Mr. SPEAKER.: Amongst the petitions which have just been read, those numbered from No. 33 to No. 45 ask for aid for the construction of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river. I have already decided that such petitions are out of order, because they ask for the expenditure of public money. I declare these petitions out of order.



ELECTION PETITION DISMISSED.

Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from the Hon. Justice Gagnti, one of the judges selected for the trial of election petitions pursuant to the Controverted Elections Act, judgment and report in the matter of the petition for the electoral district of Chicoutimi and Saguenay, by which said election petition was dismissed.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 46) to incorporate the Strait of Canso Bridge Company.-Mr. McLennan.
On section 8, subclause (c),
Mr. AVADE.: AVhen the House rose the other night we were considering an amendment to this clause, and also an amendment to the amendment. Since then I have drafted an amendment which I think will meet the views of hon. gentlemen on the other side who had objection to the section as it stands. I have submitted this amendment to the Minister of Railways, and it meets with his approval. The object is, that while the company has the power to fix the tolls, yet it shall be under the jurisdiction of the government and subject to their approval. I regret that the mover of the amendment to the amendment is not present, because I would wish to ask his permission to withdraw my amendment in order to substitute this one.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to withdraw his amendment *'!


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Let us hear the new amendment first.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Let us hear the amendment that he proposes to substitute.


Fletcher Bath Wade: The amendment I propose is as follows :
Provided further that 10 such tolls shall be levied or taken until the by-law fixing the same has been approved by the Governor in Council and the same published as provided by section 227 of the Railway Act ;
And further provided that such by-law shall be subject to revision as provided by section 228 of the Railway Act; and for the above purpose of approval and revision, said sections 227 and 228 of the Railway Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to any by-law of the company fixing such tolls.
Section 223 of the Railway Act authorizes the company by by-laws to fix railway tolls;, section 227 provides that they cannot collect any of these tolls until the same have been approved by the Governor in Council and until they have been published for two Mr. SPEAKER.
weeks in the ' Canada Gazette '; section 228 provides that any toll so fixed or approved- by the Governor in Council shall be subject to revision by the Governor in Council. I objected to having the words from ' time to time ' appear on the face of the charter


*Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: Carried, carried.


Samuel Hughes: The proposition of the hon. member gives the company power to fix tolls, but does not give the Railway Committee of the Privy Council power to reduce those tolls without the company's consent.


Fletcher Bath Wade: That is provided for in section 228.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I think the section as proposed is all right. The only criticism I would pass upon it would be that it might be put in the form of a clause of eight or ten words to the effect that the right of the company to levy tolls would be subject to the provisions of the Railway Act. However I have no objection to the clause as it is drawn, for the Railway Committee of the Privy Council will have power to reduce the tolls, and no tolls will be legally recoverable unless the Governor in Council approves of the by-law fixing them.


John Graham Haggart: I think the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals is perfectly correct, that it would be better to have a short clause which would make this undertaking subject to the provisions of the Railway Act ; and it ought to go further and make the undertaking subject to that Act as amended from time to time.	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That would follow.


Fletcher Bath Wade: There is a clause in the Bill providing that the Railway Act shall apply to the undertaking. But I would like to draw the attention of hon. gentlemen to one or two features of the Railway Act as amended in 1899 with respect to these bridges. There were express provisions made at that time giving power to fix tolls for foot passengers and for carriage passengers ; but inasmuch as the word company in the Railway Act only refers to a railway company, a doubt arose as to whether that would be sufficient to enable the company to fix tolls on this bridge. Therefore it urns necessary to put in a clause to make that clear ; and when we throw around it all the safeguards which are applied to railways, I think we have met every objection.
Amendment (Mr. Wade) moved at a former meeting of the committee withdrawn ; amendment now moved agreed to ; Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
' Bill (No. 49) to confer on tire Commissioner of Patents certain powers for tlie relief of Jolm Westren.-Mr. Campbell.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 81) to incorporate the Canadian Northern Telegraph Company.-Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. 84) respecting the Bay of Quinte Railway Company.-Mr. Harty.
Bill (No. S8) respecting the Medicine Hat Railway and Coal Company.-Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 91) respecting the Timagami Railway Company.-Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 94) respecting the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company.-Mr. Barker.
Bill (No. 103) respecting the Lake Champlain and St. Lawrence Ship Canal Company.-Mi-. Geoffrion.


Mr. MONK asked :: [DOT]	1. What is the date of the dismissal of Alphonse Thomas, postmaster, Laprairie, P.Q. ?
2.	What is the reason of said dismissal ?
3.	Who recommended or asked for said dismissal ?
4.	Was any inquiry held before said dismissal, and with what result ?
5.	Who recommended the appointment of the new postmaster ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock) :: I. Mr. Alphonse Thomas,
late postmaster of Laprairie, Quebec, tv as removed from that office on the 1st December, 1901.
2.	Mr. Thomas was removed from the postmastership of Laprairie for having used the position which he also held, as caretaker of the Laprairie post office building in endeavouring to extort money from contractors doing work on such building, the accounts for all such work being certified by him. In view of his improper dealings as caretaker, he was considered an unsuitable person for the position of postmaster, and was therefore removed from that office.
3.	The charges against the postmaster were presented by Mr. D. Monet, M. P.
4.	A very full inquiry into the matter was made by the post office inspector and the correctness of the Charges being established, the postmaster was dismissed.
5.	The new postmaster of Laprairie was appointed on the nomination of Mr. Monet, M. P.
I.C.R.-St. OCTAVE STATION.


Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	To whom did the government accord the contract for the construction of the St. Octave station ?
2.	Did the government previously call for tenders for the said contract ?
3.	What was the amount of the lowest tender ?
4.	What is the price mentioned in the contract
accorded by the government ?	'
5.	Why was not the lowest tender accepted by the government ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair :
1.	To Timothy Landry.
2.	Yes. Tenders were called for the said work and several were received.
3.	The amount of the lowest tender was $4,500.
4.	$4,000.
5.	The contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer, but at a sum lower than his tender, which was considered too high by the department.


CENSUSES.
Mr. TAYLOR asked :: What was the total cost of taking the census for 1881 and 1891 respectively ?
What has the census for 1901 cost up to the present date ?
What will be the probable cost to complete it ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: I beg to reply
1881	$456,904	191891	
570,115	541901	
986,296	98About	
183,703	02
Making a total of $1,170,000 as the cost of the census of 1901.


ST. LAWRENCE CANAL EMPLOYEES.
Mr. HENDERSON asked :: 1.	What amount was expended in paying the employees of the canals on the St. Lawrence during the years 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899 and 1901, respectively ?
2.	What amount was collected by the government on said canals during the said years ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: I.	The amount expended in paying the employees of the canals on the St. Lawrence during the years 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899 and 1901 respectively, is as follows :-
Year ending June 30, 1896..	..	$148,826	35"	"	"	1897..	..	137,543	58"	"	"	1898..	..	145,623	93"	"	"	1899..	..	150,291	28"	"	"	1901..	..	190,848	77
2.	The amount collected by the government on the said canals, during the said years is as follows :-
Year ending June 30, 1896.. .. $120,256 30 "	"	"	1897..	i.	122,437	69"	"	"	1898..	..	128,338	31"	"	"	1899..	..	141,979	55<[DOT]	"	"	1901..	..	147,637	90


RIFLE RANGES BELOW MONTREAL.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	What amount of money has been expended in improvements at the new rifle ranges below Montreal ?
2.	To whom has the money been paid ?
3.	What, amount remains due on the price of the land ?
4.	What was the .'amount of the contract for improvements on said new rifle ranges.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: The answer is :
1.	$34,960.50.
2.	Lyons & White, Ottawa, for construction, $34,369;, Arthur Demers, Montreal, superintending work, $342.50; R. W. Allan, Montreal, superintending work, $249.
3.	All the land bought by the department has been paid for. One or two more small parcels may be required, but the matter is under consideration.
4.	Main contract for construction,! $33,789; store shed, $300; target sheds, extra telephone instruments, extra tiring point numbers, &c., $500; fences, 9S cents per rod, estimated at $1,280, total $35,809.


PURCHASE OF HAY FOR WAR OFFICE.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	What quantity of hay has bean purchased since 1899 for the War Office by the government in the province of Quebec ?
2.	Hojy much per ton was paid for said hay ?
3.	From what parties, firms or companies was said hay purchased ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: This question relating entirely to the business of the Imperial War Office, I am not at liberty to answer.


PAMPHLET 'REGULATIONS FOR RIFLE ASSOCIATION.'
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEONARD-by Mr. Morin-asked :
1.	Did the Department of Militia and Defence publish, in 1501, a pamphlet entitled 'Regulations for Rifle Associations, with extracts from Musketry Regulations. 1898 ?'
2.	Why has the government not yet published the French version of that important pamphlet?
3.	Who has charge of the translation of that pamphlet ?
4.	Is the government aware that the French language is still spoken in this country ?
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: The French version of this pamphlet has been published
Hon.'Mr. BLAIR.
and issued, and the translation was made at the Government Printing Bureau. I beg to lay on the Table of the House copies of both English and French versions.


CENSUS-COST IN EAST AND NORTH SIM-COE.
Mr. BENNETT asked :: [DOT]
What was the cost of taking the census in East and North Simcoe, respectively, in 1891 and in 1901 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: The following figures will give the answer to the hon. gentleman's question :
1891.	1901.
' East Simcoe	$2,304 48 $4,465 79
North Simcoe	 1,728 62	2,890 05


THOMAS RICKETTS, POSTMASTER, GIL-MOUR, ONT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CARSCALLEN-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
1.	Has Mr. Thomas Ricketts, postmaster of Gil-mour, been removed ? If so, when was he removed, and for what reason ?
2.	Were any charges made against him or against the management of t.he office ? If so, by whom, and when ?
3.	Was any investigation made into the conduct of the cilice ? if so, by whom, and what report was mads ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock).: The Gilmour post office has been kept by Mr. Thomas Ricketts, the postmaster, in a public hotel, or boarding house, where liquor was sold. This was considered an unsuitable place and the office was removed. In Its removal to a more desirable location, it became necessary to appoint another person to the postmastership, and Mr. Ricketts ceased therefore to be postmaster.
There were no charges against the postmaster personally or against the management of the office apart from the objections to its situation.
An investigation as to the management of the office was not considered necessary, as the information came from a source that was regarded as thoroughly reliable.


SUPREME COURT-LEAVE OF ABSENCE OF JUDGES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK asked ;
1.	What judges of the Supreme Court of Canada have obtained leave of absence from the government, or from the Department of Justice, during the past five years ?
2.	What has been the duration of the leave in each ease ?
3.	For what reason has leave of absence been granted in each case ?
4.	Is it a fact that only one-half of the cases brought before the Supreme Court during the last five years has1 been heard and adjudicated upon by the full bench ; and if not, then what
[Stage Direction]
proportion of such cases has been judged by the entire court ?
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) :: 1.	In 1897, Chief Justice Strong and Mr. Justice Sedgewick. In 1898, 1899 and 1900, none of the judges absented themselves. In 1901, Chief Justice Strong and Mr. Justice Taschereau were absent.	,
2.	In 1897, Chief Justice Strong was absent six months, in 1901, four months; in 1897, Mr. Justice Sedgewick was absent for two months and in 1901, Mr. Justice Taschereau was absent one month.
3.	In 1897, Chief Justice Strong was absent to visit England, to be sworn of Her Majesty's Privy Council and to attend the sittings of the Privy Council. In 1901, Chief Justice Strong was absent on account of ill health, and, the same year, to attend the Privy Council. Mr. Justice Sedgewick was absent in 1897 to visit England, and in 1901, Mr. Justice Taschereau was absent to visit the maritime provinces.
4.	The number of cases argued in the Supreme Court of Canada, from the 1st of April, 1S97, to the 1st of April, 1902, was 494, and in 16 of these cases all the judges sat to hear the argument.


JAPAN EXPOSITION.
Mr. LEMIEUX (by Mr. Talbot) asked :: Is it the intention of the government that Canada shall take part in the Japan Exposition, to be held 5n 1903 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Mr. Fisher).: Yes.


MAIL BETWEEN CACOUNA AND RAILWAY STATION.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Was the contract for carrying the mail between Cacouna and the railway station cancelled by the present government in 1896, and why ?
2.	After the cancellation of the said contract, was a new contract entered into for the said transport of the mail for four years at 5i cents per trip ?
3.	After the expiration of this contract, has the carrier had 25 cents per trip without tender or contract ?
4,1'or how long has the government so paid 25 cents per trip ?
5.	Were new tenders asked for this service in the month of February last, such service to commence on the 1st April, 1902 ?
6.	Who was the lowest tenderer ?
7.	Why was his tender not accepted ?
8.	What tender has been accepted ?
9.	Is the contract signed ? When will the new
service by contract commence ?	.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock) :: 1. The contract for the conveyance of the mails between Cacouna and railway station, contractor, Thomas Dionne, frequency (12 trips in summer, 6 trips In winter), cost 8149 per annum, was terminated after three
months' notice to the contractor on the 31st of January, 1897, because of not having been awarded after public tender, and as the price was considered too high.
2. Tenders were invited in December, 1896, and a new contract entered into on the 1st of February, 1897, with the lowest tenderer at 16i cents per trip, estimated at $129 per annum. This contract terminated on the 31st of December, 1900.
4.	The service has been performed since the 1st of January, 1901, at 25 cents per trip, the best rate obtainable by the inspector for a temporary service.
5.	Tenders were not invited until January last. In the absence of the head of the branch, it cannot be ascertained why tenders were not invited sooner.
7.	The department did not feel at liberty to award the contract to the lowest tenderer as he was reported to be mentally unfit) for the responsibilities of the position.
8.	The next lowest tender was accepted and, on the first instant, sent to the inspector with instructions to execute a contract.
9.	The department has not yet learned whether it has been executed. _ If the hon. gentleman will renew his question at a later date, after a contract has been entered into, full information as to names and amounts of tenders will be given. The department does not think it in the public interest to give particulars of tenders until contracts are executed.


OFFICIAL OBSERVANCE OF THE KING'S BIRTHDAY.
Samuel Hughes: Is it the Intention of the government, as announced in the Liberal press, to introduce a Bill fixing the 24th May as the day of official observance of the King's birthday.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Lanrier).: The attention of the government has been called to this subject, but no decision has been reached on it.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE BUDGET.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) :
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty ; and the proposed motion of Mr. Borden (Halifax) in amendment thereto.
['Well, now, Mr. Speaker, there are some questions that I might answer, but I do not think it would be hardly fair to these people to do so. I said to the Minister of Customs that I would give him such information of that kind as I deemed it right to give. I do not wish to stand up here and be cross-questioned by the hon. gentleman, but I would be willing to give to the Minister Customs that information.\nThe MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson) moved the adjournment of the debate.']
Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: Before resuming the course of the argument, I was endeavouring to present to the House when the debate was adjourned on Friday evening, I wish to call attention to a paragraph which appears in the Montreal ' Herald ' :
The opposition's story was told by two members in succession, Mr. Broder and Mr. Lennox. Both

told the same story of broken pledges and big expenditures and made the same apologies for the prosperity of tile country that have been made by all the Conservative speakers.
Items of- this character are not, in themselves, important. But inasmuch as neither the hon. gentleman Who preceded me nor myself addressed our arguments in the line spoken of, I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact, and also for the reason that we find this organ supporting the government-and it appears, as some one says, a subsidized organ-in this instance, as in some other instances, has referred to arguments as being advanced by this side of the House which were not advanced. We know that conscience makes cowards of us all, and the Liberal party, conscious of their weakness in these matters as well as in a variety of other matters, imagine that the opposition must be talking of this matter' even though they do not refer to it.
Now, when I concluded my remarks the other evening, X was referring to the condition of the country in 1878, and was pointing out the deplorable condition in which the country then stood. Canada had in fact reached the parting of the ways; it was more than the parting of the ways, because the government had acknowledged defeat, they had acknowledged that they were unable from the resources of the country, to carry on the affairs of the country. Canada had, in a commercial and industrial sense, actually abandoned the field, and was going backwards. I need not remind the House who came to the rescue on that occasion. He may be an efficient general who, upon the battle field, casts about him to ascertain the position of the enemy, the strength of the enemy, and lines up his own army in an efficient battle array. He is perhaps a brilliant general who, when victory trembles in the balance, rushes to the head of his forces, stays a threatened retreat, and holds them in line. But, Sir, he is a prince of soldiers who, when panic has set in, when confidence has been lost, when the army nas commenced to retreat, when all seems lost, comes and rallies the soldiers, stays their retreat, and ultimately, after reorganizing them, leads them on to victory. I need not tell the House who was that man, that father of his country, that saviour of Canada, in 1878.	[DOT]
Now, this newspaper says that I referred to the prosperity of the country, and tried to apologize for it. X do not need to apologize for the success of the country. The success of the country, as is known to every thoughtful Canadian, as is known to every statesman the world around, is owing to two things, and two things alone : To the general prosperity of the commercial world and to the magnificent policy, so far as it relates to Canada, that was Inaugurated in 1878. I refer now to the condition of things which succeeded the declaration of policy, and the magnificent campaign that Mr. LENNOX.
was carried on by the Conservative party, ably led by Sir John A. Macdonald, the greatest Canadian statesman, and one of the greatest statesmen of the British Empire. Almost immediately that declaration of Sir John A. Macdonald reanimated the country. I wish to point out this fact, that you may make your policies what you will, you may argue as you will, but unless you animate a country with hope, unless you can point It to something to be accomplished, you will never succeed in building up a nation. So I cast back the statement of the Minister of Agriculture when he told us, in winding up that somewhat tedious speech of his the other day, as a conclusion of the whole matter, that the future of the country must take care of itself. If that is the theory of the Minister of Agriculture for assisting this country, if tliaf is all he can do for agriculture, if he cannot point to a line of policy which will develop the varied resources of this country, if he cannot adapt himself to changing conditions and map out a line of conduct which will enable ns to compete for the commerce of the world with other nations, then I submit that the country will pronounce him not exactly fit for the position he occupies.
Now, after 1S78, after the victory that was then achieved, it goes without saying that Sir John A- Macdonald inaugurated the policy upon which he won. The Conservative party, Mr. Speaker, always carried out in the House the policy which they advocated in the country. I tell the hon. gentlemen opposite who talk about standing by the old policy of 1878, and that we stood, and stand, by the old policy of redeeming our pledges made to the people at the time of the elections. We had great success by reason of the national policy introduced by Sir John A. Macdonald, but we had not complete success, and perhaps that admission will give a grain of comfort to the cabinet and their followers. I have said that absolute certainty of the continuance of a policy is essential to its successful operation. After Sir John A. Macdonald inaugurated the policy, what attitude did the opposition of that day assume ? Why, Sir, instead of acting like a loyal opposition in the Interests of the country, instead of giving the policy a fair trial, they went up and down the country, many of them saying what they did not believe, traducing the policy, and declaring that it would be reversed on the first opportunity, trying to drive the young men out of this country, trying to stem the tide of immigration into this country. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), more unfaithful than most of his party, by his speeches in this House and throughout the country, by his writings in English papers such as the ' Economist ' did not cease to vilify the policy and administration of the Conservative party, to disgrace Canada, to deter immigrants from coming here and

to drive away our young men from this country.
I say it is the essence of a policy that it should be stable, and therefore it is little wonder that at the present time these gentlemen can point to some measure of success. They are' practically carrying out the policy- that was inaugurated by our great Canadian statesman, they have enforced it in a large degree, and to that fact I attribute the prosperity which the country now enjoys ; and so far as that policy fails to procure for Canada all the prosperity which she ought to enjoy, it is owing to the fact that they have tinkered with the tariff, and have never risen to the height of realizing its full scope, nor have they adequately carried it out.
1 will tell these hon. gentlemen a story, and they have always been fond of American authorities until recently, that was told by Chauncey Depew. He said that some few years ago there was in a village not far from the city of New York an excitement because it had been proclaimed that the end of the world would occur on a certain night at twelve o'clock. It unsettled the minds of the people as uncertainty of the future always does unsettle and unhinge people's minds. Some of the people sold their property at a sacrifice, some abandoned work and on the last day a number of them-and I trust hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House will take this lesson to heart-began to pray. Among them was an old shoemaker who had promised a pair of boots to Mrs. Brown for the next day. He prayed fervently, and as it approached twelve o'clock he prayed more fervently still. When it came to twelve o'clock he found that no change had occurred, but he thought that it would be better to pray a little longer. There might be a difficulty about the exact time. He continued praying for perhaps half an hour and then said-and this is the point I wish to impress upon hon. gentlemen opposite as to the necessity of certainty in fiscal matters-O Lord, if the end of the world is coming, let me know right now, but if the end of the world is not coming, O Lord may it please you to say so, because I must have Mrs. Brown's boots ready at twelve o'clock to-morrow ; there is nothing that knocks business out like this uncertainty. We have had, therefore, a better state of things since the government came into office in that regard. We have not had a disloyal opposition, but we have had a loyal opposition, not traducing the country but willing to give the government a fair chance to carry on public affairs. We have not had a complaining opposition, but we have had members on ooth sides of the . House uniting, whether acknowledging it or not, bceause the government has not had the candour to acknowledge it, in upbuilding the national policy and the policy of protection in this country, so that with a ready made policy and with a loyal opposition
supporting it, taken in conjunction with years of great plenty, we should have comparative success. Now, I wish to refer to some circumstances which are unique in a sense in connection with this debate. We have a decidedly unusual state of things. In the words of the man in the street, 'things are coming our way.' First, we have the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), and his speech is yet fresh in our minds. I venture to say that a more significant speech, one of more far-reaching effect, one that is more calculated to shake the confidence of the people of Canada and of the world, for that matter, in the truth and candour of the existing government has not been uttered. Taken in connection with the statement of the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in reference to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and with the utterances of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), who is declared to have taken exactly the same line as the-hon. member for North Norfolk, it establishes beyond refutation that for a quarter of a century we have had the leading men of the Reform party, the men whom the Reform party looked up to, the men whom they believed to be honest, going about this country proclaiming that which they did not believe to be true and denouncing and defaming the policy in which they actually believed. A more significant state of tilings has not existed in Canada for a long time. Now, there is more than that. We have what we would expect and what does not trouble my mind at all, and that is a good deal of wrangling in that party over that same speech. We have the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) on the right and the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) on the left, who, with the hon. member for North Norfolk, are the leaders of the Liberal party outside of the government, and we have these two hon. gentlemen attacking the hon. member for North Norfolk. At the same time we have the hon. member for Russell attacking and threatening the government. He is getting-shaky about the government; he does not know where they stand ; and who does know where they stand ? Is there a man in Canada, who. if you -were to divide that government, knows how many would stand on one side and how many on the other ?	1
do not know. . He holds them up-and history repeats itself-as they were held up in 1878 by a contingent from the maritime provinces. He says : Go one step farther and I will denounce you. An hon. member on the other side of the House farther back, on Friday evening did the same thing. So it is all over the House. The hon. member for Russell speaks as if he were in earnest. I do not know whether he is or not. I would believe every word he uttered was perfectly sincere only for one thing, which makes me feel that I do not know where 1 stand in that regard, and that is the fact

country when in the nature of things changes must be made ; it seems that these gentlemen are not able and have not the ability or have not the courage to announce a policy for themselves, and so they say from time to time :	What is the policy of
the Conservative party, and what is the meaning of the declaration of the policy that has been enunciated toy Conservatives from session to session. In reply to these gentlemen that it is a definite policy; that it is a policy which so far as one can see, the Reform party has not been able to frame. The fact of its being a policy at all makes it what the Reform party are frequently looking for, what they have not been able to find, and what I venture to say-having regard to their actions in the past-they would not have the courage to enunciate even though they found it, because they want to see the way the wind blows before they declare a policy one way or the other. The policy of the Conservative party is not a patchwork policy ; it is not-If I return to the story of Joseph-a patch-work like Joseph's coat, to be worn one side out or the other side just as happens to suit the exigencies of the case ; with a patch for the Minister of Public Works ; a patch, not very definite in colour, for the Postmaster General ; a patch equally undecided in colour for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries ; two patches perhaps-because he has two policies, one in the east.and one in the west-two patches for the Minister of Interior ; shreds and patches for the back benches ; with blue ruin all over it here and there by way of adornment for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and with ornaments of immaculate white to represent the immaculate purity of the hon. leader of the government. The Conservative policy is not that kind of a policy. It is a policy which is well conceived, which is grounded on faith in the country, which is studded with hope throughout, a policy of certainty which has proved beneficent to this country in the past ; not devoid of colour either, for with the inauguration of this policy hope was brought to this country before ; and when the Conservative party comes to power again-and they cannot come too soon for the benefit of the country-a universal Christian emblem will span this country from ocean to ocean, and a rainbow of promise and hope will gladden the hearts of the people of Canada. Well, I do not Want to pay too much attention to the hon. member for Guysborough, because I would be enhancing his importance, and perhaps, he has enough of that now ; but he is as good a text to speak from as anybody else, and when I describe him I describe a good many others. The hon. member complained of the speech of the hon. member for North Nor* folk (Mr. Charlton) in this language :
I cannot conceive of the state of mind which would induce the hon. gentleman, who has done so much for the sanctity of the Sabbath and the
chastity of the home to make such a speech as he made in the House the other day.
Why cannot he conceive of it? I do not think my hon. friend from Guysborough does himself credit. Can he not understand an hon. gentleman repenting of his wickedness ? Is he at a loss to understand that the hon. member for North Norfolk, after having for eighteen or twenty years proclaimed a doctrine in which he did not believe, might very well be aroused by patriotism or by a desire to do what is fair by his country, to recede from the false position he had occupied, and come to acknowledge fairly and squarely that he had abandoned that life and had determined to lead a better one ? The hon member for Guysborough says:
' I cannot understand the state of mind which would induce the hon. gentleman.' Why, Mr. Speaker, does it require an inducement for a member of this House of Commons to do his duty ? What kind of inducement does the hon. member mean ? I do not know; perhaps he does. Then he says, speaking of the toon, member for North Norfolk, ' a gentleman who has done so much for the sanctity of the Sabbath and the chastity of the home.' God help this country, Mr. Speaker, when the sanctity of the Sabbath depends on hon. members of the Liberal party. They have robbed Providence of the credit of the good crops; they have robbed Providence of the rainfall and the gladdening sunshine, and now they are robbing Providence of the credit for the sanctity of the Sabbath. Why, these hon. gentlemen robbed us of our policy. We have heard of men taking coppers from dead men's eyes; but where will these gentlemen stop when they talk of some man sanctifying the Sabbath, the hon. member for North Norfolk by the mouth of the hon. member for Guysborough ? Then, he speaks of the man who has done so much for the chastity of the home. Well, if I read a line or two from a speech of the hon. member for Guysborough, you will see that the chastity of the home is something that the hon. member for North Norfolk might well give attention to. This is what the hon. member for Guysborough said at Morden in 1899 :
To such a Liberal who said that the government did not keep its pledges, he would say, look at home. Have you kept the pledges made to your wife before you married her ?
The hon. member for Guysborough is surprised; he cannot understand a state of things like that; and he says : ' Have you kept the pledges you made to your wife when you married her ? ' Hon. gentlemen I think generally do. Then he says :
But what would you think if your wife left you, and went off with another man, and that man an unsanctified tramp ? That woman would be just as vile as the Liberal who turned Tory. '
Now, I am not going to forget the reverence which I owe to the sacred name of woman

through all the discouragements through which they passed. At last the time came when the party got into power, and then this lover came and demanded the price of his faithfulness. But they said : No; we wish to serve our party by giving this portfolio to another ; you are getting old and are not exactly a suitable bridegroom. This was the shock which unnerved him, and which has clouded his memory ever since. He accepted the portfolio of Trade and Commerce, but always since then he has lived in the past. If the hon. gentleman thinks that that reference, is not suitable to his taste, then I will recommend him to consider a historic instance, that of Hans Christian Andersen, the great Dane who made himself illustrious as a writer of children's stories. Andersen had a great apprehension that he might be buried alive, and I think that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, perhaps, has reason to fear that, living in the past as he does, he also might be buried alive. To prevent the dreadful fate he feared, Andersen had pinned upon his clothing when he retired at night a paper bearing these words : ' I am not dead, I am only in a trance.' I trust the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce may have an awakening sooner or later-and before it is too late. Talking of slumbering, I do not think that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce is really one whit more completely asleep than are a majority of the members of this government to the actual condition of things existing to-day. I can give no more apt illustration of what I think will be the historical verdict upon the attitude of the Reform party of to-day, and of the government in narticular, to the condition of the country, than is to be found in the well-known volume, ' Looking Backward.' You remember, Mr. Speaker, the instance, how a gentleman, returning to his house after being out for the evening, retired to a cell he had constructed for himself underground in order to be away from the disturbances of the house and the street. He had been celebrating ' Declaration Day '-this was in the city of Boston, in the United States. That night the building above was destroyed and communication with the cell was cut off. The rest of the story will be sufficiently described in what I read ;
And now (says the Dr.) ' can you tell me a little more explicitly when it was that you fell into that sleep, the date, I mean.' 1 Why, last night, of course ; I said so, did'nt I ? that is unless I have overslept an entire day. Great heavens ! that cannot be possible ; and yet I have an odd sensation of having slept a long time. It was was Decoration Day that I went to sleep.'	[DOT]
' Decoration Day ? '
Yes, Monday, the 30th.' 'Pardon me, the 30th of what ? '
Why, of this month of course, unless I have slept into June, but that cannot he.'
This is the month of September.'
' September ! You don't mean that I have slept since May ! God in heaven ! Why it is incredible.'
We shall see,' replied my companion ; * you say it was May 30 when you went to sleep ? '
' Yes.'
' May I ask what year ? '
I stared blankly at him, incapable of speech, for some moments.
' Of what year ? ' I feebly echoed at last.
' Yes, of what year, if you please ? After you have told me that I shall be able to tell you how long you have slept.'
' It was the year 1887,' I said.
My companion insisted that I should take another draft from the glass, and felt my pulse. He said :
' Your appearance is that of a young man of barely 30, and your bodily condition seems not greatly different from that of one just roused from a somewhat too long and profound sleep, and yet this is the 10th of September, in the year 2000, and you have slept exactly one hundred and 13 years, three months and eleven days.'
Now, I do not quote this for the amusement of the House, I quote it because it points a moral, and because we are at a crisies in the affairs of Canada. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been writing epitaphs in order to denounce the Conservative party, perhaps it might not be improper for me to sketch an epitaph for the hon. minister himself. I regret that if the people of Canada were to erect a monument to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, they could not, I fear, unless he repents, consistently engrave upon his monument any such legend as that which is engraved on the monument to the memory of the late Alexander Mackenzie :
' Duty was his law, conscience was his ruler.' But on second thought, I do not think it would be well to erect a monument to the hon. minister, I think it would be better that a tablet to his memory should decorate the halls of this chamber, in order that it might be a warning to young Liberals in future to be careful as to whom they accept as their guide. So I venture to suggest that a tablet be erected to the memory of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to be placed on the southern wall of this chamber. What can we engrave upon it with any due regard to consistency ? We will, I think engrave two pillars of stone.- We will make one grand and graceful column dedicated ' Protection.' We will also have a crumbling rock inscribed with 'Free Trade,' and on that we will place the figure of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, leaning against the pillar designated protection. We will place in his hand a flag and on it the legends unrestricted reciprocity, commercial union, political union, annexation to the United States, and absorption in the United States. We will have the hon. gentleman, as aforetime, looking to Washington, and near him the figure of a man, not in particularly good humour-a figure representative of a gentleman named Cook,-and this figure pointing menacingly to the Minister of


Haughton Lennox: 



of German trade and the utterances of German statesmen, he continues :
The time has undoubtedly come when we shall have to reconsider our attitude towards our foreign industrial competitors, our fellow subjects beyond the seas, and our whole commercial policy as well. Economic and political reasons render a change indispensable; from the insular no less than the imperial point of view a radical reform seems called for. And even military considerations bear out this conclusion; for we began by sacrificing our agriculture, the source oi our food supplies in war time, for the purpose of futhering our industry, and now we are offering np onr industry at the shrine of a theory which is no longer tenable.
I also refer to a line or two from an article on the Outlook of British Commerce in the ' Empire Review.' The writer deals with an article that was published by Mr. Carnegie. He says :
Need we despair then, because our political ideals have not yet so completely matured as to enable the stupendous resources we command to be systematically organized and methodically developed ? The personal element, Mr. Carnegie states we still enjoy, the 'dogged endurance,' 'the ambition to excel,' 'the will, to do or die.' Possessing these supreme qualities and controlling some -100 millions of people inhabiting nearly one fourth of the land surface of the glebe, with every physical advantage and geograph cal opportunity that man can desire, so tar from being pessimists, we ought to feel and understand that both in the matter of numbers and natural resources we hold all the winning cards in the great game for commercial supremacy. It only remains to decide how we must play them.
Then he goes on ;
This in itself would be a source of congral il lation to us were it not for the fact that our accumulative powers as a nation are now being attacked. The industrial armies of the United States are accumulating wealth more rapidly than we, and consequently the time must very shortly arrive when their bankers and financiers will be able to undersell us just as their producers and manufacturers have already done.
How then are we to protect ourselves ? Obviously by the same means that have been employed to raise the states of the American Union to their present magnificent position. Whilst the 'forty-five countries' of America have joined forces, established free trade amongst themselves, and thereby created a compact industrial army of immense strength, the fifty odd countries, colonies and dependencies which make up the British empire-with a population and territory of far greater magnitude than the United States,-are not only disunited in their political and commercial principles, but they are actually in many respects working against each other, and thereby making the way for the ecmmercial and political ascendency of our more powerful neighbours. It is to the question of 'national unity' that we must turn our attention, a unity first of trade principle, which will prevent the sacrifice of our own commerce and that of some of our dependencies and colonies to a theory which, however advantageous when originally introduced, is unquestionably out of date and injurious when considered in relation to the developments In transport, production, and international state-aided competition with which we p.re now face to-face. Un-Mr. LENNOX.
qualified free trade is not only misleading as a theory, but is, when considered from the political standpoint, a mischievous and dangerous principle which we cannot too quickly abandon if we desire to hold our own.
Then, he sums up in this way :
I do not think

.
Referring to Mr. Carnegie :

we need disturb ourselves much about
the loss of prestige, for just as a short rest enables the exhausted frame to quickly regain its accustcmed strength, so will a period of peace and prosperity restore power and confidence to the holders of British stock; hut the question of our stationary commerce is a more serious matter, and one of those unpalatable facts which it seems impossible to explain away. The other great nations of the earth are rapidly overtaking ua in the volume of commodities-raw and manufactured

which their enormous territories and expanding populations enable them to so readily produce. And if we are to hold our own in the great struggle for possession of the world's markets now in progress, we must thiuk how we can augument the land, labour, and natural resources at our disposal. Impossible as this may seem at first glance, a moments consideration at once opens our eyes to Great Britain's coming strength-our colonies. When will the dwellers in the motherland understand that their brothers beyond the seas, are not only strong in all they require, but are anxious and proud to place that strength at the disposal of the empire ?
That, this government has sacrificed our interests by the policy of preferential trade, making us less able to give something in return for concessions we might receive, is evident to any reasonable mind. That this government has postponed the accomplishment of that commercial unity of the empire which is to be the grandest achievement of this) century, is also perfectly evident. Did Australia made a jug-handled bargain for trade with Great Britain ? Not at all. Is there a doubt about the loyalty of the Australians ? The history of recent years refutes that suggestion. When the Australians came to deal with Great Britain they dealt upon a business basis idle men, and they would not sacrifice their rights. I charge that no government has the right to give away a dollar of the money of the people. That money in the hands of the government is a sacred trust. And when you come to give it, not to Britain or to the empire, but to British manufacturers, then I say that kindness begins at. home, and it is the duty of patriotic Canadians to think of their own country. I condemn this government directly and squarely for their action with regard to the preferential duty. When we adopted confederation we made a step towards the unity of the empire, and as Mr. Chamberlain has said, we laid the foundation for confederation in Australia which is again a stepping stone towards the unity of the whole empire. But when this government introduced its preferential trade principle they took a retrograde movement, because they put a stumbling

block in the way of mutual trade concessions within the empire, and they delayed if that be possible the realization of that great hope. I do not know that I will weary the House further reading extracts, although I have a long array of matters that I believe would be reasonably improving to the members of the government. 1 would judge from their dumbness; from what lawyers call, the studied silence with ' malice aforethought ', that they have not been studying up these great questions or else they would be prepared to enlighten public opinion. Are they the leaders of this country or not 1


An hon. MEMBER.: Never.


Haughton Lennox: I believe that remark is perfectly true.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Another convert.


Haughton Lennox: Another convert, and there are converts all along the line. I feel, Sir, that this country'is to some extent alive to the important questions that are being discussed in Great Britain, and her colonies, and I need not weary the House by proceeding further upon that matter. I will close by saying : that speaking, not from a political standpoint at all, I do trust that when the leader of this government goes to Great Britain and meets there the great men assembled, he will not allow any personal consideration or any love for that dead dogma of free trade, or Cobdenism to interfere with the intelligent discharge of his public duties as regards our own great country. I do urge him, that although he has not seen lit to lay before the people any large scheme to be discussed at this colonial conference, he will take, the matter seriously in mind. But, whether he does or not, I can say to the members of this House and to the people of the country, that the time is coming when there are no two courses open, when' Britain has to adopt the course that will unite all the parts of the empire within one broad circle. In doing so, I believe that the master minds of those great colonies will unite loyally with statesmen of Britain working out a scheme which will tend to cement the British empire, and more than verify the grand traditions of that empire. I said that things were coming our way. I think I have with some measure of success established that fact in detail. What does our way point to '! Our way points to the rapid accumulation of capital and to the development of well paid labour. It points to the development ih this country of great industrial energy; it points to a simultaneous concurrent advance of all our varied interests and to the development of our great natural resources. It points to Canada for Canadians ; and the empire-the empire for Canadians and Britons-for us all. It points to commercial unity ; comparative immunity from attack ; mutual defence, if attacked, to ability to defend, 714
and to the upbuilding of the greatest, grandest nation that the world has ever seen-a nation so grand and so majestic that the wisest statesmen of a quarter of a century ago did not even conceive of it. It points to one united empire, possessing within itself illimitable resources for every station and condition of life, and a wealth, if not beyond the wildest dreams of avarice, yet almost illimitable, wealth in everything that tends to make a nation great, contented, prosperous and free. This, I predict, is going to be the grand accomplishment of this century-the grand accomplishment of the early years of this century. I look for it ; I believe in it. There are difficulties in the way, I admit. There are difficulties from without, such as the jealousies of other nations; and there are difficulties from within, such as internal jealousies and want of .loyalty. But there are no difficulties which cannot be overcome ; and when in the early days of this century-ay, within the lifetime of our present Sovereign-there will be secured this grand unity of the empire, and the world around, then, with a new meaning, a new fervour and a renewed loyalty will ascend from hundreds of millions of loyal British subjects the anthem and the prayer, ' God bless King Edward the Seventh ! God save our gracious King ! '


Fletcher Bath Wade: Mr. Speaker, I feel at this period of the debate that I owe the House an apology for rising to my feet to take part in the discussion ; but, Sir, the matters that have been placed before the House, the questions that have been raised and the issues that have been provoked are of such a nature that I feel that I cannot, in justice to the constituency I have tlie honour to represent, remain entirely quiet. I fear, however, that a great disappointment is in store for the House, after listening to the able speech which has just been delivered. I fear that I shall not be able to engage the attention of the House for half the time the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has done. Neither must you expect me, in view of my proportions, to float on the sunbeams or waltz on the rainbows as he has done ; but I shall have to keep myself upon terra firma. There are some sentences in his speech which have disappointed me. You know I am a bit of an optimist. I look with confidence at the great prosperity of Canada. I thought that we were now on the crest of the wave, and that it was going to continue. But I find that I was all wrong. I find that there will be no prosperity in the Dominion of Canada until the great Liberal-Conservative party has again come into power ; and then I sigh to myself and say, ' How long, electors, oh, how long will this great hour delay ? ' Royalty in England the other day commanded Britons to awake, and yet they slumbered on ; the even tenor of their way was not disturbed. But, Sir, the stentorian voice of the hon. member for South Simcoe

(Mr. Lennox) has commanded Britons to awake ; and I dare to prophesy that a wave of insomnia will spread over that land which will enhance the price of narcotics twofold. I am glad to know that the hon. gentleman has been content with exterminating the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) the giant of Guysborough (Mr. Fraser), and the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). It is true he did not quite demolish the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, but he left history to complete the job ; the gigantic form of the hon. member for Guysborough has shrunken to mean proportions ; while the hon. member for North Norfolk is on his knees crawling across the House, aud begging for admission to the ranks of the opposition.
It would be presumption on my part to endeavour to follow the line of argument of the hon. gentleman who has preceded me. Therefore, I will try to address myself in a quiet way to matters which I conceive to be of interest, not only to my constituents, but to the country at large. There is a sharp and clear issue before the House. I cannot say that it is raised by the resolution which has been moved by the hon. leader of the opposition ; but certainly it has been presented to us by hon. gentlemen on each side of the House. That issuse is : Shall there-or shall there not-be a greater measure of protection in the Dominion of Canada ? Protection, as I understand it, and as I believe the country understands it, and as I believe everybody will admit, is protection for the manufacturers. Now, Sir, in all well-considered measures that" may be presented by a government, or passed by parliament, the underlying principle is that the greatest amount of good shall be accomplished to the greatest number of people, and the least possible harm shall be done. Taking that as the platform from which we must consider this question, it is well for us to consider how many people are interested in this question on the one side or the other-how many are manufacturers, and how many are found in other occupations and other conditions of life ? I have been at some pains to get some data on this point. I have been examining the census of 1891, which I have been told and led to believe is not quite reliable. I find myself unable from that census to ascertain the exact number of the different trades and industries, because they have not been grouped ; but I have obtained sufficient data for my argument. There are 1,659,355 represented as being persons having an occupation. Of these 790,210 are agriculturists, fishermen, and miners. Domestic and personal servants are 246,183, those in manufacturing and mechanical industries are 320,001; profesions, 63,280 ; trade and transportation, 186,695 ; non-productive, 52,986 ; or a total of 1,659,355. But I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that


Fletcher Bath Wade: while under the head of manufactures we have 320,000, that heading includes not only manufacturers in the strict sense of the term, but all mechanical industries, including, so far as I am able to discover, lumbermen, carpenters, blacksmiths, shoemakers, machinists, plumbers, engineers, firemen, and thousands of other people. So that it is safe for us to say that of the 320,000, not more are real or genuine manufacturers than 160,000 ; and I am further borne out in this conclusion by the fact that when I turn to the trade and navigation returns and look at the exports for, the year 1901, I find that in them there were : products of the mine, $40,000,000 ; products of the fisheries, $10,000,000 ; products of the forest, $30,000,000 ; animals and their products, $85,000,000 ; agricultural products, $38,000,000 ; manuufactures, $17,000,000. So that we have a grand total of exports, amounting to $191,000,000, of the products of Canada, as against only $17,000,000 of her manufactures. I am only dealing with these figures for the purpose of giving prominence to my point, that when we come to deal with the interests of the people of Canada, we must deal with them relatively, and formulate and adopt a policy which will accomplish the greatest amount of good to the largest number of people. And when we have, upon one hand, a population representing anywhere from 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the whole people, as compared with a population, on the other hand, representing only 10 per cent to 15 per cent, it is our duty to consider as paramount the interests of the larger percentage. That being so, is it not proper that we should, in formulating our policy, consider the interests of the agriculturists, the miners, the fishermen, the lumbermen, the labourers, the professional men and all the others, as well as the interests of the manufacturers. But there are many hon. gentlemen on the other side who seem to imagine that there is but one class in this Dominion which should be considered. I have read the resolution proposed by the hon. the leader of the opposition :
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 the Canadians.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Some hon. gentlemen cheer this. Well, I will pause to hear whether they will say ' hear, hear ' after I have made a few remarks further on this point. I would like to know how the hon. the leader of the opposition proposes to protect the interests of the farmer. I am speaking now more particularly with regard to the farmers of the maritime provinces, because I am more familiar with their conditions than with

those of the farmers of the western provinces. I would like to understand how my hon. friend proposes to protect the interests of the farmers of the maritime provinces or of our miners, lumbermen or fishermen. I make bold to say that in the whole tariff list there is but one solitary item which has the slightest bearing upon the interests of the farmers down by the sea. I refer to the item of hams and bacon. Prince Edward Island, to a considerable extent, and New Brunswick, to a smaller extent, do produce hams and bacons, and the duties upon these articles may afford them some satisfaction, but leaving these products aside, and taking all the other agricultural articles, I defy any gentleman opposite to show how our farmers in the eastern provinces are benefited by the tariff in the slightest degree.
I have here a list of all the dutiable articles of farm produce. I have gone through the tariff as carefully as possiDle( and will read the result, though, of course, I may possibly have omitted something. That list comprises :
Animals, except for improvement of stock ; live hogs, bacons, hams and shoulders, beans, salt beef, butter, cheese, cider, cracked corn and *wheat, cranberries, plums and quinces, cucumbers, dried vegetables, eggs, flour and meal, fowls, fruit (raspberries), other berries, bay, meats, milk foods, pickles, potatoes, sheepskins.
That is the list. Take the lower provinces, the only competition which the farmer of Nova Scotia to-day has to meet is the competition of the Prince Edward Islander who comes there with ham, bacon, turnips, potatoes and oats, and sells huge quantities of them and the Ontario farmer whose butter, cheese, beef, mutton and lamb and poultry come to ns in striking competition. These are the only people we have to compete with ; there is no competition from the ^outside at all. Who ever heard of such a "thing in the maritime provinces as the importation of any of these articles from the United States, or any other foreign country?
Then I come to the miners. Will some hon. gentleman on the other side he good enough to inform me where the miner is protected ? Every article that enters into his daily consumption is taxed, and taxed heavily, and there is not a solitary thing which he can produce which can be protected beyond those we have on the tariff at present.
But before leaving the farmers, let me refer for a moment to something an hon. and very fair minded gentleman on the other side said during this debate. He said that we had given protection to the farmers because we had not repealed these duties. Why, in the name of all that is reasonnable, if there be any stray corners in the Dominion- and I presume there are some in Ontario and New Brunswick and iji Prince Edward Island, as I have said-where the farmers draw some measure of comfort from our tariff should we withdraw from these farmers consideration ? Must we take that from them and give them nothing in return ? Is it only the interests of the manufacturers that are to be considered ? That idea I contend is not a good one.
The same remark applies to the fishermen and the day labourers and to other walks in life.
We are told that we must prevent Canada being made a slaughter market for American manufacturers. Well, this with us down in Nova Scotia is a tender point. It was prophesied when the scheme of confederation was first mooted, that its effect would be to destroy our infant manufactures. The result has verified that prophesy, because the larger manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec came down to Nova Sco'tia with their goods and under sold our men, and the result was that nearly every factory in Nova Scotia was closed up. Nor did the competition stop there. Nearly the whole of our wholesale dry goods business was closed up by the fact that the larger houses in Ontario and Quebec doing an,' immense business, were able to come down there and under-sell our men and force them to close their doors. Any man within the sound of my voice, who is at all familiar with the conditions in Nova Scotia, knows what I say to be true, knows that we were obliged, in consequence of the union with these other provinces, to almost entirely change our conditions of life. We did do so. We have changed them, and we are now upon another sound basis and prepared to stand by things as they are.
But there is one idea that suggests itself to my mind with regard to this slaughter market, and which I have never heard come from hon. gentlemen on the other side. Suppose I am correct in my statement that 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the population of Canada are non-manufacturers, and suppose that they are correct in their statement that American manufacturers are making a slaughter market of the Dominion, that the Americans are selling here hundreds of millions of dollars worth of manufactured goods at slaughter prices, is it not self-evident that 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the people of Canada are consequently getting the goods cheaper than do the American people, living in the country where they are manufactured ? I think that idea is commencing to dawn upon the American public. I believe they now begin to see that the very goods that are sold in Canada for a certain figure they are obliged to buy at a largely advanced price. In other words, the manufacturers of the United States who have been able to build this tariff wall ; have been able to say : ' This territory is ours, and we may charge such prices as we see fit, and then we will go into the markets of the world, and, having the advantage of wresting from our own people these extravagant prices to place ourselves in a position to compete upon more advantageous terms with the outside world.'

Take the matter of locomotives ; take the matter of steel bridges; of steel rails or railway cars. These are being sold by the United States manufacturers in Spain, in Egypt, in India, and in other foreign markets ; and I undertake to say that the manufacturers are selling these goods in those markets at lower prices than they are selling them at in their own market. Let me give another illustration of the working of this high tariff. Cross Lake Huron from the Ontario side, and what do you see ? You see Canadian lumber going in there and paying a duty of $2 a thousand feet, and selling at the same price as the American article. It is bought by the Standard Oil Company. In their great works they are using I do not know how many millions of feet every year, making it into boxes for the shipment of their products to all parts of the world. Why do they use Canadian lumber ? Because when they ship out this lumber thus made into boxes, they receive a rebate of 90 per cent of duty paid, or $1.80 per thousand, giving them just that much advantage. Who, then, gets the advantage of this high tariff wall ? The great monopolists, such as the Standard Oil Company, are the parties who reap the benefit of it. Not only the Standard Oil Company, but other large manufacturers are using enormous quantities of Canadian lumber and getting the rebate in this way. I only mention this to illustrate the fact that the people are being deceived by this idea of high protection. It is not the producer who is always benefited; it is not the consumer who is always injured, provided that that consumer is a big corporation that can control its affairs in the manner I have indicated,
I do not intend to weary the House by speaking on this question. But I think it is my duty to say this, and to say it forcibly, that, while there are differences of opinion on this side as to what should be the exact tariff, there, are all interests represented here. There are men representing constituencies who would be delighted to have certain industries protected; there are men who would like to have the broadest measure of free trade. And all have a perfect right to stanp here and urge, each one, the interest of the constituency he represents with the utmost vigour. But, I am thankful to say that, on this side of the House, we have a body of men who are willing to ' give and take,' and we are all united upon a tariff which will result in the greatest measure of good to all. There is no man to-day who says that Canada can have absolute free trade. We know that a revenue must be raised, and we know that that revenue can only be raised-or ought only to be raised, that is, it is better that it should be raised-by a tariff. Therefore, it is our duty to meet and agree upon <such a tariff as will accomplish this result, and that we have done. Nowj gentlemen, on
Mr. "JVADE.	,
the other side say that we have falsified our promises.
An lion. MEMBER. Hear, hear.


Fletcher Bath Wade: An hon. gentleman on the other side says ' Hear, hear.' They said that before 1900. They went to the people and said that. And what answer did they receive ? Surely that should have satisfied them. But it does not appear to have satisfied them. The cry of ' Canada for the Canadians,' reverberated through these halls years ago. It was a master hand that first penned that phrase, and he used it to good advantage. But, when we came into power in 1896, and when this government simply carried out in 1897 the pledges it had given to the country, what was the first position taken by hon. gentlemen on the other side ? They said : You are going to ruin all the industries of Canada. Then this great wail went up from Montreal, and we were to have soup kitchens everywhere from Nova Scotia to Vancouver to feed the starving people who would be thrown out of employment by the government's policy. But this did not materialize. The record of this parliament teems vyith the speeches made by the hon. gentlemen of the other side proph-sying these doleful things. And when they found that, not only were the factories not closed, but that business had been given a fillip, that the manufacturers were increasing and that business people had more confidence, what then ? Why they simply turned about and said : These are our garments that you have stolen; this is our tariff. And they have continued that cry, until this session. But, this winter, they come forward and say :	Oh, this as not
right; we must now have a declared policy. A ' declared ' policy, mark you. Last winter, they wanted a ' pronounced ' policy, and with that demand they met the electors of Nova Scotia. With what result ? With the result that the leader of the opposition in the parliament of Nova Scotia is fortunate enough to have one man to second his resolutions. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), a gentleman for whom I have the greatest respect, organized this campaign in the province of Nova Scotia. He went to demand that ' pronounced policy,' first, 1 believe, to the county of Lunenburg, a county in which, in spite of all our efforts in 1900, my hon. and genial friend Col. Kaulbacli, was returned with a majority of something over 230. But when this ' pronounced policy ' was put before the people of that magnificent county in terms which only the leader of the opposition could employ, what was the result ? The result was that they did not want very much of that ' pronounced policy,' and the supporters of the Liberal government were returned with a majority of over 700. The next place this ' pronounced policy ' was used, I believe, was the county of Annapolis. I happened to

be passing on a train and saw my bon. friend addressing a large crowd at Middleton. I regretted tbat I had not time to stay to hear him, but was compelled to go on, having business further down the line. I was able to squeeze into this House with a majority of 152. But when the people of Annapolis had digested that ' pronounced policy,' the candidates of the Liberal party were returned with majorities of about 500. So the matter ran all over the province of Nova Scotia. And we have come back here 'pronounced policy.' Somebody says there has been a mistake, that that resolution last winter was a mistake, that there was something wrong about it. I fancy it was the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) who suggested that they had better call it now 'a declared policy.' So now we have got a ' declared policy,' and upon that these gentlemen are going to the country again.
It does not seem to me, Sir, that it is about time that our friends on the other side roused themselves to a realization of the fact that it does not belong to them exclusively to cry, ' Canada for the Canadians.' Have we not just as much right as they have to cry ' Canada for the Canadians ? ' We may differ from them in our policy, but surely they will be just enough to admit that in adopting this policy we have done that which we deemed and what has proved best in the interest of Canada. I say, it is somewhat impertinent on their part to arrogate to themselves- the sole right of shouting, 'Canada for the Canadians.' It is on a par with the position that they took years gone by when they aixogated to themselves the whole of the loyalty in the Dominion of Canada. You will remember that after the speech made by our leader in Montreal, after the elections of 1896, there was a general expression of surprise in the English papers at the sentiments of that speech. Why, they said, ' this man is loyal to the empire.' It was a matter of surprise to them. Why ? Because the Conservative papers of Canada had so frequently and for so many years declared that the whole Liberal .party were annexationists, that they were, in the words of the bon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, looking to Washington, that they (were traitors to the empire-and the English press was surprised to see how false those statements had been. I say that is something of which the Conservative party ought to be ashamed. No man need to stand on the floor of parliament or elsewhere in this country and declare that he is loyal. For my part I consider that the self-proclaimed loyalist, the self-proclaimed patriot, is a man that needs watching. Every man is supposed to be loyal in this whole empire; and the individual who declares that any party is disloyal, or that any group of citizens is disloyal, that man himself is disloyal to the best interests of Canada.
I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that I should be considered failing in my duty if I did not say something on the apple question! and as it is now nearly six o'clock, I beg to call your attention to the fact.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at 8 o'clock.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Mr. Speaker, it would not be necessary for me to have made any remarks, certainly not any extended remarks, in regard to the fruit industry, but for certain somewhat extraordinary statements which were made here a few days ago by the hon. member for South Wentworth (Mr. Smith). Last session there was considerable discussion in regard to the fruit business in the Annapolis valley in the province of Nova Scotia. I wish to say here that in any discussion I propose to engage in concerning that industry I would like to lift it beyond the pale of party politics. This is a great industry, one of the most important in my native province and in the constituency I have the honour to represent, and I do think, Sir, that we can best serve the interests of the fruit growers of Nova Scotia as well as the fruit growers of the whole of the Dominion of Canada if we approach the discussion of the matters that are of interest to them, from a non-political standpoint. I, therefore, wish to say that I regret that the remarks of the hon.' member for Wentworth were not free from political considerations, and that he endeavoured to cast upon the government the burden of all the misfortunes that are attendant upon the present conditions in regard to the fruit industry. He made some remarks that I believe will be regarded as somewhat startling. In the first place he informed the House that Nova Scotia this year had the only good crop of apples grown in the country. This is rather a remarkable statement coming from the hon. gentleman who lives in a part of this Dominion, which at the time when the Annapolis valley was first producing apples in abundance his county was traversed only by the aborigines. The crop of the Annapolis valley was barely an average one. It was good. It was strikingly good, but to have this hon. gentleman publish to the world that this great industry which was established by the French away back in 1600 and odd that its first good crop was last year is rather discouraging. Then, he blames the government for all the difficulties in connection with the transhipment of apples. He says the people there are dissatisfied, and that they are censuring the government. He attempts to, and does read resolutions from fruit growers associations and boards of trade to support-but which entirely failed to support-his charge, and then he tells us about the sad condition

225G
of affairs in Annapolis valley. That was rather startling, it was amusing to hear the hon. gentleman talk about the sad condition of affairs in the Annapolis valley where the people this year have put into their pockets over a million dollars as the outcome of their orchards. Then he cites as his authority for all this dissatisfaction, Mr. Peter Innes. Mr. Peter Innes is a very estimable Scotch gentleman. It would be well for me to say who Peter Innes is, because he is the authority that is taken by the hon. member for South Wentworth to represent the true state of feeling in the Annapolis valley. I wish to preface my remarks by saying that it is absolutely incorrect to say that there is the slightest dissatisfaction with the government in the Annapolis valley, and by the Annapolis valley I mean the counties of Annapolis, King's and Hants, in regard to either the apple business or the transportation question concerning it. Now, Mr. Peter Innes was for a number of years the manager of the Windsor and Annapolis Railway, now the Dominion Atlantic Railway. That railway to-day is the only outlet for the valley to the sea coast where the apples are transhipped to the steamers. During this regime the farmers and fruit growers of the Annapolis valley claimed -that his heart was as adamant towards them. The rates that he demanded were extortionate and they continued in that way until he ceased to be manager and another man took the rein of affairs. Then he became a grand reformer. These rates were ridiculously high. He demanded that they should be cut down at once. And what is the explanation he gave? He says :-In the days when I managed the Windsor and Annapolis Railway, apples were a luxury ; now they are a necessity. In the same way the hon. member for South Wentworth stood by the late government when they did nothing for the farmers, virtually, when they did nothing for the fruit growers, and supported them, having no fault to find with them whatever. But when his party was defeated, when his government was turned from power and when the present administration took upon itself the reins of government, the hon. member for South Wentworth became a great reformer. He demands everything from the government now and he is not willing to give them that credit which they deserve. To read his speech and to listen to his remarks one would suppose that it was the bounden duty of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) to go down through the province of Nova Scotia, to go to the ports of Halifax, St. John and Montreal and there, himself, see to it that the apples were stored on board the steamers that were properly ventilated, to see that they were properly stowed on the steamers and to accompany the ships on their voyage across the Atlantic ocean. I say that the government cannot undertake Mr. WADE.
such a duty or responsibility as that. We might with equal justice demand that the hon. member for South Wentworth should assume responsibility for that Mr. Onder-donk, from Ontario, who went down to the valley last year, purchased on credit some $80,000 worth of fruit, stored it in a warehouse and then gave a bill of sale of that fruit to his creditors by which the farmers were robbed of $80,000 of their money. I say that all the farjners and fruit growers ask is that the government of the Dominion of Canada shall aid them as far as they can in securing proper transportation of their fruit from this side to the other side. Then the hon. gentleman made another statement here. I am sorry he made it because it is not correct. He says :
Within the last twenty-four hours there has been a deputation of Nova Scotia fruit growers in this House to protest against the condition of things and complain that the government have neglected their duty.
I had the privilege of coming from the province of Nova Scotia in company with and conversing with them from the time we left Halifax until we arrived here. I secured a vast amount of useful information from them. I had the pleasure of going with that delegation to a conference with the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher), the deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) and not only is the statement that they complained of the action of the government untrue, but Mr. Ralph Eaton, the foremost orchardist in the lower provinces, after making a very exhaustive'speech in connection with this matter, took occasion to say that he was grateful to the government for what they have done in connection with the agricultural interests, that he was grateful to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and that he knew that they had his entire sympathy and that he was prepared to do anything and everything he could for them. ' That is the true situation with regard to the great fruit industry in the Annapolis valley.
Now, Sir, who is he who will be bold enough to say, that the government can come in and remedy all these evils that are existing ? Any man who knows aught about this matter knows, that all the government can do is to grant a subsidy in order to ensure the rapid and proper transit of fruit from the province of Nova Scotia, or from the Dominion of Canada to the other side of the Atlantic. This they have done. Last year and for a number of years they have been giving this subsidy to the Furness-Whithy Company. There was some discussion about the matter last year, and more stringent provisions were incorporated in the contract that was entered into between the government and that steamship company. Last year the company agreed to give the following service-
I am reading from the contract:

The contractors will on the 1st of July next, after the date of these presents, place on the route between the Port of St. John, In the province of New Brunswick and the port of London in England, the following steamers :-The ' Evangeline,' the ' Loyalist ' and the ' Dahomey ' ; and with these or with other good steamers sanctioned by the minister, maintained for the period of one year a regular service between these ports at fixed dates at regular intervals of not over fifteen days.
The 'balance of this contract was carefully drawn. It was supposed by the fruit owners that if these ships, or ships of a like character, could be employed in that trade, the business woud be properly served. I believe that if those ships had been employed and if the stowage of the fruit had been properly attended to there would have been no complaint and no dissatisfaction. In fact, I have here on my brief statements from the leading orchardists in that province supporting that contention, but I am sorry to say that the Furness-Whithy Company did not carry out their contract. In the first place, they were careless about the handling of the fruit from the cars to the steamer. In the next place, they piled the fruit sometimes eleven tiers deep in their steamers with the result, as any body would know-there being no intervening dunnage between the barrels-that the whole pressure of eight or nine barrels coming on the lower ones would spring the bilges of the barrels and bruised nearly every apple in them. Any lawyer knows that the persons who held bills of lading from these steamers would be in a position to maintain an action for damages against the company, but what could the government do V There is only one tiling the government could do and that was, to withhold from that steamship company the subsidy, and we are told that the subsidy has been withheld. But this is not all that this Furness-Whithy Company did. They ran these three splendid steamers for a part of the year; they sold two of them, withdrew the third from the service, and filled their places with inferior steamers without first getting the sanction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce as provided for by this contract. That is the cause of complaint throughout the Annapolis valley-not against the government, but against this Furness-Whithy Company which has violated its contract.
What can the government do ? All that they can do is to withhold from the company the 'balance of the subsidy that has not been paid. I have not approached this matter, Sir, in any controversial spirit, aud neither has the hon. Dr. Borden, the representative of King's county, nor Dr. Russell, the representative of Hants. But, after listening to what has been stated by these representatives of the fruit growers, we have bad conferences with the minister and we have asked him, in order to secure the proper carrying out of such provisions as we deem necessary, that in the next contract which is entered into between the government and any company that is to carry this fruit from Canada to the other side, certain stipulations shall be incorporated in that contract. The conditions that we have asked for and which meet with the approval of the representatives of the fruit growers are these :
That if the fruit trade, in the opinion of the minister requires it, the minister would insist upon the company increasing the service to intervals of every ten days instead of fifteen, days. Such steamships when carrying fruit shall he run at an average of twelve knots an hour.
Many people have demanded that the steamers shall be run at a higher rate of speed, but after a great deal of discussion it was shown, that a steamer running at twelve knots an hour will make the trip in something less than ten days, and that is considered to be all that is necessary.
Said steamships when carrying fruit shall be ventilated by forced draft in the most effective manner, to the satisfaction of the Minister, and so as to secure as uniform and cool a temperature as possible. And the Minister may require the company to instal in and upon such steamships theographs to record the temperature.
The handling, loading, stowage and unloading of fruit shall be under the supervision of an officer appointed or named by the Minister, if he deems it desirable.
Said steamships shall not carry between any decks more than five tiers of barrels of apples, that is, there shall not be resting on any one tier of barrels of apples more than four others, unless the same is arranged in such a manner as to relieve the barrels of the extra weight.
I may say in this connection, that the dangerous months in the transhipment of fruit are the months of September and October. During the month of September the temperature between the port of Halifax and the port of London averages something over 59 degrees-I think it is 59 7. During the month of October the temperature averages slightly over 58 degrees. Now, the fruit growers are of opinion that without any cool air chambers and without any refrigeration, but with simply forced draft taking the- cool air from outside and circulating it through the vessel, there can be a temperature maintained of about 60 degrees, which is all that is necessary in order to carry the fruit without any loss or damage. That is what they are asking. They are asking simply that these conditions shall be imposed upon the parties to whom ithe Dominiou subsidy is granted. If the subsidy which is now granted is too small, then we make bold to ask the government to make it somewhat larger; and if we are met by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) in the spirit in which he has met all applications on 'behalf of the agriculturists of this country, then we have every reason to believe that our request will be granted and that the fruit growers of the Annapolis valley will be satisfied with the

result. At any rate, our people are 'willing to give this forced draft air circulation a fair trial for a year or two, and then if it proves not to he efficient they will come back to parliament and say: We were mistaken, and we ask to have something else done. I submit that it is not fair, in view of what has been done by the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the interest that has been taken by himself personally and .by the government in this matter, to censure him or to censure the government, or to say that there is the slightest dissatisfaction with the minister or with the government so far as the people in the valley of the Annapolis are concerned.
There is one other question which is of somewhat vital importance to the people there, and that is the question of railway freight rates on apples. The statement was made by this same delegation to the Minister^ of Railways ; or rather it was at a hearing before him, and what they desired was placed before him by myself in a letter. They are asking that the classification so far as apples are concerned shall be changed. It is now ' three ' and ' five,' and they ask that it shall be made ' five ' and ' eight,' the same as flour. Of course, the request for a change in the classification of fruits on a railway is a matter of great importance, because that classification is made for the whole Dominion, and we could scarcely hope that the fruit growers of the Annapolis valley could of themselves come here and secure a classification for' the whole Dominion unless they were supported. I requested the Minister of Railways to forward this application of mine to the clifferent transportation companies interested ; and, after receiving their replies, I hope that other agricultural societies interested throughout the province of Ontario would take the matter up and press the government for this change. I believe that what they ask is fair and reasonable. I can see no reason why apples should not be carried at as low a rate as flour. That is the whole apple question, an$ a correct statement of the feelings of the people in tne county of Annapolis. Last winter there was an Act passed here in reference to apple inspection. That Act has given a great deal of satisfaction. I do not care to discuss it to-night. There is a good deal of divergence of opinion as to whether certain amendments should be made to that Act this year or not ; but the consensus of opinion is that we had better try it for another year to see how it works. It is a step in the right direction, and the people are grateful to the Minister of Agriculture, who introduced it. So much for the apple question.
There are one or two other matters which I wrould like to say a few words about. I wish to remark upon some of the statements made by the hon. leader of the opposition when he moved the resolution now Mr. WADE.
under discussion. I will not dwell as long as I intended to upon that matter, but there are some things I must refer to. There were two statements made by the hon. leader of the opposition which struck me most forcibly. He stated that it was necessary for us to have a declared policy-, notwithstanding the fact that we have a declared policy which we have been acting upon for five years, a policy which has stood the test of a vehement political contest and has come off with flying colours ; and why does he say so ? Because, he asks, * without it how can we expect men to put their money into the industries of the country with any confidence ' ? Surely the hon. gentleman must have forgotten himself for a moment when he made this remark. Afraid to put their money into the industries of the Dominion of Canada ! Why, Sir, to-day we have men tumbing over each other to secure the industrial and other stocks of the Dominion of Canada. In the province of Nova Scotia this year I have seen property after property sell at 4 or 5 or 6 or even 10 times what they would have sold for in 1897. We have the great industries in the province of Nova Scotia developed as no man had any idea a few years ago that they would be developed. Look at the great Dominion Cnal Company. I remember when the premier of Nova Scotia, our present Finance Minister, introduced the legislation of 1894 which brought into existence that great corporation ; and what was he met with ? The Conservative press of the province of Nova Scotia united in saying that he was handing over the coal mines of Nova Scotia to American speculators, who would close them up and destroy our whole coal industry. A short time previous to that the whole revenue derived by the province from minerals amounted to $120,000. To-day the revenue from the same source has reached over half a million dollars. We have seen the value	of the
stock of the Dominion Coal Company rushing up 10, 15, sometimes 20 points in a day. And yet the hon. gentleman tells us that people will have no confidence in our industries. Look at the record of the Dominion Steel Company and the Nova Scotia Steel Company. Look at the fact that capitalists have been coming from the United States to buy our railroads. Some gentlemen say that they are coming over to buy everything we have. And yet the hon. leader of the opposition says that in consequence of this policy of ours no one has any confidence in the industries of the Dominion of Canada. Never since the Dominion has been a Dominion has there been even a percentage of the confidence that the financial world has in Canada to-day. It was only a few years ago, I remember it well, when, if you went into the financial markets of New York with a scheme, no matter how tempting it might be, the mo-

ment you mentioned tliat it was from Nova Scotia, that moment you were turned down and never considered. But to-day, ' Nova Scotia ' is the gilt-edged scheme that takes.
I am free to admit that the great iron and steel industry of Cape Breton has been fostered to a certain extent by this government. The government has given it a bonus, and properly so. Cape Breton island is the great storehouse of the mineral wealth of this Dominion. We are not in a position to estimate what the future holds for that island. The people of Cape Breton have for years contributed their part towards the building up of manufactures and it was but a measure of justice to grant the bounty on iron in order to give their industries a start.
Another thing- seemed to trouble the hon. leader of the opposition. He told us that unless we changed our policy and adopted a declared xiolicy, we should become a pastoral and agricultural people. When he said that, it did convey some horrors to my mind. I would not like to live in a purely pastoral community. I think the only animal I have that I could lead to pastures green has seen some thirty winters. I would not cut much of a figure with a shepherd's crook. I believe the hon. leader of the opposition is one ahead of me, because I understand that he has a cow. In this connection I was looking at Ely's Political Economy,' in which he tells us :
When, hunting tribes begin to domesticate animals they enter usually upon the pastoral stage. The earliest chapters of the Bible give us vivid pictures of peoples living in this period of economic development.
He goes on to cite from the Scriptures a passage which, if reports be true with regard to certain dissensions on the other side, would, with a slight change of the names of the principal parties, be appropriate to this occasion. He cites from the 13th chapter of Genesis these words :
Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver and
in gold	And Lot also, which went
with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents. And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together : for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together. And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle	And Abram said unto Lot, Let
there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee and between my herdmen and thy herd-men. Is not the whole land before thee ? Separate thyself, 1 pray thee, from me : If thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.
If my information Is correct, this has an application to-day ; though I am prepared to learn that I have been misinformed. But it is rather a startling proposition to us members down by the sea to he told that we have to become a pastoral people-we with our great fishing industry, our great mining industry, our great farming and
lumbering industries, our great steel industry-unless, forsooth, we have a ' declared ' policy. We have been living in hopes and have now the almost certain assurance that our old ship building industry-the wooden ship building industry-will, in the near future, be revived in the form of steel ship building, and to-day I am informed that there is in the province of Nova Scotia a representative of one of the largest and most influential ship building firms on the Clyde, who is there for the purpose of arranging for the building of steamships in that province. Why should we not build steel , ships ? We have there all that is necessary. We have inexhaustible mines of coal and iron and all the things necessary in order to produce steel cheaper than it can be produced anywhere else in the world. I am informed on the very best authority that before August of this year the Dominion Steel Company will be producing 1,000 tons of steel per day which will yield to that company a profit of $8,000 per day, or over $2,000,000 net profit per year. Yet we are told by hon. gentlemen opposite that if we do not resort to tariff tinkering, we are going to become a pastoral people.


Mr. LAVELL.: Does that include the bounty ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: That includes the bounty, and the people of Cape Breton are very grateful for that bounty, and I repeat that the giving of it was only what they deserved. They have given bounties to manufacturers, and were entitled to receive from the government some recognition, and they have received it. And in consequence of that bounty, this great industry has been built up in their midst, which has not only benefited Cape Breton and Nova Scotia but the whole Dominion, and is lifting the Dominion into the gaze of the world to-day ns thte possibly greatest steel and iron producer in the world.
And I say that the bounties which have been given to create this industry has been one of tlie wisest provisions ever made by any government of Canada.


Mr. HACICETT.: Is that steel suitable for the making of steel rails ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: I never made a steel rail in my life, but I believe it will make the very best kind of steel rails. However, if the hon. gentleman has any doubts lie can go down there and have a steel rail made and see how it works.
I wish to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell). I believe that the House looks upon the hon. member as one of the ablest men who sits on that side. Certainly his speeches are very clear and forcible. I believe that he has been in advance of his party all along, because in 1891 he discovered and declared that the national policy was a delusion and a snare and that what Canada required was a large measure of free

trade. And the other night, after he had spoken for an hour or two, he came to the conclusion that he had not much, if any, fault to find with the present tariff, and that we should be grateful for it to the government. His actual words were :- Although I am prepared to say this, as a protectionist, that I am not altogether disposed to find much fault in the gross with present system, which is very fair in its effects, and it has done a great deal to maintain the interests of the country.
When we find one of the leading members on the other side giving such an endorsa-tion of the policy and tariff of the government, we need not worry very much about what some of the others opposite may say. I might go on and quote further from the remarks of the hon. gentleman in the same connection, but he fell into one serious error. He declared that every man in this House was a protectionist, to ' some extent or other. That is absolutely not correct. There are men on this side who are protectionists to a certain degree and there are others who wish to be free traders as far as they possibly can. They have to meet upon a ground of compromise. And if a readjustment of the tariff has to take place in the future, I suppose that a compromise will be necessary. And when that readjustment takes place, I wish to say that if I then have the honour to be in this House,
I shall be here asking for a further reduction in the duty on kerosine oil and some reduction in the duties upon tobacco and sundry other things, and I believe that we will all have to meet each other in the spirit of mutual compromise and do the best we can to satisfy each other, consistently with serving the best interests of the country.
The hon. leader of the opposition made some reference to reciprocity and retaliation. The hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) said that all good things were going the way of hon. gentlemen opposite, and he instanced the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who believes in reciprocity and retaliation. But the leader of the opposition took good care to declare that he did not believe in reciprocity or retaliation, and his words in this connection are somewhat peculiar. He said 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. There was a period during which such reciprocity was desirable, and during which it wouJld 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.
That is what was troubling the leader of the opposition. He thinks that reciprocity or retaliation, one or the other, may cause us to lower our tariff in the future'and so Mr. WADE.
admit American goods. There is no spirit, I believe, in Canada to-day in favour of reciprocity. I believe that this Dominion has grown until it has become so lusty that we do not care whether we have reciprocity or not. We feel that we can live without our neighbours to the south. There was a period in the past when it seemed to us in Nova Scotia to be our only salvation. But happily that moment has passed away. When the hon. Minister of Finance was premier of Nova Scotia he inaugurated and carried through such a policy as placed that province on a basis of independence to the United States, and to-day we are prepared to meet the United States on a fair basis, but we are not going to plead for reciprocity now because we can live without them. At the same time I doubt whether it would be wise for us to throw down the gauntlet and say we are going to inaugurate a policy of retaliation. It is not necessary that we should do so, it is not seemly or dignified or statesmanlike. We must meet the conditions as they arrive, and I believe that the present condition will be remedied by the Americans themselves. They are beginning to feel that the consumers of the United States are being bled by the manufacturers, while 85 per cent of our people are being benefited by getting goods cheaper in consequence.
I wish to say a word or two with regard to the Intercolonial Railway, directing my remarks to one or two statements made by bon. gentlemen on the other side. These gentlemen have asserted that this is the only railway in the Dominion of Canada that is not paying to-day. Does any of these hon. gentlemen speak for the Conservative party ? And is he prepared to urge the government to impose the condition that will make the Intercolonial Railway a commercial success-that is to increase the freight rates to make them equal to those of other roads ? Is there a man on the other side who will take that stand ? If that is done, the Intercolonial Railway can be made a paying concern. But I believe the country will back me up when I say that we are under great obligations to the present Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) for the change that has taken place in the administration of that road. It is but a few years ago when the service on that road was most wretched, such a service as the travelling public would not submit to to-day. The deficit of the road-then some 863 miles in operation-was larger than the deficit to-day. Everybody knows that the deficit can be wiped out if you make the service less efficient than it should be. To-day, we are operating over 1,300 miles of railway on the Intercolonial Railway system. We have a service on that road that cannot be excelled on the continent, I do not care where you go-a perfect road bed, magnificent engines, beautiful parlour cars, a splendid dining car service, and every possible convenience.

It is known by every one that the freight rates upon that road are very low, lower than a commercial rate. But, Sir, who is profiting by that low rate ? Do not let it be supposed for a moment that the maritime provinces are profiting by it. I tell you that the upper provinces profit most by it, because it enables them to bring their products down to the maritime provinces and sell them in competition with those of the people there. Now, as to this deficit, let me point out one or two items. For instance, the fuel in 1896 cost $408,861, and in 1901 the fuel cost $973,268, an increase of $564,407. The repairs in 1896 cost $815,044, and in 1901 this item amounted to $1,322,001, a difference of $507,957. These two items alone represent an increase of $1,072,364. Then there is the difference in wages. Of course, there had to be an increase in the wages bill with the increased mileage. In 1S96 the wages bill amounted to $863,057, less than in 1901.


An hon. MEMBER.: Wages have gone up, too.	[DOT]


Fletcher Bath Wade: I was just going to remark, that, in consequence of the increase of wages in other vocations, occasioned by the great wave of prosperity that has swept over this Dominion, the Intercolonial Railway is obliged to pay larger wages. We find that the increase of expense in running that road was $1,925,000. But, Sir, upon the other side we have an increase in earnings of $1,993,000. Therefore, while the cost of running the road has been increased, the earnings of the road have been increased still more. In connection with this matter of the Intercolonial Railway, I have a word to say which may not be pleasing to the government. There must, in the near future, be a largely increased expenditure upon that road. I am going to ask the government to take this matter into serious consideration. The bridges upon that road were built years ago when the locomotives were not half the weight that they are today. As a matter of simple precaution a large expenditure should be made in the way of strengthening these bridges. I believe the country will bear the government out if they undertake this expenditure.
Now, a word as to public works. This Dominion is in its progressive stage, its stage of development. I believe the most important portfolio in the government today is that of Public Works. Fortunately for the Dominion, we have as the holder of that portfolio a progressive man, a courageous man, a man who is intelligent enough to see the wants of the country and who will push forward to accomplish what is necessary in order to develop our resources. Let me for a moment, contrast the policy of the late government in this connection with the policy of the present government, taking examples from the county I have the honour to represent. I will select only two places, both on the Bay
of Fundy shore. One is Margaretville. At that point, the late government had built a breakwater. A storm came and damaged it, and the government refused to rebuild it, allowing it to go down. And what was the reason given ? The reason given was that a majority of the people in that section refused to vote for the government. But since this government came into power, and while the county was represented by my predecessor, who was an opponent of the Liberal party, this government rebuilt this work, and the country round about is in a state of great prosperity in consequence. Then there is the case of Parker's Cove. In 1890, the government commenced the erection of a pier. Previous to that time, I am perfectly certain there were not $500 worth of fish sold from that hamlet in a year. But, during the summer and spring when this pier was under construction, the fishermen were able to take advantage of it, and that year their sales of fish amounted to between $5,000 and $6,000. Next year, when the first section of the pier was completed, their sales amounted to between $15,000 and $16,000. To-day, tenders are called for a contract to add a hundred feet to the length of the wharf and also an ' L ' of fifty feet, to complete it; and the best authorities tell me that, when it is done, the sale from that community will amount to between $50,000 and $60,000. There is a direct result of public works. And when a government that can get the money as cheaply as the government of Canada can, expends its money in works of that sort, I think it is accomplishing a great good. The other night I had the honour to present a petition from the counties of Annapolis, King's and Hants, and the counties on the other side of the Bay of Fundy, asking for the construction of a harbour of refuge upon the Bay of Fundy on the south side. There is no spot where a vessel can be sheltered if caught in a storm on that shore. In 1894, the member then representing Annapolis brought this matter to the notice of the House and urged the case upon the government of that day. In that he was warmly supported by the representative of King's, the present Minister of Militia (Hon. Mr. Borden). But nothing came of it. I am going to urge upon the government that steps be taken to inquire into this matter during the recess, and I am going to try to convince the government that they should construct this much-needed work. Had the work been constructed years ago, it would have saved the government of this country almost as much as the construction would cost. I believe that all the counties on both sides of the Bay of Fundy are interested in this work. I may say there are a few things in the county of Annapolis that I am going to ask for, amongst others an ice pier and bridge on the Annapolis river. I ask for these things with confi-

dence, because I know that it is the policy of the government to expend whatever money is necessary in the construction of these works. While hon. gentlemen on the other side are worrying and fretting because the expenditure is so high, and getting up past the $60,000,000 mark, I hope' to live to see the day-^and say this advisedly-when the expenditures of the Dominion of Canada will exceed $100,000,000 per year ; and when these expenditures have exceeded $100,000,000 per year, then the prosperity of Canada will have been fairly started.


David Henderson: Why not do it now ?


Fletcher Bath Wade: 
Fletcher Bath Wade: land says it is very painful for a Canadian to realize the crushing burden of taxation which has fallen on struggling people in Britain, and the uncomplaining way in which they face it, while we Canadians have practically not touched the burden at all, though it is, as it were, for our sakes, as colonials looking to Britain for defence, that it is being incurred. We think the great majority of Canadians feel exactly as this man does, or would do so if brought, as he has been, face to face with the facts.
Sir, I believe that the day is not far distant when, as a matter of simple justice and right, the people of the Dominion of Canada will say :	We wish to sliai'e a portion
of this burden, we wish to have a voice in controlling the destiny of the empire, and its policy towards other nations. A great deal has been said on the other side of the House as to the position taken by our honoured leader with regard to the preference that is given to Great Britain. I am but a young politician, and cannot suppose that my words will carry very much weight ; but 1 do wish to say that the statement made by the right hon. gentleman in Great Britain with regard to that preference, sounded the key note of true imperialism. I believe history will prove that this is the case. Further than that, I believe that statement, acted upon as it has been, was the means of provoking-I should not say provoking- was the means of engendering the first spark of national spirit we have ever had in the Dominion of Canada. There is a national spirit abroad in the Dominion of Canada to-day, and that national spirit we upon this side of the House do not claim, belongs exclusively to ourselves. We say that that spirit is abroad on the other side of the House and on the other side of politics as well as it is on this side.
Now, Sir, I wish to conclude my imperfect remarks, and in doing so I would like to touch for a moment upon a ground where there can be no difference of politics. I refer to the South African war. I wish to, pay a tribute to the noble men, the Canadian heroes of Hart's River, those men who chose death rather than surrender. They have added lustre to the name of Canada that will be as enduring as time. With such deeds before us, and with the records of the other contingents that have gone to Africa, may we not regardless of political party, feel proud to-day that we can call ourselves Canadians ? I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the attention which you have accorded me, and I apologize for the time I have taken up.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: While the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) was speaking, and his friends about him were hanging so intently upon every word that fell from his lips, I could not help thinking that the innermost feeling in the hearts of every one of them, if they had the faintest sense of logic, was ' almost thou

persuades! me to be a protectionist.' The hon. gentleman commenced his remarks by giving us a tabulated statement of the people of Canada engaged in the various industries. He showed that those engaged in agriculture were about 790,000; whereas those engaged in manufacturing industries were about 320,000 ; and he drew the conclusion that it was a monstrous absurdity that we in this country should endeavour to protect a minority of simply 10 to 15 per cent against an overwhelming majority of 80 to 90 per cent. Surely when the hon. gentleman was speaking he must have spoken unwittingly, or he would not otherwise have given this House such a conclusive proof of the sublimest ignorance of the first doctrines of protection. Surely the hon. gentleman must understand that in this country every line of industry, every occupation, is so interested in all the others, that the ramifications of business are so intricate and so widespread, that you cannot benefit any industry without benefiting all others as well ; and it is equally true that you cannot injure any industry in this country without injuring all others as well.
Now, we on this side of the House take a broader view than that of my hon. friend. We take the broad view of national protection for every industry, and while I would agree with him in the principle he laid down that legislation should be based on the principle of doing the greatest good to the greatest number, we say that by adopting a protective policy it is perfectly competent for this House to do the greatest good to the greatest number. The hon. gentleman seems to think that the duty of this House is to protect one solitary industry and that is i,he mining industry of Cape Breton. I was rather surprised that in the course of his remarks my hon. friend admitted that not only were our miners protected but that the bonus system had helped Cape Breton, Nova Scotia and the whole of the Dominion. Nobody on this side of the House takes any exception to the bonus system, but we do take particular exception to an hon. gentleman discussing a question about which he is so profoundly ignorant. Surely that hon. gentleman must be aware that if the bonus to the mining industry of Cape Breton and of Nova Scotia were doubled it would be of no effect unless its permanency were assured. The Conservative party lays down the principle which the hon. gentlemen are beginning to understand that it is just as essential that the protection given to any industry shall be a complete and adequate protection for the time being as it is that that protection shall be a constant protection so that those who engage in that industry need not be afraid that every session they may have all their stocks and profits swept away, but shall know that the government is going to give that industry the protection it requires. My hon. friend, in speaking of his friends on the
other side of the House, said that some were protectionists to a certain degree, that some were free traders to a certain degree, that there would probably be a revision of the tariff and he presumed that a compromise would be necessary. If words such as these were uttered by the Finance Minister of the country, it would have a most injurious effect on the industry of this country. If the manufacturers of this country and the capitalists of adjoining countries are given to understand that the revision of the tariff is not to be considered as a matter of principle but is to be entirely a matter of party advantage, of compromise between the free traders and the protectionists, it will be a sad day for the industries of Canada. The hon. gentleman in referring to the remarks made by the hon. member for South Wentworth (Mr. Smith) the other day was good enough to prove up to the hilt everything . that my hon. friend said, so that it will not be necessary for me to do more than merely call the attention of the House to the proof he gave of the remarks of the hon. member for South Wentworth. The charge made by the hon. member for South Wentworth was that the government had not done its duty, had not done what it should have done for the fruit growers of the Annapolis district and my hon. friend read resolutions passed by different associations in that part of the country, which resolutions entirely bore out what he said. But, the hon. member for Annapolis said that he, himself, was perfectly aware of the complaints that were made. He said that the ministers could do nothing except to give a bonus to some line of steamships to induce it to assist in the transportation of fruit from the Annapolis valley, and then in five minutes he read a suggestion that he had drawn up that he had left with the minister and, if practical effect had been given to these suggestions these grievances would have been removed. The very statement shows that the minister, requiring to have some matters called to his attention, although five years in office, has failed to grasp the necessities of the case and that he has failed to do what he might have done. The hon. gentleman, in triumph, speaking of the policy which he and his friends opposite are supporting, referred to the late provincial elections in the province of Nova Scotia, and he said that although at the last election the policy of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) in this House was well known, and I dispute the fact that that policy was well known or was laid before the people of Nova Scotia, the government swept that province by an overwhelming majority. As me people of Nova Scotia vote on local, not on Dominion issues, surely the hon. gentleman would not have us believe that the premier of Nova Scotia is such a wholly unimportant factor in the national life that it is a matter of indifference what he thinks, so long as

the views of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who leads this House, are in accord with those of the majority of the people. We claim in the province of Ontario to have disassociated provincial politics from Dominion politics and we hope that when the election comes on in the near future the people of Ontario will condemn the present administration on its own acts and not on the acts of the hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. gentleman concluded his speech by a reference to the subject of imperial defence and he gave us some very interesting figures in connection with that. I ' would like to speak at length on that subject.
I would like to call attention to the fact that while many of the colonies are contributing very largely of their means to assist the home government, the Dominion of Canada not only contributes nothing but even declines to consider the question at the approaching meeting of the colonial premiers. But, though I would like to discuss this question I feel that on this particular night it would be utterly out of place in the shadow of the disaster which has fallen on our friends in arms in South Africa and I would prefer to postpone my remarks to another day. As this debate has proceeded, as day followed day and speech succeeded speech, though many passing impressions have faded away I believe one deepseated and abiding conviction has been left on the minds of the hon. gentlemen in this House and on the minds of the people of this country and it is that from the time the world dawned to the commencement of this debate there never were such varied, such grotesque, such bewildering opinions on any political questions advanced before any body of men as those advanced by the hon. gentlemen opposite in the progress of this debate. X have listened carefully and patiently to the speeches as they fell from the lips of the hon. gentlemen opposite and I have studied with some care the ' Hansard ' report of these speeches in order to see if I could discover any theory, any feeling, any idea, any determination in common on the part of the hon. gentlemen opposite, and after some consideration it seems a fair conclusion to be drawn that one can find a common theory, a feeling, an idea, a determination. X believe that a fair rendering of these speeches of the hon. gentlemen opposite, is that it is the theory of free' trade. Their idea is that free trade is pretty nearly played out. I think they have the feeling that it is about time to abandon free trade and seek some other refuge, probably the protective harbour and it is abundantly clear that there is a determination, no matter what the government may do, no matter how the hon. gentlemen may differ or how the people suffer and that determination is to keep the government in power at any and all costs. I believe that for years back the hon. gentlemen opposite have been kneeling before the shrine of the goddess of free trade, Mr. NORTHRUP.
that they have been sadly and grudgingly making sacrifices on the altar of free trade and; that while they are inquiring in their own hearts if these sacrifices are really necessary, their minds are beginning to be enlightened by the irresistible logic of facts. They see the conclusive results which have flowed from the application of protective principles and while their hearts were faltering their minds were suggesting that it was well to leave this falling shrine and seek the temple of protection over and beyond. Their consciences politically stifled in their dying throes urged them to set aside all that they honestly believed to be in the interests of the country and so the hon. gentlemen opposite separated by these conflicting forces present the variance which we see to-day. It is said that the hon. member for Victoria, Nova Scotia (Hon. Mr. Ross) whom I see before me now, and the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Edwards) are still kneeling before the altars of free trade.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I have not spoken yet.


William Barton Northrup: I have not said that the hon. gentleman has spoken In this debate. But we know his opinions perfectly well, and if the hon. gentleman has left that altar I will be very happy to withdraw my remarks and to say that he has ceased to believe in the doctrines of free trade. But, until the hon. gentleman does contradict me, I will assume that he still retains the opinions he has so frequently and eloquently expressed. I repeat that the hon. gentleman from Victoria (Hon. Mr. Ross) and the hon. gentleman for Russell (Mr. Edwards) are still worshipping at the altar of free trade. But there are other gentlemeu on that side who differ from them. We have for example the hon. gentleman for Vancouver (Mr. Smith); the hon. gentleman for Westminster -(Mr. Morrison); the hon. gentleman from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) who are still worshipping there, but with one eye on the altar of free trade they are casting another eye over their shoulders to watch the procession of all the peoples of the world marching into the temple of protection on the other side of the road. We have others, such as the hon. gentleman for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) who has not only looked over his shoulder, but is turning around and is blindly groping to find his way into the temple of protection. So we find that among these hon. gentlemen there are all sorts and varieties of opinion on this interesting question. But, Sir, whatever the varieties of opinion may be among these gentlemen, there are one or two respects in which their ideas touching protection differ entirely from the ideas on that subject held by hon. gentlemen on this side. We on this side of the House believe in 'a national protection. We believe in the protection of every industry in the Dominion of Can-

ada. We Relieve that it is possible to protect every industry, and we say that under such a policy as the Conservative party inaugurated and maintained, andi under sucn a policy as it will maintain if again called to take the reins of power, every industry in this country will toe protected; every artisan, every employee, every labourer in this country will toe protected, and we say that the goal of our policy is to see not only capital protected, but that every free labouring man who is willing to' do an honest day's work in Canada shall have an honest day's work to do, and an honest day's wage for him at the close of the day. But, hoii. gentlemen opposite, as against our ideas of national protection, have a sectional, a local, an individual idea of protection. I appeal to the speeches we have heard from these hon. gentlemen to prove this. The hon. gentleman for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) is a free trader, tout he believes In the protection of horses. The hon. gentleman from New Westminster (Mr. Morrison) is a free trader, but he believes in the protection of lumber and lead. The hon. gentlemen from Vancouver (Mr. Smith) and from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) are free traders, but they believe in the protection of labour. The hon. gentleman from South Brant (Mr. Heyd) is a protectionist, and he believes in the protection of everything except the woollen industry apparently. And Sio as we go along the line we find that almost every gentleman on the other side of the House believes in the protection of a particular industry in which he personally, or the constituency which he represents happens to be interested.
Now, Sir-, if ours is a national protection and hon. gentlemen opposite are advocating a local, or sectional, or individual protection, are we not justified in saying that ours is a patriotic protection while theirs is a purely selfish protection. Perhaps, Sir, this is the reason why hon. gentlemen on this side of the House have been ready and willing for the past twenty-five years, not only in this House but wherever they may be, to advocate -the cause of protection, whereas hon. gentlemen opposite advocate their cause in such a way that no man in the Dominion of Canada knows to-day what the position of the government is on this question. Let me give practical proof of what I state; that no person in this country can say to-day where the government is on the question of tariff reform. I start first with the Liberal platform adopted by the party convention in 1893. I have no intention of reading the whole of this interesting document, but one or two sentences on the subject of protection are germane to the matter in hand. I find it laid down as a plank in the Liberal platform :
That the tariff shall be so adjusted as to make free, or to bear as lightly as possible upon the necessaries of life, and shall be so arranged as to promote freer trade with the whole world, more particularly with Great Britain and the United States.
I find also that the Liberal party there assembled in convention said this :
We denounce the principle of protection as radically unsound and unjust to the masses of the people, and we declare our conviction that any tariff changes based upon that principle must fail to afford any substantial relief from the burdens under which the country labours.
That was the platform of the party which came into power in 1896. In 1897, the following year, it was the duty of that party to lay a tariff before this House. Their position was this :	They came before the
people as advocates of free trade; they had supplanted a government which was avowedly a protectionist government. They had on the one hand the tariff laid down by the Hon. Alex. Mackenzie in 1877; a free trade tariff; a tariff framed by that noble man who told us what he professed, and was prepared if necessary to -suffer for his belief. Looking at the tariff of 1877 and the tariff of 1894-opposites as two tariffs could be-it became the duty of the present government to frame their tariff, and in 1897 they brought their tariff down. If these hon. gentlemen had adhered to the principle which they laid down at the convention of 1893, the tariff of 1877 is the tariff to which the tariff of 1897 would have been most closely assimilated. But I find that in this Liberal tariff of 1877, there are only four pages all told of dutiable goods, whereas in the Liberal tariff of 1897 they have been spun out to twenty-nine pages. I find that in this tariff of 1877, there were thirty-two items of specific duties besides sugar and tobacco-specific duties that have been condemned by hon. gentlemen opposite from the day the Conservative party came into power in 1878 even down to this date. And yet on a reference to the tariff framed and carried out by that grand old Liberal, Alex. Mackenzie, who lived and died a free trader, we find among the small number of items in his tariff that there were thirty-two items bearing specific duties, besides sugar and tobacco. There were twelve items of this tariff of 1877 bearing 25 per cent; twenty-one items bearing 10 per cent and thirty-one items bearing 5 per cent. There you have the whole tariff of 1877. I do not for a moment contend that this government wrhen it -came into power were -bound to 'pass exactly the tariff of 1877. The Minister of Customs would be the first one to consider the point if I did not admit that the circumstances of this country had changed, and that a tariff that might be reasonable in 1877 would be admitted to be a monstrous tariff twenty years later. I admit that. But there must be an underlying principle even under a tariff, and I merely call attention to the fact that a certain principle underlaid one tariff to which these gentlemen were bound according to their pledges, and there was an altogether different principle underlying the Conservative tariff of 1894, which they did follow. I have taken a glance



through the Liberal tariff of 1897, and 1 have compared the tariff of 1897 with the tariff of 1891. Certain changes of course were made in the tariff of 1894, while the late government was in power, and certain changes have been made since 1897 in the tariff by the present administration, but these are immaterial since it is a question of principle I am discussing. I have therefore taken the two tariffs, the Conservative tariff of 1894 passed by a Conservative administration giving what they thought was proper protection to the various industries. I then take the tariff of 1897 passed by a Reform administration giving what they honestly believed-because of course they must have intended to carry out their pledges to the people of this country-giving what they honestly believed a tariff so adjusted as to make free, or to bear as lightly as possible on all the necessaries of life and from which the principle of protection had been wholly expunged. I find in looking through the Liberal tariff of 1897 that a number' of classes of articles are grouped together. The first class is, 'ales, beers, wines and liquors.' There are ten items in that class and this free trade administration, not considering that they. came under the head of necessaries of life, left the duty on all of these articles as it was in the tariff of 1894, save one and they raised that. The next class is, ' agriculture, animals and dairy products.' There were ninety-three items under this class, in the tariff of 1894, and these hon. gentlemen opposite who contend that it is impossible to protect the farmer or to protect any products of the farm might well have relieved all these ninety-three items from any duties, if these gentlemen believed what they professed.
Rut 1 find, on comparing the 1894 tariff with the 1897 tariff, that out of these 98 items 81 remained unchanged, 5 were decreased, 0 were increased, and one was changed from specific to ad valorem, the result being, I think, about the same. The next class is fish and the products of the fisheries, of which there are 19 items. Every one bore a heavy taxation under the Conservative regime, and not a single one in the whole 19 was reduced under the able generalship of the finance Minister, although he comes from a fishing province. The next class is books and paper-18 items; 12 unchanged, G changed. Class 5, chemicals and drugs-14 items; 9 unchanged; 4 increased, 1 lowered. Class G, opium-3 items, all unchanged. Class 7-colours, paints, oils, varnishes, &c-21 items ; 14 unchanged, 3 increased, 4 decreased. Class 8- c al-2 items; 1 unchanged and 1 decreased. Class 9-earthenware, cements, slate and stoneware-20 items ; 11 unchanged, 1 increased, 3 decreased; 5 changed from specific to ad valorem. Class 10-glass and glassware-11 items; 5 unchanged, 3 increased, 3 changed from specific to ad valorem, probably increased. Class II-leather,
rubber and manufactures of-11 items; 8 unchanged, 3 increased. Class 12-metals and manufactures of-99 items. The wording of these items was so changed that not being conversant with them I have left out the 99 items. But this I may say, that bonus-ing would afford a tremendous protection outside of the tariff protection, and perhaps the last item of the class will shed a light on the spirit in which all the changes were made, the last item being goods not otherwise provided for, on which the duty was raised from 27J per cent under the 1894 tariff to 30 per cent under the 1897 tariff. The next item is class 13, vehicles; 4 items; 3 unchanged, 1 changed slightly, so that it lets shoddy buggies come into this country. Class 14-manufactures of wood, cane and cork; 19 items; 14 unchanged, 1 decreased, 3 increased, 1 compromised, but it discriminates against Canadian wood. Class 15-jewellery and material therefor-8 items; 6 unchanged, 1 increased, 1 decreased. Class 16-minerals- 3 items; no change. Class 17, musical instruments-2 items; 1 unchanged, 1 partly raised and partly lowered. Class 18-textiles, hats, furs, &c.-51 items; 22 unchanged, 17 increased, 6 decreased, 6 readjustments. Class 19-sundries-26 items; 21 unchanged, 3 decreased, 1 increased, 1 new. Class 20-sugar, syrups and molasses

7 items; 1 unchanged, 6 raised. Class 21-tobacco and manufactures of-5 items; 5 increased. Class 22, unenumerated goods- 1 item, unchanged. The sum total of all this is that, excluding the manufactures of iron, some 99 items, there were in the tariff some 348 items, of which 244 were untouched, 54 were increased, 34 were decreased, and the remaining 16 were adjusted between specific aud ad valorem; I cannot say whether these were increased or decreased. And that, hon. gentlemen opposite profess, is the carrying out of their promise to the country to lower the tariff, to bring about freer trade, and to entirely expunge from the tariff the radically unsound principle of protection.
But let us see how it has worked out in actual practice. When hon. gentlemen opposite sat down to frame this tariff, I presume the Minister of Finance would be a leading spirit at the board. The Minister of Finance is a life-long free trader; he has had no hesitation in announcing that fact to the House again and again; and so, as an ardent free trader coming from the pro-vice of Nova Scotia, he sat down at the board to see that his native province secured those benefits of free trade which he had advocated so long and so eloquently. How did he do it ? There were three great industries in the province of Nova Scotia- the fishing industry, the coal industry, and the iron industry. In the fishing industry there were 19 items, not one of which was changed; on coal there was a duty of 50 cents a ton and he left it at that, affording ample protection; and in the iron industry


William Barton Northrup: the miners were given bonuses which I need not comment upon, since the hon. gentleman who has preceded me (Mr. Wade) has admitted that owing to the bonuses the iron manufactures of Nova Scotia aud Cape Breton have attained a success which they could not possibly have attained without those bonuses. We have here a prac-' tical proof that the Finance Minister, the head of the board, was careful to see that a full measure of protection was given to his own province. Of course, the Minister of Customs, from the province of Ontario sat down at the board. I presume he must have done so, because Ontario had some items increased and some left alone. The wicked Tories in passing the tariff of 1894, thought that 25 per cent was a sufficient protection on biscuits, and the Reform government thought the same in 1897. But on sweetened biscuits the Tories in 1894 thought 25 per cent was sufficient, but the Reform government in 1897 did not, and they increased the duty to 27} per cent. On pickles the Reformers in the old tariff of 1877 thought 17i per cent a sufficient protection; in the tariff of 1894 the wicked Tories increased the rate to 35 per cent, and in 1897 the Reform Minister of Customs did not cut that down, but left it as it was. On jellies and jams there was a duty under the tariff of 1877 of 17} per cent; the Tories in 1894 made it 3 cents per pound, but the Reform free trade government in 1897 increased it to 3i per pound. Then, somebody, I presume, was looking after the interests of the farmers on that board.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: What did the Tory government make the duties on those articles in 1895 ?


William Barton Northrup: I think they raised the duties in 1895.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It would be fair to say that.


William Barton Northrup: I have no objection to saying that they did. But it is a question of principle I am discussing, not the question of a paltry change of 1 per cent or 2 per cent. It seems impossible for lion, gentlemen opposite, even ministers of the Crown, to consider these questions on any higher ground than a paltry 1 per cent or 2 per cent a pound on jellies, jams or pickles. We on this side of the House are prepared to discuss this matter as a question of principle; and if the government came into power pledged to remove the principle of protection, they did not do it if they imposed a higher duty than what the Conservative government considered sufficient in 1894. I am quite prepared to admit that in some cases the duties were raised in 1895, but precious good care was taken that they were not put back in 1897.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Is that correct ?


William Barton Northrup: I think so.
72}


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman should remember that there was 33} per cent taken off all the articles he has enumerated, large amounts of which come from Great Britain.


William Barton Northrup: I am coming to the question of the preference; the hon. gentleman need not think that I am going to evade it. But the hon. gentleman must understand that when the duty is raised, it is raised against all the world except one country, and he and his friends claim that there are patriotic reasons why this should be the case. He took precious good care to protect himself against all other countries. The hon. gentleman specially disapproved of what was done in 1895, and if the preference had not been given, he would not have put the duty so high in 1897.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Did he
say so ?


William Barton Northrup: The hon. gentleman takes precious care .not to say so. He called attention to the fact that although apparently the duty is as high as three-quarters of a cent a pound, it is less on account of the preference, but if the preference had not been given would the hon. gentleman have raised the duty ? I pause for a reply. The hon. gentleman declines to answer. Then the raise was made because the preference was given, and the hon. gentleman stands in the position of having to admit that he first raised the duty and then gave a preference, so as to give an advantage nominally to England without hurting the manufacturers here, on that particular article, to the extent of a single dime.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: What was the duty in 1895 ?


William Barton Northrup: I am not discussing 1895 tariff but the facts of the two governments on two different occasions. It is a matter of utter indifference to me what was done by either subsequently. I am mentioning what was done at a particular time, and the government of 1894 was either right or wrong in the tariff it brought down, and so was the government of 1897. If the hon. gentleman will look at the duties in the tariff affecting the agricultural Community, he will find that they were not maintained. The hon. Minister of Customs has in this House again and again condemned the tariff of 1894. I am not saying that he condemned it with regard to jams, jellies, pickles and preserves, but he condemned it, as a whole, yet we find that practically he adopted that tariff when he came into power, except to amend it in certain respects, and in each of these he invariably amended it for the worse.
We find several reductions made with regard to agricultural products. The duty on wheat was reduced from fifteen to twelve cents a bushel, on wheat flour from seventy-five to sixty cents per bushel; but on bis-

cuits not sweetened the duty remained as it was, 25 per cent and on biscuits not sweetened at 27J per cent. Corn was admitted free, and the duty on corn meal, I believe, was reduced. I suppose perhaps that one reason why corn was admitted free was because the ministry held the idea, which was advanced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) and by the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) and others in this House, that .it was impossible to protect the farmers. Whether or not that statement be correct, it has certainly been made again and again throughout this budget debate, and I would judge that the only reason why the Minister of Customs representing Ontario-which is to a large extent an agricultural province-allowed the duties on agricultural products to be cut while those on manufactured goods were so religiously maintained, was that he and his colleagues thought it was impossible to protect the farmer. Allow me for a moment to consider that question :	We had an objectlesson in 1888. 1889 and 1890. In 1888 bacon and hams and Canadian pork were imported to the extent of 31,000,000 pounds, and in 1889 to the extent of 33,000,000 pounds. Representations were then made to the government of that day that the Canadian farmer was having his home market made a slaughter market for the Americans, and the duty was increased. The next year the
33.000.	000 pounds of importations fell off to
17.000.	000 pounds, in 1891 they fell off to
13.000.	000 pounds, and in 1892 they dwindled down to 6,900,000 pounds. So you see there, Sir, a distinct object lesson. You see there an instance in which the Americans were making Canada a slaughter market, and when, after their tariff was increased and our farmers were protected, their importations fell off to a very considerable amount. Sometimes protection may work in favour of the farmer in a way that may not appear at first sight. In the riding I have the honour to represent we have the Rathbun Company establishment, one of the largest manufacturing concerns in the country. And at a public meeting held some years ago the head of that company, Mr. Rath-bun, speaking on the subject of protection, pointed out that just as long as we lay along side the United States-a country which is liable to such sudden fluctuations in its currency and to sudden panics in its markets- it was absolutely necessary that we should have a distinct protection on products raised by Canadian farmers. Only a few months ago previous there was a panic in Chicago. The price of pork had fallen a great deal lower than it could be raised for, and Mr. Rathbun could have purchased in Chicago all the pork that he required for his shanties at a lower price than he could have got it from the farmers of Hastings, had there been no duty. But the duty was there, and he told his audience that, on account of
the duty, there was no object in his buying at Chicago, but he said ; had it not been for the duty I would have bought my pork at Chicago where I could have got it the cheapest. Then turning to the farmers who were standing around, and whom he knew by name, he said, addressing one of them in particular : You brought your pork down to my establishment at Deseronto to sell last fall as usual, but had I purchased at Chicago I would have declined to buy. Having no other market you would have been obliged to take it home again, and the result would have been you would have had to suffer a heavy loss simply because you had no market at home. There is an object lesson to show how our farmers can be protected. If they cannot be protected as these hon. gentlemen say, why do they leave all these items on the tariff ? Or d.o they simply wish the farmers to believe that something is being done for them when in reality nothing can be done ? The hon. gentleman who preceded me admitted that while the farmers in his part of the country could not be protected, there might be some in some parts of the country to whom the duties on certain items afforded some protection. But we have it admitted by the Minister of Customs that the farmers have been protected, and that in Nova Scotia itself they can be and are protected.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) What about the fishermen ?


William Barton Northrup: If my hon. friend will look into the tariff he will find that there are some nineteen items connected with the fishing industry, the duties on which are precisely the same as those in the tariff of 1894. He will find that, from numbers 104 to 122, all fish products, there is protection on every one of them.
Hon. gentlemen opposite must remember that protection can be indirect as well as direct. If it be true, as my hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Wade) has said-and I quite agree with him on that point-that the bounty given by the government to the iron industries in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia has resulted in an immense amount of capital being brought into and expended in that country, surely that affords protection to the farmer by providing him with a home market right at his door, where he can sell his products. In that respect the farmer of Nova Scotia is probably better protected than the farmer of Ontario, and the fishermen in Nova Scotia enjoys a similar protection because he too finds the local market at his doors, which owes its existence to that bounty, apart from the advantage that he gets from the tariff. But hon. gentlemen opposite are so welded to the doctrine of free trade that they close their eyes to the object lessons which are visible on every hand. Their great difficulty is that they take one item standing by itself and do not see how the tariff on


William Barton Northrup: that item is directly going to benefit the particular persons interested. But a tariff on a different thing altogether may give an indirect protection to other interests. Let me give an illustration. The hon. members for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) and Vancouver (Mr. Smith) stands up here, as the representatives of labour, and declare themselves free traders. Nevertheless they believe in protection to labour, that being the only local industry which they are interested in having protected. But surely if they are consistent, they will say: We are here to protect labour, and we find that labour in Peterborough and Cornwall and other great manufacturing centres is losing its occupation, and therefore, without discussing the duty on woollen or other manufactures, we turn to the government to urge them that it is their duty to see that the particular classes of labour in these places are protected. They, however, take the same short-sighted sectional view, and merely ask direct protection to labour in the way of excluding the Chinese, while as a matter of fact, if they would only look over this great country from one end to the other, they would find that ten times the protection would be given labour by a tariff properly applied than by keeping out a few Chinese.
I have a list here of certain items that have been imported into this country, and this perhaps may throw a little light on the question as to whether the tariff really does assist those engaged in the production of any particular article.
Take the item of biscuits, in 1897 biscuits to the value of $11,877,000 were imported, and in 1901 only $28,871,000 worth. Indian corn in 1897, we imported to the extent of $1,230,000, and in 1901 to the extent of $6,017,000. Breadstuffs in 1897 we imported to the extent of $1,895,000 worth, and in 1901 to the extent of $8,070,000.	Collars and
cuffs, on which the duty was decreased, in 1897 we imported to the value of $39,152, and in 1901 to the extent of $89,075. Thus in 1901, when the duty was reduced, the imports increased. Cottons and manufactures of cotton, in 1897 we imported $7,609,000 worth, and in 1901, $12,301,899 worth. And we hear to-day the cries of woe from the cotton industry.
In provisions, the increase was from $702,000 in 1887 to $2,315,000 in 1901. In wool manufactures the increase is from $8,056,000 to $11,357,000. Yet we wonder at the cries to Heaven from the woollen manufacturers. But I notice as a rather singular feature, looking Ut the public returns that, while our exports have increased very largely, as hon. gentlemen can rightly claim, yet, if we take the trouble to go through the various classes of exports, we find that the greater bulk of the increased -exports is in lines with which hon. gentlemen opposite cannot even claim to have anything to do. Our exports of home produce which, in 1887 were $123,959,000, and,
in 1901 were $177,431,000, an increase in favour of last year of $53,471,000. But exports of products of the fisheries-they have been amply protected, but precisely as under the old government-increased $406,000. The export of minerals increased form $11,000,000 to $40,000,000 an increase of $29,000,000. But of this $24,000,000 came from the Yukon. And hon. gentlemen opposite will not say that they discovered the Yukon. I hardly think that, in the light of the events of the present day, they will say that to their management of the Yukon is attributable any of the success of that country. The exports of the products of the forest decreased by about $1,000,000. Animals and their products increased $16,000,000. But the duties on these items are the same as they were under the late government. The exports of agricultural products increased for $17,000,000 to $24,000,000. Hon. gentlemen opposite know perfectly well that that is owing to the better harvests we have had, particularly in Manitoba and the North-west, and also to im crease in prices, so that the same number of bushels exported would show a vast increase in value. The export of manufactures increased $16,000,000. Add these together-the mines, the animals and their products, agriculture products, and manufactures and you find a total increase of $57,940,000. The total increase of exports of home products, as I have shown, is only $53,471,000. This shows that you must have a shortage of $4,000,000 in other items. But there is one respect in which there was not a shortage. And in speaking of this I shall say all I intend to say, it is the subject of the census which has been so much discussed. At page 296 of the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce last year, I find one export the growth of which I was astonished to see. In 1897, when hon. gentlemen opposite came into power, the settlers effects exported from this country amounted to $1,008,000. The following year, the export of settlers' effects was less by $15,000. But in 1899-1 suppose the new , tariff had begun to work-the export of settlers' effects amounted to $1,051,000 ; in 1900 it was $1,165,000 and in 1901, it was $1,212,000. That is to say, last year the export of settlers' effects was over $200,000 more than 1897. That proves one of two things. Hon. gentlemen opposite may argue as much as they please about the exodus being stopped, but, if $200,000 more in value of settlers' effects left this country in 1901 than 1897, it is as sure as the heaven above us that either a wealthier class of people are going out and taking more property with them, or a larger number of poor people are going. I do not pretend to say which horn of the dilemma hon. gentlemen opposite should occupy ; but it would strike one outside of this House as somewhat audacious for an hon. gentleman to stand up | here and say that the exodus is practically

stopped when we And that there is an increase of $200,000, equal to 20 per cent, in the export of settlers' effects.


George Taylor: According to his own report.


William Barton Northrup: Yes, according to the official report. I have spoken longer than I intended to. But there is one other subject to which I wish to refer for a moment. In the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the opposition a reference is made to the desire for a preferential tariff between the various parts of the empire. I think that on this poiut there is a clear conflict of opinion between hon. gentlemen opposite and ourselves. I think that we can discuss this question without imputing disloyalty to hon. gentlemen who differ from us. But hon. gentlemen opposite have their idea of how to display their loyalty and we have ours. We think that they are wholly wrong and are making an absurd display of loyalty, but we can express our difference without imputing disloyalty to them, and nothing is further from my thought. We on this side are prepared to admit that all-the subjects of this glorious empire should, as far as possible, deal with one another and give one another a preference as against outsiders. And we are prepared, in any case, to give a preference to our fellow-subjects in England, or Australia, or any where as against the people outside the empire. But there are people in the Conservative ranks so blind as not to be able to see that a man who represents a Canadian constituency, for instance, West Peterborough, is bound to vote in this House to give a preference to the manufacturer and the workmen in Yorkshire at the expense of the manufacturer and the workmen in Peterborough, so that the manufacturer in Yorkshire may manufacture more and the manufacturer in Peterborough less, and the employees in Yorkshire have more work and the workman in Peterborough lose his occupation altogether. They are all British subjects and we are willing to give fair play to them all. But, if we must protect one, we hold that charity begins at home and we would protect the Canadian first. But hon. gentlemen tell us that this preferential tariff w-as given to the mother land as a matter of gratitude-that she had done so much for us that the least we could do was to give some return. I would be the last man to say that the mother land has not done much for .us ; I say that we owe her more than we are likely ever to repay. But we have all laughed at the American humorist who was so anxious to put down the war in his country that he was ready to sacrifice all his wife's relations. Has not the government gone a step further than Artemus Ward? The government come to us and say:
' The people of Canada owe a debt to the mother country for what she has done for them ; we cannot pay anything ourselves,' Mr. NORTHRUP.
we cannot even pay the expenses of our own contingents going to take part in fighting the battles of the empire ; but we will make the cotton manufacturers and the woollen manufacturers pay for it by putting them at a disadvantage as compared with the Yorkshire cotton and woollen manufacturers, and that will square Canada's debt with the empire. If we, the people of Canada owe anything to the mother country, let us all contribute to the paying of it, and not lay the whole burden upon those who happen to be in business and to be injured by the tariff. That would be a strong enough case, even if this preference were confined to the mother land. But as a matter of fact, we find that only 25 per cent of the labour necessary to produce the goods has to be done in Great Britain to entitle them to the preference. We find one after another of the gentlemen in this House testifying that, according to his own knowledge, goods manufactured in Germany and other countries are brought to England and are there merely finished or even merely parcelled and sent out as English goods and brought into Canada under the preference of 33J per cent, thus giving the Germans a preference that the Ministry would not dare to propose to give them directly. If there is to be a preference to the mother country, whatever percentage it may be, let it be for goods manufactured wholly in England, and then no outsider will get the benefit. I think it does not require any elucidation to convince the House that there is an honest difference between hon. gentlemen opposite and us on that question. And I sincerely trust that, when the premier goes, as he will go, to the old country, to attend the meeting of the Colonial premiers, where we know he will maintain the honour of this country in a manner that will be gratifying to all good Canadians irrespective of party, he will consider these questions, that he will consider the subject of preferential trade and will devote his ability to doing what he can to make such arrangements that, whatever others may do, Canada may prosper at home and may have a place of honour in the empire by bearing the share of the burden which properly devolves upon her.


Mr. H. A. WARD (East Durham).: I desire, like other members of .this House who have spoken before me, to congratulate the House and the country upon the prosperity that Canada is at present enjoying; but I cannot subscribe to the doctrine which has been promulgated by the Minister of Finance and his colleagues, that that prosperity is altogether owing to the beneficent government that at present holds the reins of power. I desire to point out that there is another party in this country, and there has been for a great many years another party in this country, which has, in my humble judgment, accomplished something in the interest of the Dominion ; and I think it

would have been only just for hon. gentlemen opposite to give some credit to the Conservative party for some of its achievements since confederation. Now, I do not propose to offer an excuse, as some hon. gentlemen have taunted us with doing, for the prosperity we enjoy; but I do propose to offer some reasons why that prosperity exists, and why it is not altogether due to hon. gentlemen opposite. I would not for a moment detract from the credit which is due to the fathers of confederation, and those members of the Liberal party among them who did their share in weld*-ing together the four great provinces and laying the foundation of the nation. But I would call the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to the fact that after confederation something was done by the Conservative party to enlarge the boundaries of the Dominion and to make her the nation she is at this time, and to put Canada in such a position that hon gentlemen opposite, on coming into power, found government made easy. Now, I am not going to weary the House with many figures, but I desire briefly to point out some of the achievements of the Conservative administration since confederation. First was the acquisition of the North-west Territories and Rupert's land, that was, I think, if the Year-book does not lie, accomplished by a Conservative administration. We have also the admission of British Columbia and Prince Edward Island into confederation ; and I think we can fairly claim that up to 1873 the Conservatives" di'd accomplish something in the interests of the country by welding the different provinces into a nation.
Now I regret that I have to refer to a remark which, if I am credibly informed, was made by the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) during the recent election in West Durham. I understand that when he was speaking at a little village called New-tonville shortly before the election, he made the astounding statement that all the great works in the interest of this country had been initiated and carried out by the Reform party. Following the example of other members of the government, he claims that nothing has been done by the Conservative party. Now it was in 1873 that a Reform administration came into power for the first time since confederation, under the leadership of the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie. 1 have looked through the Year-book to find, during the five years of their administration, if any important Act was placed on the Statute-book in the interest of the country at large, but I have looked in vain. There were, it is true, three Indian treaties signed during that time, a government was provided for the North-west Territories and a Lieutenant Governor appointed, and there was a large fire in the city of St. John. I think these are the only three matters of importance, or the only events that took place during the administration of our hon. friends opposite. The Pacific Railway, the surveys for which had been commenced during the administration of Sir John A. Macdonald, were, it is true, continued during Mr. Mackenzie's administration. But what is the history of the Pacific Railway during those five years ?
It is,, I think, a history of delay, of exaggeration of what that railway was likely t<^ cost, and of embarrassment generally of the construction of that great work. We all know how that party came into power. It was'because the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald had propounded a scheme for building that railway by a private company. When the Conservatives came into power in 1878, acting up to their pledges that they would introduce a protective policy, the national policy was brought into existence by the government of Sir John A. Macdonald. That national policy, I claim, though I am not going to bring forward figures to prove it, because that has been amply done by other hon. gentlemen who have preceded me-that policy, I claim has done more to place Canada in the position she occupies to-day and to provide hon. gentlemen opposite with so large a revenue to expend, than any other act of any administration since confederation. After the national policy came the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I (think no hon. gentleman on either side of the House will deny that the accomplishment of that great work has been other than beneficial to this country. The speeches made by hon. gentlemen opposite and their leaders in the House at that time, show that they were afraid to attempt that work even as a government work, that they were utterly incredulous that the railway could be built in twelve years time, which I believe was the period fixed, but that they asserted it would take an infinitely longer time, and a very much larger sum of money than was eventually expended in the construction of that work. On the 1st of October, 1880, the contract was made for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway; on May 2, 1881, the first sod was turned, and on November 7, 1885, the last spike was driven. That shows what Canada accomplished under a government that was alive to the necessities of the country.
Now I wish briefly to point out that it is the opinion of Conservatives at least, that something was done by Conservative administrations since confederation to place the country in the position it occupies to-day, and to enable hon. gentlemen opposite to pose, as they are doing, as successful administrators. Let me refer for a moment to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade). He paid considerable attention to a previous speech of the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith). I think he should have remembered that that hon. gentleman is one of the greatest authorities in Ontario in respect to fruit

growing, to which subject the hon. member for Annapolis devoted a considerable portion of his speech. I think it was only due to that lion, gentleman, especially as he was not here, that the hon. member for Annapolis should have quoted the remarks of the hon. member for South Wentworth correctly. The hon. member for Annapolis stated that the hon. member for [DOT]South Wentworth had, in his speech called attention to the fact that for the first time in the history of the Annapolis valley they had a good crop this last year. 1 do not think my hon. friend made any such statement and I will read the remarks that he really did make in that connection.
In Nova Scotia they had this year the only good crop of apples grown in the country, and the apple growers of the Annapolis Valley, who had a crop that should have brought them in a million dollars, have lost $300,00.0 on last year's crop, because of the want of proper ventilation on these staamers.
I waited anxiously for the hon. gentleman to answer the gravamen of the charge made by the hon. member for South Wentworth, but in the whole course of his speech he made no reference to that and confined himself to making a quotation of my hon. friend's speech which does not appear at all. The hon. member for Annapolis put up a straw man in order that he might knock it down again. He stated that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House frequently said that we owed nothing to the mother country, j have never heard any hon. gentleman on this side of the House make any such statement and the only thing I can remember which the hon. gentleman might have been referring to was tlie statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), who on one occasion said that we owed Britain nothing but forgiveness.
I think that must been in the hon. gentleman's mind and that he had nothing whatever to quote as against any hon. gentleman on this side of the House.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ward) excuse me ? In the absence of the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade), I might say that he had reference to a speech made on this side of tlie House by the hon. member for La belle (Mr. Bourassa). He was quoting something from what lie said when that charge was made. He made no reference to any hon. gentleman on that side of the House in commenting on the remark that Canada did not owe much to Great Britain.


Henry Alfred Ward: I am sorry that the hon. member for Annapolis is not here. Not having heard the statement referred to liy the hon. member for Victoria. N.S.. I caii say nothing about it. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, in tlie course of his long speech in this House, which was characterized by the hon. member for


Henry Alfred Ward: North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) as being a very ingenious speech, made some of those remarkable statements which usually pervade that hon. gentleman's speeches. It was an amusing feature of the debate when the hon. gentleman welcomed back old friends. He no doubt felt that his old friends or enemies were coming back and that they would make themselves felt in this House, as they did in 1878. His speech on this occasion and the recklessness of the figure^ he produced recalled the speech which he made in 1890, when he made an attack on the farmers of the province of Ontario, in order to make a point against the national policy and when he endeavoured to show that half of the farms in Ontario were mortgaged for half of what they were worth. That statement was founded upon returns from thirteen different registry offices which he had received from different registrars, and his argument from that statement was, that each concession of which he had returns at that time, was mortgaged to the extent of $96,000. One hon. gentleman on this side of the House produced a statement some days afterwards to show that in the county that he represented at least there was only an indebtedness of $67,000 for each concession, and it was pointed out on that occasion that if the hon. gentleman who made the statement had had any knowledge whatever of the registry laws of the province of Ontario he would never have based the statement on such evidence as he laid before the House. Every lawyer who is practising knows, and the hon. gentleman should have known, that about half the mortgages that appear upon the registry books have been already discharged and that the discharges are in the hands of the loan companies who hold the mortgages at the present time upon these lands. These mortgages are not discharged upon the registry books. There is no way in which the registrars can give correct statements of mortgages existing against these lands, and it was a matter of surprise to me at that time and to many members of this House, that the hon. gentleman should have made such a charge against the farmers on such false premises. The hon. gentleman stated at that time that these mortgages might have been very much larger,-owing to interest accumulations. It was pointed out to him at that time that these mortgages had been receiving payments. It was quoted to him from the returns of the loan companies at that time that the payments had been eminently satisfactory during that very year and that mortgages had been reduced rather than increased during the time of which the hon. gentleman was speaking. The hon. gentleman charged the administration with neglecting their duty because they had not at that time, or previous to that time, provided some machinery by which it could be known what was the actual Indebtedness

of the farmers on account of mortgages in this province. The hon. gentleman has been in power sis years and I have not heard that he has taken any step in that direction. I think his figures were so effectually contradicted at the time that he thought no particular advantage could- be derived from his taking such a step. The hon. gentleman is endowed with a considerable sense of humour and he showed that humour when he offered his advice to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) in regard to the proper way to protect the farmers. I think he said that certain bounties should be given to each farmer for every product he raised. Surely the hon. gentleman had not forgotten that during the Conservative administration duties were raised on the products of the farm, that protection was given to the farmer by the Conservative administration, which raised these duties and enabled many farmers to go into mixed farming, thereby saving their financial lives. That was due to a Conservative administration, and if the hon. gentleman has forgotten it, the farmers in my neighbourhood at least have not forgotten it, and they have taken advantage of the protection given to them by the Conservative government. The hon. gentleman. when he indulges in unconscious humour, is still brighter than when he attempts real humour. He has found great fault with the Conservative expenditure of
838.000,000. and at the same time he accused every camp follower of the Conservative government of making hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the Conservative administration of that day.
If it were possible for camp followers of the Conservatives to make large sums of money by corrupt means out of an expenditure of $'38,000,000 annually, did it strike the Minister of Trade and Commerce that it must have been a perfect Godsend to the camp followers of the Liberals when they increased the expenditure to 857,000,000 a year. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was the only man on the treasury benches who had made any attempt to excuse the increased expenditure by the Liberal government. His only excuse was that there were some cross entries on each side which would reduce that expenditure by about $5,000,000. and he instanced the expenditure on the Yukon. But the hon. gentleman (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) must have forgotten that there were cross entries of the same character during the Conservative administration, and that there were expenditures in the Yukon I might almost say since confederation from which Conservative governments absolutely received no return. There has been a large expenditure in that country for years but until these hon. gentlemen who are so fortunate came into power, there never has been any feturn to the treasury from the Yukon territory. The excuse offered by the Minister of
Trade and Commerce does not in any way alter the position of matters, and the government of the day ought to be condemned for having raised that expenditure to so high a rate without justification, and in utter defiance of the pledges they made to the people before they came into power. The hon. gentleman (Sir Richard Cartwright) had a good deal to say about the corruption of the Conservative government, but surely he has not forgotten that there were some little scandals during the short time he occupied the position of Finance Minister from 1873 to 1878. There were then some rumours about the Fort Francis lock, and the Neebing hotel, and the purchase of steel rails some seven or eight years in advance of the time they were required. All these things seem to have escaped the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and he could think of nothing except the terrible corruption that he alleged existed under Conservative rule.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words, if the House will pardon me, in reference to the sad though glorious news that has come to us during the last day or two from South Africa. Let me pay a brief tribute to the memory of two of the men who fell so gloriously fighting for the empire on the veldt of South Africa. One of these men came from my own town and is the son of a particular friend of mine ; the other was captain in the regiment of which I have the honour to be major. Captain Milligan was a good soldier in every sense of the word. He represented Canada at Wimbledon and Bisley, and he was in every way fitted for the duty which he volunteered to perform for his country in South Africa. Canada mourns two brave men in the two soldiers of whom I speak. I desire to pay this tribute to their memory and to express my sympathy with their relatives and friends who are bereaved by their sad loss. It will be a consolation to them to know that these two gentlemen met so glorious a death.
As regards the resolution proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition, I shall have much pleasure in supporting it. The Conservative party in Canada since 1878 have been consistent protectionists. They have nailed their colours to the mast, and in pronouncing for a declared policy of protection they are simply following the policy which was inaugurated in 1878 and bequeathed to them by their grand old chieftain Sir John A. Macdonald.
Mr. JAMES KENDREY tWest Peterborough). Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up much of the time of the House in dwelling on the issues which have been submitted to us in the course of this debate on the budget. Under the policy formulated by Sir John A. Macdonald in 1878, which built up the industries and increased the wealth of this country, the industries of Canada were

have been all right. The collar industry is about in the same condition, I believe. The manufacturers of agricultural implements, 1 understand, are not given satisfactory conditions, and I, for one, would be glad to see them put on a basis to enable them to keep out this $2,000,000 worth of machinery which is imported into this country, and make that much more in Canada. I do not say that we ought to have high duties, but they should be fair duties, duties that would enable us to compete and to pay the working people good wages. I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Customs to the smuggling of textile goods of German, Austrian, and French manufacture, which are said to be finished in England and brought into Canada. If the Minister of Customs will send his inspectors to Peterborough, I think I have a good deal of information that I could give them on that line. I do not wish to make any statements here to the detriment of anybody in particular, but there are certain goods imported by wholesale houses here which are sent to Canadian establishments merely to be finished, and the finishing of which amounts scarcely to any work at all. There is probably not 5 per cent of the cost added to these goods by the work done on them. But they are coming in case after case, by the hundreds of pieces, while our woollen industry is being paralyzed.


Mr. WRIGHT.: What class of goods does the hou. gentleman refer to ?


Mr. KENDREY.: Woollen goods.


Aaron Abel Wright: Does the hon. gentleman mean all kinds of woollen goods, such as cashmeres as well as tweeds ?


James Kendry: I am not speaking of cashmere.


Aaron Abel Wright: They are woollen goods, and I wanted to know to what particular kinds of goods the hon. gentleman was referring.


James Kendry: I am referring to serges and goods of that kind used for ladies dresses, and so forth. I come now to another point with reference to the wool of this country. Never in our history was the Canadian wool so cheap as it is to-day. it is only worth some 12 or 13 cents a pound, so that our farmers hardly get anything for their wool. That shows the effect which this preference against our woollen manufacturers is having on our native wool. Take the western wool which is a good wool, and which can be worked up in all the woollen mills of this country, at present there is no profit on it. Some years ago our western farmers grew a finer grade of wool, but as they are not able to get paying prices for it, they are now only growing the coarser grades. The preference, therefore, by paralyzing one-half the woollen mills, is hurting the native wool of the coun-Mr. KENDREY.
try. I remember well that in 1896, when I had my election my oponents attacked the national policy simply because wool was so cheap, but to-day it is several cents a pound cheaper than it ever was. Thus you will see, Sir, that the prosperity of the woollen manufacturing industry of this country is identical with that of our farmers. Take the town of Cornwall and a number of other towns, which I could name, which, in years gone by, granted exemption from taxes for ten years and twenty years in order to build up this woollen manufacturing industry. To-day they find that all their sacrifices have been in vain, because this government is legislating to kill the very industries to which these municipalities gave exemptions from taxes for the purpose of aiding in their establishment. Just as soon as this preference came into effect in 1899, our woollen mills began to shut down. The hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade) told us how things were prospering down there, how property doubled in value, but that is only in one part of the country; and the reason is evident. It is because we have given the particular industry of that section the heaviest form of protection-a bounty of $7 per ton on their iron and steel. I think that it is unfair to give such an advantage to one province without giving an equal advantage to the other provinces. In the province of Ontario you will find nearly three-fourths of the whole machinery of the woollen industry of this Dominion. But a number of these mills have shut down and more will have to close in the next year or two, and all because of the preference we have given the ' English manufacturer. That preference has done more to paralyze the woollen business than any other. There are some industries that of course are not affected by it at all. Take, for instance, the wooden ware and furniture and-boots and shoes and food products, and other industries of that kind, they send their products into the British market, and consequently can hold their own here against the preferential tariff. But tire woollen industry has to meet the full force of British competition. That is an industry which the British manufacturers for long years have made peculiarly their own-so much so that they can face competition even in those parts of the world where a high protective tariff is in force.
I did expect that the government would have applied some remedy to that particular industry. They certainly should have done so, for as Canadians they should have taken care not to legislate against any particular Canadian industry. If they were alive to our interests, they would have sent around commissioners to examine into this question. Deputation after deputation has waited on this government for years to show the condition of the trade, and surely it was an elementary duty of the government to send some one or some number of gentle-

men to examine and see in what position that industry was before legislating it out of existence. I have nothing further to add except to say that so long as 1 hold a seat in this House, I shall condemn any preference that does not work to the benefit of Canadians.


Aaron Abel Wright: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the -woollen machinery cost 40 per cent more in this country than in the old country.


James Kendry: Yes.


Aaron Abel Wright: And also that the woollen manufacturers in Canada were paying much higher wages to their men than are the English manufacturers ?
Mr. IvENDREY. Yes.


Aaron Abel Wright: Is that the case with reference to the American manufacturers ?


James Kendry: No, the Americans are paying higher wages than we can afford to pay under the conditions existing here.


Aaron Abel Wright: Supposing you find upon your counter a piece of tweed or worsted which is of English manufacture, how are you to know whether it is all English manufacture or whether one portion was made in Germany.


James Kendry: Within the last six or seven weeks there was a fire in Toronto, and one of the establishments was burned down. They consequently sent me _ these goods to finish and dye, and that is the reason why I know all about it. I do not wish to hurt the people in that business or take this as a personal matter, but as the bon. gentleman has put the question I tell him that I know exactly where the goods come from.


Aaron Abel Wright: Then do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that, these goods he referred to were partially made in the old country and were finished here in Canada ?


James Kendry: Yes.


Aaron Abel Wright: They were not imported from Germany to England and finished there, and then brought over here as English goods ?


James Kendry: Well, now, Mr. Speaker, there are some questions that I might answer, but I do not think it would be hardly fair to these people to do so. I said to the Minister of Customs that I would give him such information of that kind as I deemed it right to give. I do not wish to stand up here and be cross-questioned by the hon. gentleman, but I would be willing to give to the Minister Customs that information.
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson) moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of the Minister of Customs, the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 8, 1902.