. I have hei-e some choice samples, very choice samples, of the way in which these gentlemen made something out of nothing and created five and twenty thousand new industries to order. I find that, in 1881, Canada had eleven carpet factories. But I find that in 1891, Canada boasted 557 carpet factories. Of these, Sir, seventy were located in the good county of Antigonish. And a curious fact it is, which I have not been able quite to understand, that it is on record that these seventy factories employed sixty-nine hands. There was one man ; sixty-four old women ; one boy, and three girls. I am inclined to believe that the man, owing to the wonderful effects of the national policy, must have become ambidexterous and so expert that he could run two factories, one with each hand. I find on further examination-I am quoting, remember, from the census record, that invaluable volume ' O ' which I desire my friends to cherish and prize-that the machinery required to run these seventy carpet factories was valued at $1,089, being an average of $15-nearly- apiece. I find that these seventy factories paid wages to the amount of $4,539, being, roughly, I think about $60 or $65 per annum, or about $1.15 a week-approximately 20 cents per day. Sir, I proceeded in my investigations, and I found that they had done nearly as well in knitting factories by the county of Shelburne, as they had done in carpet factories by the county of Antigonish. Shelburne boasted of ninety-three knitting factories. These ninety-three

knitting factories employed, I think, ninety-three hands, but I am not quite sure. At any rate, they had invested $623 in machinery, being at the rate of $6.50 per knitting factory in Shelburne. They possessed $1,500 working capital among them, being at the rate of $15 per factory. They paid in wages $1,833, being at the rate, roughly, of about $18 a year, which subdivided gave, if I remember right, about 4J cents per day.
Not to do any wrong to the neighbouring provinces, I find that in the matter of basket factories Quebec was greatly favoured. Huntingdon possessed forty basket factories, employing forty-five hands. The value of the land, of the land, Sir, on which these forty-five basket factories stood, is given by the enumerator, I think, at $690 collectively, amounting to $17 each for the value of the land. The buildings are put at $1,800 collectively, amounting to $45 per building, $62 in all. Subsequent inquiries have led me to believe they were probably wigwams, constructed of bark. Their total wages, amounting to $1,970, being $47 a year, was ninety cents a week, or say fifteen cents per day.
New Brunswick, Sir, was rich, not in baskets but in carpet factories. New Brunswick had fifty-one factories employing fifty-one hands. These fifty-one hands required $707 worth of machinery to keep them going, and they earned wages at the rate of ten cents per day. Sir, we made a pretty careful investigation. We took Port Hope. Port Hope, I believe, had 147 industrial establishments, 120 of them employed 200 hands, one man or one woman as the case might be, and about half a boy or half a girl at each factory. And so on, and so on, and so on, until, before we had threshed the thing out, it became tolerably apparent that these census enumerators had succeeded in discovering 25,000 new industrial establishments out of what an ordinary mortal would have considered about 500. Why, Sir, such was the zeal of these worthy men that it is on record that rather than omit anything they included among industrial establishments certain institutions which I believe the great and good Saint Augustin has described as necessary evils, but which, until they fell in the way of the Conservative census enumerator, no one, past or present, sacred or profane, ever yet described as an industrial institution.
Now, Mr. Speaker, X call attention to these matters for a definite purpose. Here you will see very clearly what was the animus that actuated the men who were intrusted with the task of compiling the census tables in 1891. *If they were capable, in a case where detection was almost certain, of perpetrating the gross and impudent frauds I have just narrated, think you, they would hesitate to add here and there a name to the members of the family where detection
was almost impossible, particularly under our de jure system ?
Now, Sir, X come to the Ontario returns for 1901. If these returns are correct, and if the returns for 1891 are correct, certain amazing results mak6 themselves apparent. Sir, I knew Ontario from 1881 to 1891 as few men knew it. I had travelled Ontario a dozen times from end to end during those ten years ; I had addressed hundreds of thousands of my fellow countrymen during that interval.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: It had a very bad effect.
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COIM-MERCE. I do not think, if Sir John A. Macdonald was alive, he would say that the results in 1891 were beneficial to his party. Sir, I made it a special subject of inquiry, I spoke of it in my place in parliament, I inquired constantly in every possible place where I had any opportunity of obtaining information as to the exodus which was going on in Ontario from 1881 to 1891, and I obtained all sorts of evidence that the exodus was unparalleled, and everybody who knows Ontario knows that during that decade we lost an almost unprecedented number of our people. Sir, if, as I say, the census we have now got is correct, and if the census of 1891 is correct, this very remarkable result follows, that the growth of Ontario from 1881 to 1891 was three times as great as the growth of Ontario from 1891 to 1901, although the latter period includes four years of remarkable prosperity, to the people of Ontario at any rate. It follows also that the growth of Ontario from 1891 to 1901 was scarcely one-fourth part of the growth of England during the last decade. This other very remarkable result follows :	We find
that in Ontario, between 1881 and 1891, the number of families increased from 366,000 to 414,000. There was an increase of
48,000	families, and an increase in population of 191,000. In this second decade from 1891 to 1901, there was an increase of 40, 367 families, and a total growth of population of only 68,000, as against 191,000 in the previous decade. There is another remarkable fact that I have to bring forward. Putting out of count the new districts, the unorganized districts in which a great part of the increase occurred, as everybody knows, it is a remarkable circumstance that the municipal census of Ontario shows that, less Nipissing, less Muskoka, less Parry Sound and less Algoma, there was a growth of about 70,000 between 1891 and 1901, while, according to the government census, there is only an increase of 16,000. Now, Sir, what is the deduction to be drawn from that ? The deduction is unanswerable, the deduction is clear, that there were a very considerable number of persons in Ontario in 1901 more than there were in 1891, and that one of two things has occurred, either the census of Ontario has been unduly di-

minished in 1901 by the error of our enumerators, or the census of Ontario was most unduly swollen in 1891 by the gross frauds of Conservative enumerators. I recommend hon. gentlemen to wait a little before they dispute that matter.
Now, there were a great many people, like myself, who thought that it was a very remarkable circumstance indeed that with this increase of 40,000 families in the province of Ontario there should only be an apparent increase of 68,000 people. It was supposed and alleged by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, it was supposed and alleged by their press, it was supposed and alleged, by their supporters, that the number of people in Ontario had been largely underestimated and they selected the city of Toronto as a proof that the number of people in Toronto had been greatly under the mark in the enumeration. Well, Sir, they made an enumeration and they produced an apparent swplus of something like 13,000 over the number recorded by our enumerators. We caused an examination to be made into this matter. I have here the report, which I am going to lay on the Table of the House, of Mr. Carlyle, to whom was entrusted the duty of looking into this matter. Mr. Carlyle reported to my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture that after a careful examination


Samuel Hughes: Who is Mr. Carlyle 7


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Sir. Carlyle is the gentleman who [DOT] was entrusted by my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture with the duty of taking the census in Toronto.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: He is ex-Ald. Carlyle.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I am going to give the House the benefit of Mr. Carlyle's figures, and it bears very remarkably on the assertion that the census taken, as far as our enumerators were concerned, was incorrect. The police commissioners took a census which showed a population of about 13,000 more than the census did, but when we came to examine the details of the police commissioners' census, we found that 4,000 students in the schools and colleges had been included, naturally enough, in the police census, who had not been included by our enumerators, because they had been reckoned elsewhere. We found that several thousand visitors from the country were at various hotels and had been included by the police commissioners' enumerators, who had not been included by our enumerators, that a considerable number of domestic servants had been counted by the police commissioners who had not been counted by our enumerators, and when you add to that the natural growth of Toronto during the seven months between the time of the taking of our census in April and the taking of the police Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
commissioners' census, which would account for about 3,000, or 4,000, you get a remarkable confirmation of the accuracy of the enumeration made under the control of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture. It is well known, Sir, that whereas Toronto remained as to population stationary during a period of five or six years from 1891 to 1897, after 1897, Toronto, I am happy to say, regained its former growth and on the average has been increasing at the rate of
6,000	or 7,000 a year. I place this on the Table for the information of hon. gentlemen.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Might I draw the bon. gentleman's attention to the fact that all this mass of figures will hardly be admitted to ' Hansard ' unless he reads the report 7


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Well, I have read all the figures that are pertinent, and I hand the report over and place it on the Table for the information of hon. gentlemen. I am afraid that if the hon. gentleman insisted on my reading all the figures I have here, I would be obliged to keep this House in session for a most unusual length of time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman will permit me, I notice that this is a typewritten copy of the report, and of course it would be contrary to the usual rule to put it on ' Hansard ' unless he reads it 7


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Has the hon. gentleman any wish to have it 7


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that he would lay it on the Table so that it might appear in ' Hansard.'


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: No, not in ' Hansard,' but simply that the hon. gentleman might have access to it. Now, I desire to say that personally I would very greatly prefer to be able to believe that the miscount which I think has clearly taken place in Ontario was due to an under enumeration. It would be very much to the interest of myself and to the interest of the government, as it would relieve us of a very great deal of trouble and perplexity if we were able to say that the number credited to Ontario was greatly less than rightly belonged to it. I would desire that the enumeration might prove to be faulty, but the evidence we have been able to obtain and the examination we have been able to make go to show that our enumerators did their duty properly and that if any error has occurred, and error there undoubtedly has been, it to a very large extent arose from the miscount which took place in 1891. Now, Sir, I would like to call the attention of the House to the position in which the census enumerators found themselves in 1891. A general election had just taken place. The question of the exodus had been a burning issue and the public mind was

much excited on the question of the exodus. These persons who were employed as enumerators knew right well that the government of that day, their friends, were tottering to their fall, that Sir John Macdonald's days were numbered, that the result of the investigation then being prosecuted at the instance of my bon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) would not fail to disclose facts extremely damaging to the Conservative administration and they knew perfectly well that if they were to give it out that the population of Ontario had been reduced between 1881 and 1891 to such an extent that the province was likely to lose several seats, the result could not fail to be most disastrous to the Conservative party. They were under the strongest motives to falsify the census, and they had shown what manner of men they were by the figures that they returned in respect to the enumeration of industries recently laid before you. But, I have to say to hon. gentlemen, if they do not think this is a sufficient reason it does not affect my main argument at all. Sir, if there has been a large increase in the population of Ontario, it equally proves my position that the increase between 1891 and 1901 has been very much greater than the increase from 1881 to 1891. Take it whichever way you please, it will not affect my main argument. If we diminished the population, we diminished it, Sir, to our own great injury. We certainly could not have desired to diminish the number of people in Ontario, or anywhere else, whereas the enumerators, as I have shown, who were employed by the Conservative government, had the strongest possible motives in the spring of 1891 to falsify the record and prevent the iniquities of their friends being brought to the knowledge of the people. It is, I see, just five minutes to six o'clock, and as I have a good deal more to say on this subject and cannot possibly conclude by that time, I will ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


The MINISTER OP TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose I had been pointing out the extraordinary discrepancies which had oceured between the census returns for 1901 and the census returns of 1891, for the province of Ontario. I think that both sides of the House will probably agree with me in this: That when you find that the municipal census of Ontario in the organized districts shows some 70,000, or nearly 70,000 more population than the government census does, and when you find that an addition of 40,000 families has resulted in the addition of barely 68,000 to the population of Ontario
in ten years; I think that both sides of the House will agree thus far in believing that a prima facie case has been made out that there has been a gross error in either the census of 1891 or the census of 1901. So far I shall probably get the assent even of hon. gentlemen on the other side. As to whether that error occurred through the default of the enumerators of 1891 or the default of the enumerators of 1901 may be a question. For myself, while I entertain no doubt of the main fact, that is to say, of the discrepancy which exists between the two censuses of 1891 and 1901 in Ontario, and while I think that the presumption is very strong indeed that the error arose on the part of the enumerators in 1891; I am quite willing to admit that that is a fair subject for argument.
I have a few points to bring before the House in that connection before I proceed to the other divisions of Canada. It came to my knowledge between 1881 and 1891 that the exodus from Ontario had been enormous. I will give the House three cases all within my own personal knowledge which goes to show how very wide-spread that exodus was. In 1887 or 1888, I made inquiries from the editor of a newspaper which had a considerable circulation in western Ontario, and that gentleman informed me that in the three or four years preceding, 9,000 subscribers on its weekly list had sent him other addresses in the United States. That is to say that they had left Canada and had gone to the United States. Heretofore they had been residents in Canada and their addresses had been in Canada, but after that date he was directed to send his paper to the United States. I made inquiries with respect to the movement of the population in several small towns, and I remember that in all these a very considerable number of persons were reported within the three or four preceding years to have gone to the United States.
I recollect in one small town alone; in the constituency I then represented, a town not having a population of more than 1,200 or 1,300; as many as 170 persons were reported to me, names given, to have removed to the United States within the three preceding years. I had another curious illustration of the extent of emigration from Ontario. For certain reasons of state, I was obliged to exercise a rather strict supervision over a certain election contest which took place in the earlier part of 1891 between one Alexander Gunn and one John Alexander Macdonald. The total vote polled on that occasion was a little over 3,000-and I need not tell you that every vote was polled that could be polled. Of that 3,000 we found that 400 voters in the city of Kingston had been brought from the United States at no inconsiderable expense to record their votes for Sir John Macdonald. Now, Sir, these three circumstances alone would go very far to show-and they were merely ' three of many others I could have obtained

evidence of-they will go far to show how extensive and widespread was the emigration from Ontario to the United States between the years 1881 and 1891. I have also shown the extraordinary fraud which had been committed by the census enumerators of 1891 in the way of stuffing the census returns in the matter of industries to be credited to the national policy, and I want the House to understand distinctly that the instances I gave were only a few instances out of many score. For days and for weeks in this House, as those who were then members will recollect, it was a constant practice to compel the Finance Minister of that day, much against his will, to answer certain questions with respect to the various industries which the enumerators had discovered throughout the province of Ontario and elsewhere. I doubt if there was a single hamlet in Ontario; I doubt if there was a single village in that province containing 500 or 600 people in which these ingenious persons did not discover at least 40 or 50 industrial establishments of various kinds. They are on record; there is no mistake about it; the ' Hansard ' is there to testify to this day to the remarkable ingenuity which these enumerators displayed. There was not a blacksmith, there was not an artisan, there was not a carpenter throughout the province of Ontario I verily believe, who was not put down as an industrial establishment whether the thing was run by himself or run by himself and his boy combined. I say that all these things together, coupled with the conduct of the government (on which I lay very considerable stress) in absolutely refusing their aid to an investigation when charges of gross fraud were preferred by members in their place in parliament-I say that all these things go to constitute a very strong prima facie case against the good faith of the enumerators of 1891. However, I admit there is room for argument, only I further call attention to the fact that at that particular moment the Conservative party was in a very deplorable plight, a kind of plight which would tempt and almost excuse strong party men-and we know very well that the census enumerators were strong party men-to do a good deal that they might otherwise have hesitated to do for the benefit of their party; and that it would have been in the highest degree for the benefit of their party to make the Ontario lists appear larger than they actually were, no man who remembers the condition of things in the spring of 1901 can presume to doubt.
The emigration from Ontario is peculiar in some respects. It was not, as I understand the emigration from Quebec is or was, largely composed of families. It was almost exclusively composed of individuals, generally young men or young women from their several families, and under the de jure Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
system which prevailed then and which has prevailed since, there was a great opportunity given to any enumerators who chose to include people who had left Canada for many years, as I believe the enumerators did to a very great extent. Beyond all that-although the difficulties in our way are very great and although the expense at this distant time of ascertaining the facts is almost prohibitory-the Minister of Agriculture at my instance did cause in some cases investigation to be made. It will be for the House later on to say whether it is or it is not desirable that a commission should issue to inquire further into this matter. It is of quite sufficient importance I think to make it worthy of consideration, speaking for myself alone .of course. The hon. Minister of Agriculture found that in the case of several towns, notably in the case of Goderich, notably in the case of Clinton, notably in the case of Simcoe, notably in the case of Port Dover, notably in the case of Cornwall, there was a considerable number of instances in which evident frauds had been committed. ' As I say, the difficulties in his way are very great.	The
total number of these frauds which are discovered is probably insignificant compared with the number that were actually committed, but enough have been discovered-I think that the reports are in the hands of my hon. friend, and I have no doubt he will be only too ready to lay them on the Table of the House-to show conclusively that there is good prima facie ground for saying that the census returns of 1891 for the province of Ontario were grossly stuffed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the hon. gentleman tell us the newspaper he referred to, and 9,000 of whose subscribers he said had gone to the United States ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I have no objection to state. It is the London ' Advertiser.'


Samuel Hughes: It never had 9,000 subscribers.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: On its weekly list ? My hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) is very ignorant, I am sorry to say, of the extent to which the London ' Advertiser ' at that time circulated. Now, Sir, I come to another and a still more important phase of this question. As I have said, in Ontario, where I think the evidence is conclusive that there has been a grave miscount, the evidence as to the date at which that miscount took place is necessarily somewhat Imperfect. I can only go on circumstantial evidence and on presumption.
But it so happens that in the sister province of Quebec we stand on much firmer ground. Every hon. gentleman who knows anything of the customs of the people of

Quebec is aware that in that province the parochial clergy every year make a very accurate census of all their parishioners, and I am informed of all the people within their particular cure. From the nature of the case that census is more strictly accurate where the population is chiefly Catholic and French than where it is mixed ; but in. any case it is a census the fairness of which no one on either side of the House will, I think, dispute. I invite the special attention of the House to certain facts which I am about to lay before them with regard to the province of Quebec. I have here a report carefully made by a chief officer of the census, Mr. CStG, in which that gentleman gives us the difference between the parochial census taken in 1891 and the government census of that year, and the results are very extraordinary. In the county of Bagot the government census discovered 2,743 more people than the parochial investigators had been able to find three months before. In the county of Belle-chasse is discovered 1,050 more people; in Berthier, 3,433 more; in Champlain, 2,230 more ; in Dorchester, 608 more ; in Iberville, 2.090 more ; in Joliette, 3,817 more ; in Kamouraska, 2,003 more ; in l'Assomp-tion, 1,223 more ; in l'lslet, 1,008 more ; in Lotbiniere, 1,191 more ; in Maskinongg, 2,770 more ; in Montmagny, 1,157 more ; in Montmorency, 421 more ; in Nicolet, 2,635 more ; in Portneuf, 998 more ; in Richelieu, 3,155 more ; in Rimouski, 3,783 more ; in Rouville, 3,123 more ; in Temiscouata, 1,134 more. The above statement shows that the enumerators in 1891 raised in 21 counties 40,615 more names than were recorded three months previous to the census by the parish priests. I am willing to admit that there will always be a slight discrepancy between such a census and the census taken by the government enumerators. I believe the parish priests do not enumerate those who are absent at the time, and there are some Other slight differences ; but our census of 1901 corresponds with these parochial censuses within 8,000 souls. Therefore I say that these statements prima facie afford the clearest proof that can well be laid before the House at this distance of time that in these 21 counties of the province of Quebec the lists were stuffed in 1891 to the extent of at least 32,000 souls. Sir, that is by no means all. It is not to be supposed that this occurred in 21 districts only. There is evidence, and good evidence, as I think hon. gentlemen will have to admit, that not merely in these 21 counties, but in many others-I cannot say whether in all-of the 65 counties into which Quebec is divided, similar frauds were perpetrated. I have here a report of two subdivisions in the city of Montreal. That report shows that in these two subdivisions only the census over-estimated 1,006 persons. There were in the city of Montreal in 1891, 125 enumerators for 125 subdistricts. I do not at all pretend to say that
the fictitious entries in the others were in as large as they were in these ; but if there were in two subdivisions of Montreal fictitious entries to the extent of 1,006, the House can judge for itself how likely it would be that other districts would escape scot-free.
As this is a matter of more than ordinary importance, I have obtained, by the kind permission of my friend the Minister of Agriculture, more ample returns regarding the province of Quebec, which I shall proceed, for the information of the House, not to read-that would take too long a time- but to lay on the Table. Some of them, I observe, are in French ; and it will be no doubt a pleasing task for some of the hon. gentlemen opposite of that persuasion- there are not many of them-to translate for the benefit of their English confreres. These are the returns for Bagot ; these are the returns for Beauce ; these for Berthier ; these for Bonaventure ; these for Belle-chasse ; these for Chateauguay ; these for Champlain ; these for Charlevoix ; these for Chicoutimi; these for Dorchester ; this for Gaspe. The hon. gentlemen will observe there is nothing to conceal. This for Jacques Cartier ; this interesting one for Joliette ; this for Kamouraska ; this for l'Assomption; this for Labelle ; Laprairie ; Laval ; Lfivis ; Lothbiniere ; Maskinonge ; Montcalm ; Montmorency; the city of Montreal ; Nicolet; Portneuf ; Richelieu ; St. Jean D'Iberville ; Temiscouata.
I have here Mr. CotC's documents, which I lay on the Table, being desirous to furnish every information to hon. gentlemen.
It is utterly impossible to compute the total extent of the frauds that were committed in Quebec, but I do not think anybody will say that I am exaggerating when, after examining the evidence that I have laid on the Table, I say there is every reasonable ground for believing that at least
50,000	or 60,000 souls were improperly counted in Quebec in the census of 1891. In Ontario, as I have pointed out, I believe there was a grave miscount. I have given my reasons for thinking that that miscount occurred in 1891, and it will be for the House to judge for themselves how far those reasons are entitled to credit. But I think this much is clear. There was a very large over count in 1891, and strong probabilities- bearing in mind the evidence which the Minister of Militia produced with respect to the maritime provinces, and which was in no way contradicted-that at least from 125,000 to 150,000 persons were wrongly counted in the census of 1891, who consequently ought to be added to the census for 1901. Because it is plain to the meanest understanding that for every one improperly counted in 1891, we in 1901 are losing one. It does not very much matter to my main argument whether there was in Ontario an under count in 1901 or an over count in 1891. The main result would be the same, namely, that there has been a very much

larger increase in the total population from 1891 to 1901 than the census returns of 1S91 and 1901 taken together would appear to indicate.
Now, X turn to another not unimportant but comparatively insignificant matter. That is the question as to how far the increase which did take place in the last decade took place between 1891 and 1896, or 1896 and 1901. Here I must appeal to the common sense of the House. From 1891 to 1896 everybody knows-and no men were louder in declaring it than the predecessors of those hon. gentlemen-that Canada was labouring under a period of great depression, a period of deficits, of reduction of trade-just the sort of period during which many men would he sure to leave the country and very few who came in would be likely to stay. That is a patent fact known to everybody. It is equally well known that from 1896 to 1901 Canada as a Whole enjoyed a most unusual amount of prosperity. It is also well known that there has been a very great reduction in the exodus which has taken place from Canada in the last four or five years. The evidence from the province of Quebec and the evidence as to the settlement of the North-west prove that beyond a doubt. And a piece of evidence, which no doubt will commend itself strongly to hon. gentlemen opposite, goes very far to prove it also. I happen to have here the assessors return for Toronto. That is an interesting document. The assessors, as you know, take a yearly census in the good city of Toronto. Let me read to the House, without inflicting on it the details, the result of the assessors' census in the city of Toronto, because it bears pretty strongly on the point which the Minister of Finance made, that there was a strong probability, to say the least, that the increase in the last five years of this decade was very much greater than in the first five years. The assessors census for 1891 gave 170,951 as the population of Toronto. In 1896 it gave that population as numbering 178,185, showing an increase in five years of just 7,000 souls. That same assessors' census in 1901 gave the population as 205,887, being an increase of 28,000 souls, in round numbers, as against
7,000	in 1896. That may not be conclusive evidence for the province of Ontario, but it is pretty clear evidence as to the movement of population in the good city of Toronto. I have been at pains to procure a list of the vacant buildings in Toronto during that period. In 1894 there were 4,633 buildings I
vacant. Let me read the list:
In 1894	4,633
1895		3,990
1896		4,014
1897		2,514
1898		2,672
1899		1,706
1900		 761
1901		 676
I submit, with all respect that this is tolerably clear evidence, quo ad Toronto at any Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
rate, of the truth of the Finance Minister's assertion that population increased a great deal more rapidly in our regime from 1896 to 1901 than it did from 1881 to 1896. Now, if hon. gentlemen opposite admit-I do not ask them to admit, but if they are disposed, as my friends on this side are disposed, to admit-that I have made out a prima facie case for believing that there was an over count of 125,000 or 150,000 in the census of 1891, what follows ? Why, this follows, that in the ten years ending with 1891, the increased population was just about
350,000.	And this further follows that, in the ten years from 1891 to 1901, the increase of population was just 700,000. And if I am correct in my opinion that, after 1896 tlie exodus was materially checked-I do not say abolished altogether-and if I am correct in the further statement which I make and for which I will give some further evidence presently, that from 1S96 or 1897, the great bulk of the immigrants who came to this country remained in this country-then, Sir, I say it is not very unlikely, on the contrary there is the strongest ground for believing, that, after 1896, Canada gained at the rate of 100,000 a year. After all, that would be a very small matter. It would merely mean that we reduced the exodus from 50,000 to 25,000 and added
25.000	by immigration to our population. And, if that be so, if we added for five years -and all the evidence points that way-100,000 a year to our population, and if you admit my previous calculation as to the over count in 1891, then, everything I stated is proven to the letter and the growth.of the last five years is shown to be fully equal to the growth of the preceding fifteen years. This matter of the immigration to Canada is one that has attracted a good deal of attention. It was my painful duty, some years ago, standing in the place at present occupied by the leader of the opposition, to call the attention of the House and the country to the very remarkable fact that, whereas our immigration returns as published by the late government showed an immigration to Canada in the ten years from 1881 to 1891 of 886,000 persons, the census returns, making every allowance for the loss by death of the foreign-born population, only showed
150.000	to have settled in Canada. As I have said, it is interesting to trace the movement of population in the North-west upon which so much depends. I have here an enumeration furnished me by the Department of Agriculture, of the number of immigrants that came to Canada from 1897 to 1900. I find that the total number of immigrants who came in 1897 was 20,016; in 1898 the number had risen to 30,742; in 1899 these immigrants numbered 44,506; in 1900 they mustered 44,697; and, for the fiscal year 1900-1, they mustered 49,149-although I apprehend that in these two years there was some overlapping. At any rate, and
1TAECH 18, 1902
making allowance for this, the total in these five years would amount to
164,000.	I find further, that, in 1897, 712 immigrants from the United States reported themselves in Canada ; in 1898 the number of Americans was 9.119 ; in 1899 11,945 ; in 1900 there were 15,500; and, in the fiscal year 1900-1 there were 17,987. If these remained here, there is not much need to add further evidence to show the very strong probability, to say the least of it, that our population has increased 500,000 in the last five years. What is the ground for holding that probably at least the greater number of these people remained here? I have here a very interesting statement showing the number of acres sold by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Hudson's Bay Company, and other railways and other landowners in Manitoba and the North-west I invite the attention of the House to these records. I drop the odd figures. In 1893, these companies sold
120.000	acres; in 1894, they sold 68,000 acres; in 1895, 114,000 acres; and in 1896, 108,000 acres. This was a total of 411,000. In
1898,	these same companies, in one year sold 448,000 acres-a good deal more in that one year than had been sold in the four years that I have just enumerated. In
1899,	they sold 162,000 acres; in i900, they sold 648,000 acres; and in 1901, they sold
621.000	acres. Thus, in the four years from 1893 to 1S96 both inclusive, these companies sold to settlers 411,000 acres, and in the four years from 1898, to 1901 both inclusive, they sold 2,180,000 acres. I think that is tolerably good presumptive evidence that the great bulk of immigrants that came to Canada under our regime remained here. This is further confirmed by the information we have been able to obtain from our various agents scattered throughout the North-west Territories. But there is another little evidence in the same direction. I have here a statement showing the homesteads in these periods. , Leaving out the cancelled homesteads, the number was as follows :
1893		2,493
1894		1,926
1895		1,419
1896		1,384
Total for four years	7,222
1898		3,876
1899		6,604
1900		7,012
1901		8*136
Total for four years	24,588
Now, that may not be direct evidence, but I submit that it is very strong circumstantial evidence in proof of the very important statement that we have been increasing our population in vastly greater ratio during the last five years than we did during the first five years of this decade.
Sir, it appears to me that in all this there is good promise for the future. And it appears to me there is good promise on this ,
one condition, that we steer clear of former errors, and that Canada in the future does not, as she did in the past, go philandering- the Vulgate has a stronger word-go philandering after new inventions. Sir, our losses have been tremendous, our progress also may be tremendous if we only will condescend to learn where our real strength is, and where the future of Canada properly lies.
I would like to say something as to two or three other points of interest connected with this census ; 1 would like to say something about the distribution of our rural and urban population. I might have a word or two to say on the delicate question of the education that we are giving to our people. But I pause. I must pass over those subjects, because I have to deal with another and also very interesting portion of this subject, and that is the question of the causes of this exodus. I have pointed out how grave the exodus was; I have shown you that in all human probability, of our own flesh and blood alone we have lost about a million and a half within twenty years. And mind you, that statement, formidable as it is. is amply corroborated by the facts as to the growth of other countries in similar conditions to our own. Now, Sir, a question of the gravest moment, one which is the very reverse of an academic question in which that enormous exodus was due to causes which were beyond our control, or whether it was due to preventable causes. If due to causes beyond our control, there is nothing more to be said; if due to causes which can or should have been prevented, it demands our utmost strength and energy to prevent this fatal drain on our resources from continuing.
I say again that our exhibit in the matter of population from 1881 to 1891 is a most miserable exhibition. Take Manitoba, rural and urban, and we find the rural population ot Manitoba in those twenty years increased by 24,000 families. We look across the border and we see that the state of Dakota alone, North and South together, increased its rural population by 120,000 families, while Manitoba was adding 24.000 to hers. We look at Minnesota, and we find that Minnesota gained .200,000 families in the same period. We find that 320,000 families were added to Dakota and to Minnesota in the twenty years from 1881 to 1901, while Manitoba and the North-west together hardly gained 35,000 or 40,000 families, Manitoba certainly not more than 24,000. Those 320,000 families were productive in the highest degree. They have added most enormously to the wealth and prosperity of the United States. Dakota and Minnesota have alone added hundreds of millions a year to the annual products of the United States. With good government and good management the huge territories that we possess. Manitoba, Alberta, Assiniboia and Saskatchewan, should have added in that interval equally to our resources and our trade.

Now, Sir, that statement alone is enough to condemn us, but there is much more behind. I charge over and above downright neglect and misuse of those superb opportunities, criminal maladministration on the part of the government of the day. On this subject I speak with knowledge. For many years, from 1880 to 1886, I was in the habit of making yearly visits to the province of Manitoba. I have traversed the greater part of it again and again, not by railroad, but in company with men like my friend, the Hon. Thomas Greenway, and others of the same standing, who were very intimately acquainted with the possibilities of the province of Manitoba. I witnessed that most extraordinary rush of settlers which went into Manitoba in the years 1879, 1880, 1881 and 1882. I never in all my life saw men more admirably qualified to develop a young country than were the settlers who were pouring in by tens of thousands from the best counties of Ontario, and other portions of this Dominion, to which I have already alluded. There were men and there was money in abundance, and nothing on earth but the most frightful blunders on the part of the government of the day prevented tnose men from developing Manitoba just as Dakota and Minnesota have been developed. Sir, I say that it was owing to the intolerable railway policy of the government, that it was owing to the intolerable blunders of their land policy, that it was owing in large measure to their fiscal policy, that we see the miserable spectacle which we see to-day in Manitoba and the North-west, miserable, that is, compared with what it might have been, compared with what took place on the other side of the border. Sir, I stood myself iu the Railway Committee room upstairs, and X heard the government of Canada deliberately refuse the settlers of Manitoba and the North-west the right to build a railroad at their own expense without costing the government of Canada one penny. What shall I say of the introduction of that mischievous and ill-considered measure, the checker-board system ? Who that has been in Manitoba who of all of us who knows that country, does not know that its great want is to have the population brought together, that the great difficulty is that the settlers are isolated ? Schools and churches are almost impossible when men are separated by great distances. What did the. government do ? They deliberately introduced a system by which every man was kept at a distance of a mile or a mile and a half from his neighbour. The result was that settlement was slack, that people did not choose to go into the country and take up land when they were refused the right to build railroads at their own expense, and compelled to set themselves down at a distance of half a league or more from their nearest neighbour. I recollect at the time there were a number of Yankee capitalists, Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
perfectly well acquainted with what had been going on in Dakota and Minnesota, who would have been only too happy to furnish the money for the purpose of constructing these railroads. But they were refused admittance, they were driven out, literally, they were pitch-forked out and what were the results V Why, we lost the whole of these magnificent seed years, as X may call them, from 1878 to 1885. I am within the mark when I say that 20,000 settlers in southern Manitoba alone were expelled from Manitoba and obliged to take refuge in Dakota and Minnesota by reason of the policy of the government of the day. Nor, was there any relief found for that state of things until there had been one rebellion on the Saskatchewan and until the people of Manitoba had virtually risen in rebellion also. No wonder that I spoke strongly in my place in the House as to the way in which the future of the North-west was being sacrificed by these men. Had they simply let the matter alone, had they simply allowed the people of Ontario and the other provinces to go in, had they simply allowed them to build railways, simply allowed them to make the best of the opportunities before them-I say, and I speak with knowledge- that by 1885 there would have been 50,000 families of magnificent settlers settled in Manitoba, and that to-day in Manitoba and in the valleys of the Saskatchewan, in the districts of' Alberta and Assiniboia, yoa would have had a population, not perhaps as large as that of Dakota and Minnesota, but a population in ail human probability of 250,000 families, or a million and a quarter strong.	,,
Now, think for a moment what that would have meant to Canada. Winnipeg to-day would have been a worthy rival to St. Paul and Minneapolis. Our provinces, and they are equally fertile, quite as good as the states that I have mentioned, need never have feared to enter into competition with Dakota and Minnesota. Sir Charles Tup-per's vision of 600,000,000 of bushels a year might very well have been realized-it never could have been under his management-but it might have been if Manitoba had been left to the management of the late Mr. Mackenzie. But, there was a more excellent way and that was pointed out to my certain knowledge. The inrush of settlers might have been guided and utilized. The huge amount of money that was wasted in Manitoba in land booms might have been used to the advantage of that province. It was pointed out in this House that had the policy of Mr. Mackenzie's been adopted we would have seen to-day in all human probability not a million and a quarter but two millions of people settled in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. In making that statement I claim no more for us than was done on the other side of the border under greater difficulties. If the policy of Alexander

137ff-
Mackenzie bad prevailed in 1878 that would have been the result. Now, the time has come, and I gladly embrace the opportunity to do this scant justice to the memory of my old colleague. He has passed away, not unhonoured. At the time of his death I think Mr. Mackenzie's worth was recognized by all classes of the community, but he passed away hardly appreciated. It was the fashion among some of his own supporters to say that Alexander Mackenzie was all honesty and no policy, while Sir John Macdonald was all policy-I shall not finish the sentence. Alexander Mackenzie had his faults like the rest of us. He had his faults but he was honest and sagacious. What was his policy ? His policy was, like himself, simple, sensible and straightfor-word. He intended-the thing had been shaping in his mind for some time, he developed it partly on the floor of this House, he developed it to a greater extent in speeches which he made in my presence in the maritime provinces and in parts of Ontario towards the end of the campaign of 1878, and his policy had three grand features-he intended, in the first place, to reserve the land for settlers, to sell it to settlers only at low rates, and to give money only to promote the building of colonization railways ; he intended, in the second place, to construct a number of short line colonization railways radiating from Winnipeg, and he intended in the third place to use all the power of the government to keep the people together and form a solid state in and about the present province of Manitoba from which, afterwards, as a base, railways might radiate on every side. I have several times since discussed that policy with men of great ability and of experience in the North-west Territories, men of all political persuasions, and they have agreed with me that it was one of the greatest misfortunes that ever befell the North-west Territories that it had not been carried out.
Mr. SPIiOULE. Especially the water stretches.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: And Alexander Mackenzie had intended to keep control of the railways and railway rates. In respect to the water stretches Mr. Mackenzie wisely used them to the utmost of his power and perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) has forgotten that at the time he went out he was most busily engaged in pressing forward the construction of the railway from Winnipeg to Fort William. I say that if Mr. Mackenzie's policy had been adopted, and I say it with the knowledge which comes after forty years experience in public affairs, and with the knowledge of a man that has travelled Manitoba from end to end, not once but a dozen times over, if Mr. Mackenzie's policy had been adopted in all human probability you would to-day have had 500.000 families, or 2,000,000 of people settled in Manitoba, Alberta, Assiniboia and Saskatchewan, and 44
a volume of trade and commerce not far from $1,000,000,000 a year. Let hon. gentlemen sit down and calculate what would be the result of a development such as I have spoken of. I will not say a development of two millions, but suppose we had a million, or a million and a quarter of people settled in that country, what a huge boon that would have been to the whole of Canada ! All that was within our grasp and all that we could have had by letting the people alone. We could have that by adopting the policy of Mr. Mackenzie. Hon. gentlemen have a good deal to learn from this census, we have a good deal to learn from it, the people of Canada have a good deal to learn from it, and one lesson I would like the people of Canada to lay to heart is the lesson of what Canada lost in 1878 by discarding Mr. Mackenzie. Had Canada allowed Mr. Mackenzie to remain in power and to carry out the scheme he was then devising for the development of the Northwest Territories, I am quite sure that the people of Canada would to-day have been something like one thousand million dollars richer and they would have numbered
2,000,000 more than they do to-day. In place of 5,000,000 we would have had 7,000,000, and after all that would have meant simply that we would have kept our own people in their own country. And one thing more, had Mackenzie remained in power the people of Canada would have been spared that carnival of corruption which ran riot throughout Canada from 1878 to 1896, or at any rate to 1891. Sir, must I recall to these hon. gentlemen the events which marked the expulsion of Sir Hector Langevin from power under the charges brought forward by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works ? Must I recall to their recollection the comments which were made by the English press at that particular time as to the result of thirteen years of Conservative administration ? It is well that I should do so, because I know that a great many hon. gentlemen were not in this House at the time and these things very soon pass from peoples memory. I am not quite sure, but I think I am perfectly within bounds when I say that there is not one man in five out of the 213 who now hold seats here who held seats in 1891, certainly not one in four ; and what had the English press to say of our doings in 1891 ? Here is an extract front the ' Times ' :
Here in the mother country there can be only one feeling, that of deep regret for the wrong done to the fair fame of the eldest of her daughter cations by the lax morality of her politicians.
The London ' Daily Chronicle ' said :
It seems to be possible in the Dominion to secure the political support not only of individuals but of whole provinces by gifts of money. The locality is bribed as well as the member, and the consequent demoralization spreads through all ranks.



The * Telegraph ' observed :
Enough, unfortunately, is already known to make it clear that only the most resolute and drastic purification can redeem public life in Canada from the taint of corruption, the like of which we have nor seen in our own country for hundreds of years.
The Birmingham ' Gazette ' said :
Rascals out of office defraud the public in order to bribe rascals In office, and rascals in office prostltue themselves, sacrifice their honour and forsake their trust m ord-r to keep on good terms with the rascals out of office.
And the London ' Echo ' remarked :
No country can prosper where public departments are in league with fraudulent contractors and where ministers are open to offers.
The London ' Graphic ' declared :
It is no longer possible to doubt '.hat corruption in its worst form is rampant in a large portion of the Canadian civil service.
The St. James ' Gazette ' observes :
The existence of an organized system of corruption among public officials in Canada has been conclusively proved, and like everything else on the American continent the bribery has been colossal.
The ' Graphic Despatch ' went on to say :
The secret of Sir John Macdonald's electoral victories is out. On this side of the water surprise has often been expressed at the patience [DOT]with which our Canadian cousins submitted to the Tcry protectionist rule of that prince of political intriguers. There is now, alas, no difficulty in explaining that curious situation. Sir John's government rested on a stupendous and all prevailing system of bribery and corruption. Even Tammany Hall smells sweet and clean in comparison with the huge stiulc pot of Sir John's government.
And so forth ad infinitum.
I am not bringing these disagreeable matters up for nothing. Let the House also remember that these expressions were used long before a great deal more which I subsequently brought to light in respect to the dealings of Sir Adolphe Caron in certain counties had been made manifest. Only a corner of the veil was lifted, yet that was the impression produced on the public opinion of England by the result of that small exposure ; and remember also that not the half no, not the tenth part of what might have been disclosed has ever yet been made public. It would have given me very little trouble if I had so chosen to have duplicated and quadruplicated the exposures which I caused to be made in Sir Adolphe Caron's case a matter of eight or nine years ago.
And if the House wants to know why I spared further exposures my reasons were these. I thought that quite enough had been done to show future historians in what sort of fashion Conservative rule was maintained from 1878 to 1891. It used to be said that there are certain anatomists to whom, if you show a hone of any given reptile, they are able to construct the en-Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT
tire animal. It does not require a political Owen or a political Cuvier to construct the eollossal scheme of corruption which prevailed in these years from the evidence which myself and the Minister of Public Works have caused to be put on record. Sir, I might, no doubt, have sent a dozen or two Conservative heelers to the penitentiary or at least to share Mr. MoGreevy's cell, but I did not think it was worth my while. However, if hon. gentlemen dispute the truth of my statement; if lion, gentlemen desire further information ; if they are filled witli a burning desire to know why the Langevin block cost something over a million dollars ; if they want to know why Quebec harbour stands in our books for $3,700,000 ; if they want to know why the St. Charles branch, a matter of thirteen miles of railway has cost close on $2,000,-000-some $200,000 or $300,000 more than the acquisition of the Drummond Railway cost altogether I believe-if they want to know that; if they want to know what became of the subsidies for the St. John Railway ; if they want to know what happened in the case of the subsidies for the Temiscouata Railroad, it won't he very difficult to obtain the information for them.
Why, Sir, these were days in which the mere camp followers of the Conservative party were allowed to plunder the people to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Has the House forgotten the exposure I made of that eminent gentleman Mr. John Charles Rykert, then a member of this House, when I showed and proved that for $2,000 he had been allowed to purchase from the government a part of the public domain which he sold afterwards for $200,000 ; when I showed and proved-and so did other gentlemen here -that Mr. Robillard, another camp follower and also a member of this House, had been allowed to obtain property belonging to the Indians for $316, which was sold within a few months for $55,000 hard cash. Well indeed might Mr. Rykert say when appealing to his electors :	It was very hard I
should have singled him out when I knew- and he spoke the truth there-while I knew that there were scores as guilty ns himself who had sat in judgment on him.


Samuel Hughes: How much did seats in the Senate bring in those days ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: What did my hon. friend say ?


Samuel Hughes: I asked you what was the price of seats in the Senate in those days ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: If the hon. gentleman chooses to inquire he would not have much trouble in ascertaining. I have heard very considerable sums named.


Mr. BENNETT.: 


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I have heard a much more considerable amount put down as the price of a seat in the Senate under the Conservative regime, and if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) desires it, the information on that subject may be forthcoming at no distant date.
Sir, when I contemplate the collossal corruption that existed at that period and the fashion in which those huge sums of money were acquired and used, upon my word there is only one man in the whole lot for whom I feel the slightest commiseration, and that man is Mr. Thomas McGreevy. Upon my word, Sir, when we reflect on what that man did and what that man suffered ; when I reflect that he was beggared and broken hearted ; when I reflect on what he did for the party and how the party requited him, I will say to these hon. gentlemen that if they are moved to atone for the sins of their predecessors ; if there is any true repentance in them, let them go to my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, and I will back their request ; let them beg a plot a little way from the left of these parliament buildings and let them erect there a monument to Mr. Thomas McGreevy, and I will supply the inscription. That inscription will be :
' To the memory of Thomas McGreevy, victim and martyr, who did more than any other human being to put the Conservative party in power in 1878 and keep them in power regardless of expense for thirteen years. Who was imprisoned and bankrupted by them.
' Had he served his country as faithfully as he served his party leaders, the name of Thomas McGreevy would have stood high on the roll of Canadian patriots.'
Now, Sir, why do I recall these things ?
I recall them for one purpose and for one alone. I want that future historians and the people of this country may know what sort of a price the people have to pay when they choose to substitute plausible charletans for able and faithful public servants. Further I know things are very apt to slip from the , public mind. I know very well that the cotemporary history of all things is the least , known by the men of to-day. We are con- i stantly forgetting what has happened in : our own time. Ordinary business men and ordinary professional men really know 1 nothing of the co-temporary history of their own time, and even in our own House members succeed other so fast that all recollection of these things is apt to pass away within a very short time. But, : Sir, I think the House should understand one thing; it would be well that hon. 1 gentlemen and it would be well that the country should understand one thing and that is this : That protection (at any rate . as they practiced it) and corruption are practically convertible terms. I do not mean to say that a government may not be j 44J
corrupt and yet not protectionist. That may be. But I do say that human nature being as it is, it is almost impossible for a government to be protectionist and escape being corrupt. And I will add this further ; I will add that while I think protection and corruption are practically inseparable; I will add that I likewise believe for my part, that protection and true freedom "are all but absolutely incompatible. On that I will give you words of another more eloquent than any I can utter. Here are some remarks which are very much indeed to the purpose. The gentleman whom I quote says :
I come to expose to you the policy of the Liberal party. Let me 'tell you that policy may be resumed in the good Saxon word 'freedom' in every sense of the term; freedom of speech, freedom of action, freedom of religious life and civil life, and last, not least, freedom in commercial life	
In the American Republic you have the line of cleavage which exists between the Liberal party and the Conservative party

the question of free trade. We stand for freedom, they stand for restriction; they stand for servitude; we stand for freedom.
I denounce to you the policy of protection as bondage; yen, bondage, and I refer to bondage in the same manner in which the American slr.tery was bondage ; not in the same degree
perhaps, but in the same manner	In
the same manner the people of this country, the inhabitants of the city of Winnipeg especially, are toiling for a master, who takes away, not every cent of profit, but a very large percentage, a very great portion of your earning3 for which you toil and sweat


Mr. TAYLOR.: Is 35 per cent protection ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: 35 per cent may or may not be protection. 35 per cent may be high revenue tariff or it may be a grossly protective tariff. It depends entirely on how applied. 35 per cent as against American goods is a high revenue tariff and as against British goods it would be a protective and prohibitive tariff. This gentleman from whom I am quoting goes on to say :
I do not tell you that we must have no taxation, but I do say that the government has no right to take a cent from you or me except for the necessities of the revenue, and if the government takes from you any portion of your earnings, whether the portion' be large or small, to give to somebody else that government is as much a robber as the highwayman who puts a pistol to your forehead and says :
' your purse or your life.'
Admirable sentences, admirably expressed with that force and eloquence with which my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) usually puts the case before his audience.


William Findlay Maclean: Is that a warning ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: A warning to you.


William Findlay Maclean: A warning to your leader.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I hope it is a warning to you, but I am afraid the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) is not greatly inclined to take it. I say that if you wish to see Canada ten years hence as Canada was ten years ago when the British press was ringing with those sentences I lately read, you have only to return to the Conservative government and to the good old Conservative ways of a protective tariff.
Now, Sir, I turn to a more pleasing side of the question. We cannot undo the past; we cannot recover our lost legions; we cannot regain our lost opportunities; and it may be that we have lost more than we are aware of, because at this moment there are other formidable competitors springing up whom we may soon have to face. I have noticed with considerable interest the enormous development now taking place in Siberia. It may be that in wheat and other kinds of agricultural produce that country may enter into a formidable competition with the people of North America, especially the people of Canada. But although nearly a quarter of a century has been thrown away, although Canada has done little more than mark time for a generation, I believe that the chances are coming back to us again. Great fertile areas are lying open to us, and we must bring people to them. The process has well begun, indeed no sign of the times is more wholesome and hopeful than that which I mentioned a little while ago, that the number of immigrants coming from the United States to Canada has risen from 700 to
17,000.	I warn our people to beware that they do not check the progress now going on. It is no idle dream to say that If we do as well within the next decade as Dakota and Minnesota have done, we may look for a population of two millions, or at the lowest a million and a half, in the valleys of the Saskatchewan, the Red River and the Assiniboine, and in the vast territory that extends towards the Peace River district ; and we may double the volume of our trade. I do not altogether agree with some of the demands of our friends in the Northwest ; but I heartily sympathize with them in the view they take of the great future that awaits Canada if she will only stretch out her hand and seize the opportunities that present themselves to us there. And let me say further to the people of Canada; if you are desirous of entering into a controversy or a commercial war with the United States, the true way to conquer them is to show them that you have a population increasing faster than theirs, that you have a volume of trade far in excess of theirs. Then indeed you may reasonably hope in a comparatively short space of time to have them knocking at your door. This is for Canada the true path to greatness, the true path to wealth. Let us not turn our backs upon it. Let us lay the lessons of the census to heart. I
Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT
say it was a national disgrace that the increase of Canada during those twenty years was far less than what took place iu the same period in old and long-settled European countries. I have heard it said by hon. gentlemen opposite, and even by some friends of mine, that Canada is a dumping ground for American manufacturers. I have heard plaintive wails that heathen Yankees, not having the fear of God or of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association before their eyes, come to Canada and actually have the audacity to sell goods to Canadian consumers at a lower price than that at which they sell them to their own people. It is even said, though this lacks proof, that they sell them at less than cost, in their greed to monopolize so profitable a trade; and it is said that there are mauy Canadians so unpatriotic, so dead to all lofty feeling, that they will actually purchase American goods for no better reason than the fact that they can obtain them better and cheaper than they can similar goods in their own country. It is a very sad state of things, no doubt. But to my mind it is a much sadder thing that Canada should be, as Canada was for eighteen years under the national policy, no better than a breeding ground for people of the United States. Here is where Canada was landed in 1896-in depopulation and stagnation, utter incapacity to utilize her vast territory, and with political corruption practically reduced to a fine art. Now, I counsel the people of Canada no more to copy Yankee vices. I do not want them to imitate the Yankee fiscal policy or Yankee political methods. I desire, like hon. gentlemen opposite, that Canadians should think for themselves and act for themselves; and if they will imitate the people of the United States, I advise them to imitate their good qualities, not their bad ones. Let them imitate their pluck, their patriotism, their energy, their push, their skill in developing and utilizing their waste territory. If they will do that, Sir, I have no fear for the result. Take it all in all, I say that the record of the last four years is a grand record, a credit to the country and a credit to the government. The progress of our trade in that period has been very great, and if I am correct in the statements I have made to-night, the recovery of our people in population in the last four years has been relatively as great as the expansion of our trade. The government invites criticism:	it invites the closest
scrutiny; the facts will bear out my statements. Sir, I repeat the assertion with which I commenced. I say that the best test of a nation's progress, at least a nation like Canada, with enormous quantities of fertile land wholly untouched, is the increase of her population; and I say that Canada can stand that test now, and she will be in a position to stand it infinitely better ten years hence. If we do our duty, our shams will then be wiped out, our

national humiliation will be effaced, and Canada will be in the van once more. She will have a larger trade in proportion to population than the United States, a faster growth, a better distribution of wealth, better security for life and property, a better fiscal system, and infinitely more freedom.
Sir, I am not given to idle gush, as this House knows; but I believe that our resources have been barely scratched. I believe we have enormous resources, the extent of which we have scarcely begun to realize. With half a continent unexplored, we can only imagine what possibilities yet lie before us. After what we have seen in the Klondike, who shall say that the barrenest region in the arctic zone may not contain riches equal to the Rand? Who shall say that the region of Hudson bay or the region of Labrador, or the region of the Mackenzie river or the great Slave lake-all these regions which are only geographical expressions to-day, may not become household words to-morrow? But there is no need of talking of possibilities. The Red River valley, the Saskatchewan valley, the Assiniboine valley, the Peace River valley, are realities; and the progress which the western States have made is a reality too. We have room for a population of at least fifty millions. We have marvellous water powers, the value of which we are just beginning to realize. We have immense mineral resources. We need but men, capital, fair-play and freedom, and if we are true to ourselves and persevere in the path we have entered upon in the last five years, I believe that the record of the next ten years will surpass that of the last five, good as it has been, as much as the record of the last five years has surpassed that of the preceding fifteen.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, I have just been wondering where we are. I have not been in this House long enough to carry my memory back to the subjects which we have had discussed for the last hour and a half. I thought we were going to have a discussion of matters which are of interest to this country to-day. We have scarcely a word from the hon. gentleman dealing with events that are within the personal experience of the great majority of the members of this House. Instead of dealing with the facts of the day, he harked back to ancient history, he revelled in old scandals. He in fact' shouldered his political crutch, fought his old political battles, and made his old political speeches over again. And where he did not deal with events that have disappeared in the archives of the past, he deluged us with a dry array of figures, despite his promise at the outset that he was not going to weary the House with statistics. Well, if the hon. gentleman has
any more figures than he has already given to us, we have reason to be eternally grateful to him for keeping them to himself Referring to the speech of the leader of the opposition, the hon. gentleman said he could shut his eyes and imagine that he had heard all that before. Well, I do not think that it is necessary for any one to shut his eyes or draw on his imagination at all to come to a like conclusion with regard to the speech we have just heard. One would require to close one's eyes very tightly indeed and make a considerable draft on one's imagination to come to the opposite conclusion. It would require a considerable effort of the imagination to make one believe that he has not heard over and over again the arguments and the appeals to which the hon. gentleman has been treating us during the last three hours.
I jotted down a few of the things upon which the hon. gentleman appeared to lay some stress. One of the first was his admission that the cost of living under the present government has largely increased. In that respect I do not think any one will contradict him, but whether that is something which the present government has a right to be proud of, I leave to the House and country to decide. He then took credit for the reduction in the postage rates to Great Britain, but we have the admission of the Postmaster General that only one-seventh of the mail matter which leaves Canada is carried in Canadian boats or through Canadian channels, and that six-sevenths are carried in foreign channels. If that be a point on which the horn gentleman thinks he is entitled to some credit,
I am willing to gratify him to the utmost extent.
Then my hon. friend could not forbear loosing one of the shafts of his satire at his hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). He referred to a vision of Hades which that hon. gentleman had at one time and of which he gave a vivid description. But if my recollection serves me right, the Hades which the hon. member for North Norfolk described was merely a vision, whereas the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce had been plunged, uot into an imaginary, but into a real political Hades from which his friend, the member for North Norfolk (Mr, Charlton), had to extricate him. The policy of the Minister of Trade and Commerce had failed to meet the approval of his electorate, another Reformer was ambitious to get his place, and the hon. minister was doomed to political Hades and would have become for ever politically extinct, had it not been for the help of his friend (Mr. Charlton), who got him out of the shades of death. And this friend the hon. minister does not now hesitate to throw over.
In all the time during which the hou. gentleman laboured through his argument,

he made no reference to any question of the day, no reference to the policy of his party, no reference to the enormous growth of expenditure, no reference to the increase of public debt, or to anything of live interest to the country. For nearly an hour and a half he spoke of the census of 1891 and the census of 1901, and he assumed that the former was fraudulently taken. His whole speech Was simply drawing a red herring across the track in order that public attention might be taken away from those things which are of importance to Canada to-day, from the shortcomings of himself and his colleagues since they have been in office, and directed to matters of far minor importance. He spoke of ,the immigration to the North-west. He pictured the rush that took place into that country in 1881 and 1882, and tried to draw the inference that had free trade prevailed, that country would to-day have been settled up and we would have had a million or a million and a quarter population there now. But I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman is sufficient of a business man to know that the reason why population did not continue to flow into the North-west was because the price of wheat had fallen from $1 a bushel to about 40 cents or 45 cents pe? bushel-a price at which it was almost impossible for farmers to make a living out of it. He quoted Dakota and Minnesota as illustrations of how countries fill up with great rapidity, but he omitted to tell us that these two states flourished under the highest protective tariff known on the earth.
He gave us also figures from the census returns of Toronto and Manitoba, to show that up to a certain period these localities were depressed and are now flourishing. But he omitted to draw our attention to the fact that these places were suffering from that most disastrous thing which can befall any community-a land boom. Toronto suffered from that evil and is hardly over it to-day. So did Manitoba, and is only just now recovering from it.
He drew a glowing picture of what would have happened had the policy of the late Mr. McKenzie been carried out. X tell you, Sir, that had that policy been continued, the whole of the trade and the products of that western country would now be tributary to the United States. It may be possible that a larger population would be there now, but our North-west would not belong to Canada, and there are few members who will agree that it were better that Manitoba were more prosperous at the cost of not belonging to Canada and Great Britain.
Another point on which the hon. gentleman dilated was the vicious system of granting government bonuses to railways. Had that system not be entered upon, had the railway companies been forced to enter the country' and build for themselves, we Mr. OSLER.
should have had that country built up without railway bonuses. But surely the hon. gentleman could not have been in earnest in this argument. Has he been asleep these ten or fifteen years and just woke up ? Is he not aware the policy of granting railway bonuses is the same to-day as it was under the late administration ? And there is not to-day the same reason for that policy which existed in the past. Yet notwithstanding that the North-west has been settled since ten or twenty years and that there is no longer the same reason for granting bonuses, we find this government continuing the policy of granting large bonuses to railways in the North-west. And we find this government continuing the same checker board system of reserving each alternate section which the hon. gentleman denounces as an evil. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman finds it impossible to disassociate himself from the past and cannot refrain from denouncing the same things which he was won't to denounce in the days of old, although he is to-day the member of a government in which these very same practices continue to flourish.
But talking of the policy of the late Mr. McKenzie and the policy of the late Sir John Macdonald, one of the men who is very high up in the political scale in this country, the Hon. George W. Ross, had the manliness to admit publicly that he was mistaken in his judgment of the policy of Sir John Macdonald in connection with the settlement of the North-west. He is the only man of the late chieftain's opponents who has had the manliness and the honesty to make this admission; and I tell you, Sir, that that admission appealed to the sense of fairness of the people of Ontario and did more credit to Mr. Ross than any act of his life.
If we examine into the heaps of figures which the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce piled upon us during his speech, we will find that there is not a clean-cut statement among them all. They are all based upon assumptions, and his conclusions flow from mere assumptions. He takes the figures of the census, puts them together in his own fashion, and then draws his own conclusions, and treats those assumptions as facts. They are figures drawn up by a man who looks at only one side of the question, who is choosing his figures and making them tell the story exactly as he wants it told. S
It is a very interesting spectacle to see how thoroughly the members of this ministry are in accord with one another. They cannot keep their little grievances at home, but the spite that is shown between the members of the administration is made known to the House and to the world. The hon. member who preceded me said that he was not going to trouble the House with figures-and he wearied the House for three

hours with figures. We have had figures for two days. And for that reason, although I have many figures here, I shall leave most of them out.
Look back for one moment to the Speech from the Throne, for a government of business men, of wonderful men, that was a great production. Here was a Speech from the Throne, and in it was supposed to appear the questions upon which Canada was vitally interested in one of our most interesting years, a year of great prosperity, a year when great works are going ou and when great schemes might have been expected to be outlined by the government. And what have we in this speech V Outside of the ordinary platitudes, and an expression of thankfulness for the visit of Their Royal Highnesses, we have a reference to only two wonderful things. This government, so great, and so powerful, in their great wisdom saw fit not to prevent an inventor landing on the soil of Canada and carrying on experiments. It would have been a very sad thing for Canada and for the world if the government had seen fit to order that inventor off the soil of Canada. The government take great credit to themselves for having allowed Mr. Marconi to come and experiment here, and they tell us they are going to give him 880,000. Now. that is a very serious and very important item to put in the Speech from the Throne. The next thing the government take credit for is for not having refused-for it was in their power to have done so-to allow a private company to spend $20,000,000 of money to be raised from its own shareholders, and to be used in improving its road-bed, its rolling stock, and so on-expenditure that will be a benefit to Canada. The government in their great wisdom have decided to allow that company to increase its capital stock. These are the only two things in the speech. It completely bears out what I had the plea. sure of hearing the Prime Minister saying at a luncheon of the Industrial Exhibition Association in Toronto, that there was nothing to reform in Canada, that everything had been done. Even the Senate is reforming itself without the aid of our wise men ; so we hear no more of the great reforms that were to take place in the Senate. Let us come down to what we in this House think worthy of discussing. We ought to take the question of our finances, the question of what this government has done for the good of the country, and how it has fulfilled the promises made before it came into power. In 1895, in a speech on the budget, the present hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), discussing the expenditure of that time, $38,000,000, said
To-day we are called upon to pay the interest, and the 10 or 12 million dollars a year, which we have to pay through the medium of the government, is only a small part, only a part, at any rate, of the total sum vf interest wh'ch
Canada has to pay. Sir, have we got value for our money, had that money been invested in works which w ire really useful and which really added to the productive powers of Canada, the case would not have been so bad.
If it had been possible for us to have borrowed $800,000,000 or $1,000,000,000, if you will-
The hon. gentleman was dealing in large figures.
-and we should have beon able to pay the interest largely out of the profits arising from these works. But it is only too well known to any one who knows anything of Canada that an enormous amount of money which was borrowed has been wasted, aye and worse than wasted, for a very considerable part of it has gone to debauch and corrupt the people of Canada.
Now, that is the platform on which the hon. gentleman stood and which he enunciated in this wonderful article of his that has been referred to by the leader of the opposition, that the money spent had been, in great part, spent on works that were not for the benefit of Canada but for corrupt purposes. In 1895-6 we had a revenue of $38,041,700. According to the present Minister of Trade and Commerce that was about $4,000,000 too much. In 1901, the revenue was $57,000,000, and, according to the Minister of Finance it is a revenue that is a great deal too small and will be increased considerably during tbe present year. In 1896, our debt was $258,497,000 ; to-day it is $268,480,000, and tbls notwithstanding the fact that during that period, something like $39,000,000 additional have been taken out of the pockets of the people. The platform on which the government came into power in 1896 is the platform by which we must judge them to-day. I quite admit that an increase of expenditure is necessary for an increased population and an increasing trade. But the $4,000,000 by which the revenue under the Conservative administration was too much should have been quite sufficient to provide for the necessary expansion during the five or six years that the present government have been In power. The government came into power on the policy of economy, reduction of taxation and reduction of the public debt. They remain in power to-day in consequence of extravagant expenditure, a large increase in debt, increased taxation, and an expenditure exactly and precisely on the terms to which the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has referred, whereby the people of the -country are debauched and corrupted. We heard that hon. gentleman the other evening, speaking on a proposed item in the estimates of absolutely useless expenditure, defended that expenditure on the ground that it was making up for the injustice that Conservative governments had done to his friends. In other words, not because the Conservative party had spent money, but because they bad not spent enough money, as he put it, corruptly, for the purpose of debauching the country.

Now, Sir, Canada being a great and growing country, it should be the business of statesmen to cast about and find bow they can direct the trade of that country into the best and most profitable channels. But what has this government done in any shape or form to bring about such an end ? They have talked and talked about Improving the navigation of the St. Lawrence. They have proposed to spend money upon it, they have admitted that we must have a better outlet for our produce and grain to the sea; and yet we cannot find, on inquiry, that they have taken one single step towards realizing that end. We are spending money in all manner of ways, we are spending money all over the country, frittering it away, in little driblets here and there; but as for relieving the pressure of our western grain and providing the farmers with freer and better transport to market, this government has absolutely neglected to do anything.
The question of a fast Atlantic service, like some other large questions, has been before this government, but they have shirked it and put it on one side, until now it is almost forgotten. Yet we find that mail subsidies have gone on increasing, and last year alone they increased by $112,000. What has this government done towards solving that great question? Sir, in my opinion the transportation question is the most important question before this House and country to-day. It was discussed a great deal last year, and aroused a good deal of interest, but nothing has come of that discussion. We do not know yet whether it is Montreal, or Quebec, or that new port at Sorel, that is going to be the seaport for our Canadian grain. We cannot tell whether our grain will eventually come by the St Lawrence, or whether it must go by United States ports. It is admitted on all hands that we ought to get some of the grain that comes to Buffalo, some 300,000,000 bushels, that part of that grain ought to find an outlet by way of the St. Lawrence. But people forget entirely that two-thirds of that grain is consumed in the New England states and never reaches the seaboard. Nevertheless one of the great questions that should engage the attention of the government is how to improve our transportation facilities. The government are now spending large sums of money on the upper lakes and on all the ports, but so far they have not taken a single step towards relieving the pressure in the North-west caused by lack of facility for bringing that grain east, no more than If such a question never existed. On the other hand, the government are constantly devising schemes to spend money in the various constituencies where it will do them the most good-solely and only for that purpose. We see item after item in the estimates where the minister charged with it is not aware whether it is wanted or not;


Edmund Boyd Osler: but if it is wanted, he will take care to look after it and see that the money is properly spent. I notice the Minister of Justice, in speaking the other day at Montreal, referred in concise business terms to this question of transportation, and acknowledged the necessity of solving it, but he had no suggestion to make, and not a single step has been taken by the government towards finding a solution.
There is another question that ought surely to have engaged the attention of the government if they are to help on our marine, and that is the proper lighting of the coasts of the St. Lawrence and of our inland lakes. Now, we have spent very little comparatively on that important matter. If you look at the map of the American upper lakes you will find lighthouses dotted all along the coasts, but if you look at the map of our own shores you will see that we have only a miserable light here and there; and many of those lights, I believe, are so poorly maintained that they will only last half the night, and unless a man gets up in the middle of the night to replenish them, they go out before morning. Surely that is a question worthy the attention of the government; and I expected that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, during his three-hours and a quarter oration, would have devoted some little attention to it. But he does not seem to realize that he is not living twenty years ago, when he used to talk about free trade and protection, and of the terrible misfortunes that would happen to the country under a protective policy.
Now, I come to another point which I wish to treat briefly, and that is the Intercolonial Railway. The government have increased the capital of that railway by eight to nine million dollars since they came to power. They have also leased a line into Montreal for which they pay a large yearly rental. Now, it is very amusing to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce and a previous speaker saying : It is quite ti-ue we have spent money, but our revenue is increasing. Yes, their revenue is increasing, but their expenditure is increasing in a still greater ratio. Every year their deficit it getting larger; and I am bound to say that if their accounts were kept properly, if a proper proportion of their expenditure for rolling stock and like things were charged up against the Intercolonial Railway, the deficit would be probably twice as large as it shows to-day. Now, Sir, the condition of the Intercolonial Railway is rather humiliating in the face of the fact that there is not an old one-horse railway on this continent that has not picked up during the last year or two, that is not paying its running expenses and showing a little surplus. Not a solitary instance can be pointed out on this continent, with the exception of the Intercolonial Railway, which does not show an improved condition of affairs, an increasing revenue, a decreasing expenditure, or, at all events,

making both ends meet, and leaving something for the stockholders or the bondholders. The Intercolonial Railway does not charge one cent for the interest of capital expended on it. The Minister of Railways and Canals is increasing its capital expenditure year after year, apparently without any thought as to a limit, and yet deficits are pilling up year after year under the mismanagement of the present government. It would almost seem as if the government were in league with those portions of the community who do not believe in public ownership of public franchises, because, surely the exhibition of the Intercolonial Railway and what the government are making out of it is so humiliating that no advocate could be found of public ownership in the hands of such management. There is no other railway on this continent that shows such a lamentable state of affairs. The government do not give us its earnings and expenses in such a "way as to enable us to check what its rates are. I cannot find out from anything that is published as to the rates charged on the Intercolonial Railway. The freight rates, at all events, are as high, and probably higher, than the rates on either the Canadian Pacific Railway or Grand Trunk Railway for similar service and similar distance. We are not able from the government returns to ascertain that, and I think it is a great mistake that such returns should not be published in the government railway reports. The reports are drawn up as far as it is possible in such a manner as to prevent anyone from arriving at a correct statement of the figures as to the expenditure and revenue. Capital and ordinary expenditure are so mixed up that it is impossible to come to any conclusion.
Now, the burning question, to-day, and it evidently is a burning question between the different members of the ministry, is the question of protection and free trade. It was generally thought in the country that the ministers were pretty well coming round to be of one mind. It was suggested that there had been an anti-free trade vaccine imported into the ministry and that the importer of the vaccine was quietly administering it to all his colleagues and administering it also to his followers. We saw that this had a very startling effect and that it had taken very strongly upon one member of the government, the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). I think that it has taken fairly well upon the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) and I think he is showing very good signs that he has had a proper dose of vacccination. Upon some of their followers the anti-free trade vaccine has taken so strongly that they are baring their arms all the time and showing the public that they have been vaccinated against the evils of free-trade. I have an impression that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) has been vaccinated, but
he has his shield on yet and his arm is pretty sore if you go near it. As to the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier) I think he would be vaccinated if he saw any necessity for it. I think he would bare his arm and cheerfully submit if his colleagues thought that the best thing for him to do and that it would ensure him his political health. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) absolutely refuses the vaccine. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has drawn for us a very doleful picture of what will take place if we do not return to good old simple free trade. What would free trade mean for Canada ? It would mean the closing up of every factory we have from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It would mean that Canadians would be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the great American manufacturers. What has been the effect of free trade, to some extent, already ? It lias driven away our bright young men who are educated in our schools of practical science and other institutions of learning. These young men have gone off to join our neighbours and take an interest in the development of the large manufactures in the United States. These men have been replaced in this country, how ? We have been sending away our brightest young men. We must send them away unless we can give them employment in this country and exercise their skill in all manner of manufactures and enterprises. We are sending these men off and how are we replacing them ? We are replacing them at the government expense with Galicians, Doukho-bors and the lowest class of labour. We are sending away from the country our brightest young men and bringing into the country a class of men who are lower than any we have in the country already. That is how free trade acts. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I do not propose to quote all my array of figures, my remarks will be much shorter than I had intended them to be, because I know the House is weary of figures. I think we will have figures in detail many a time during the next week or ten days, but I want strongly, before I sit down, to emphasize one point which we should keep constantly before the country. We should keep before the country the fact that this government ame into power pledged to economy, pledged to reduce the expenditure, which was then $38,000,000 to some $3,000,000, or $4,000,000 below that sum. We now see hon. gentlemen opposite glorying in an expenditure of $57,000,000 and we hear the hon. Minister of Finance saying that the expenditure is to be very largely increased during the coming year. We see that they have increased the debt of this country by $10,000.000 or within a few dollars of $10,000,000, and at the same time they have taken out of the country an amount of $39,000,000 more taxation than the average taxation of the year in which they came into power. These

are the questions that are of interest to this House and of interest to the country and it is on these questions that this government must be judged. There has been no attempt made towards a reduction of the debt. Hon. gentlemen are simply revelling in spending money and their policy seems to be :	While we have money coming in,
we will spend it and trust to luck when it stops coming in. There is no attempt at economy ; there is a glorying in expenditure. There has been no important undertaking in the interest of the country. These are the points that I think should be held up before the country. These are the points that the government should discuss and the members of the government should intelligently defend, not the points raised by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce in his three and a quarter hours speech. The hon. gentleman did not refer to a single matter that occurred less than five or six years ago. That is not the kind of discussion of public affairs that we want. It is simply dragging a herring across the track, hoping that people will not understand and will not see the iniquities that this government is perpetrating ; the breaking of all their promises ; the breaking of all their pledges ; the increasing of the debt of this country, and the encouragement of corruption to a degree that was not known and not even thought of before the Liberals came into power. These are the questions that are engaging the attention of this House and of the country, and it is not a live issue when the hon. gentleman talks of figures and of contracts, the men concerned in which have been dead for years.


Mr. C. B. HEYD (South Brant).: Mr. Speaker, owing to the very lengthy discussion we have had on this question to-day, I presume it would be gratifying to both sides of the House if it were brought to a close now, and I therefore move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of the Prime Minister, the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
HOUSE or COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 19, 1902.